It's unlikely anyone would ever introduce a national party-list system (which is what this models) and if the election were held under PR we would expect different vote shares but thanks for posting that - it makes interesting reading.
So there would have been a Labour/Liberal Democrats coalition in government taking very similar decisions to those being taken now by the Government.
Seeing as the Conservative totals are still greater than Labour's, it would have been more likely to be as now, a Con-LibDem coalition. And even if it were a Lab-LibDem coalation, there is little evidence to support the view that the decisions taken would be the same as now.
Admittedly Clegg would have talked to the Conservatives first, as they had the highest total, but doubt that he would have reached agreement with them as his party would have IMO preferred a deal with Labour - as long as Brown did not insist on remaining as PM.
As far as what cuts and how deep they would have been, no-one knows what would have happened. However, the original Labour plans, not spelt out in detail, would have resulted in significant cuts.
It really isn't. Just because you don't particularly like who a section of society want to represent them doesn't mean they shouldn't be represented. It's the price you pay for a democratic system. The FPTP system is wholly undemocratic where a party that gets around 38% of the vote can get 65% of the seats. Having the BNP gain seats is a price worth paying.
It really isn't. Just because you don't particularly like who a section of society want to represent them doesn't mean they shouldn't be represented. It's the price you pay for a democratic system. The FPTP system is wholly undemocratic where a party that gets around 38% of the vote can get 65% of the seats. Having the BNP gain seats is a price worth paying.
I knew I should have clarified my comment, what I meant was that it could be used as a strong argument against PR because most people hate the BNP and would hate to see them in the House of Commons. Of course it's an emotive point rather than a logical one, but one that I think is strong enough to turn most people off PR.
It really isn't. Just because you don't particularly like who a section of society want to represent them doesn't mean they shouldn't be represented. It's the price you pay for a democratic system. The FPTP system is wholly undemocratic where a party that gets around 38% of the vote can get 65% of the seats. Having the BNP gain seats is a price worth paying.
Its doubly undemocratic as it stops smaller Parties getting a start in the UK as they know the system wont reward them / is rigged forever - the lost deposit cost alone is prohibitive .Ifa middle East dictator designed a system where their party got two thirds of the votes on a minority of vote would it be called a democracy .
Firstly it is impossible to truly analyse results under a different voting system because I'm more than willing to bet many people who voted BNP only did so as a protest vote because they knew it wouldn't count - if their vote did count, I very much doubt so many people would have voted for them.
Secondly, you can't prevent fair representation because people are voting for parties you don't like. That's what Hitler did.
I'd rather have equal representation and equality of vote than a system where 35% public support can produce a strong majority government (2005).
However, that would have to be a very pure list system (which l am against) that would allow the racist neo-Nazis in. The good news is that AV would be high unlikely to result in any BNP MPs (even less likely than under the current system).
I knew I should have clarified my comment, what I meant was that it could be used as a strong argument against PR because most people hate the BNP and would hate to see them in the House of Commons. Of course it's an emotive point rather than a logical one, but one that I think is strong enough to turn most people off PR.
Which is precisely why the FPTP advocates always bring it up.
Democracy entails accepting some outcomes that one might not personally agree with; I can live with that no problem.
In fact, it is really no different to the system we have now - not one of us could honestly say we support the decisions of any government 100%.
However, that would have to be a very pure list system (which l am against) that would allow the racist neo-Nazis in. The good news is that AV would be high unlikely to result in any BNP MPs (even less likely than under the current system).
However, that would have to be a very pure list system (which l am against) that would allow the racist neo-Nazis in. The good news is that AV would be high unlikely to result in any BNP MPs (even less likely than under the current system).
As one poster highlighted earlier, that would certainly dissuade me from supporting PR - yes it flies in the face of pure democracy, and yes, it's an emotive viewpoint that I would hold.
There are various forms of proportional representation - we won't have and don't want closed party list systems which is the system on which this analysis is based.
Ideally we should have STV like they do in Ireland - not only can you choose your preferred party you can also choose your preferred candidate in that party. Who says that system doesn't deliver change - the party which has been in power for much of Ireland's existence as a separate nation has almost been wiped out there!
We do of course use a PR system (constituencies plus a PR top up) for the Scottish, Welsh and London Assemblies - but no party gets seats unless they get 5% of the vote. That generally keeps out extremist parties - but hey if the BNP gets over the 5% threshold then in respecting the will of the people they should be entitled to seats as well.
Some people on here only seem to like democracy if it elects the people they want?
We do of course use a PR system (constituencies plus a PR top up) for the Scottish, Welsh and London Assemblies - but no party gets seats unless they get 5% of the vote. That generally keeps out extremist parties - but hey if the BNP gets over the 5% threshold then in respecting the will of the people they should be entitled to seats as well.
Some people on here only seem to like democracy if it elects the people they want?
If we had an across the board 5% threshold that would mean only the 3 main parties would have any MPs.
If we had an across the board 5% threshold that would mean only the 3 main parties would have any MPs.
Not necessarily - if they thought their votes would actually get people elected people would vote with their hearts and not their heads. First past the post forces people to back the lesser of 3 evils (Labour, Tory or Lib Dem) and doesn't necessarily reflect people's true party preferences (e.g. Greens vote Labour to keep the Tory out and UKIP voters back Tories to keep out Labour).
They have a 5% threshold in London/Holyrood and they have Green party members (they had UKIP members in the previous assembly). In London the Green vote on the PR top up ballot ends up being far higher than on the first past the post constituency ballot because people know that vote will help elect Green assembly members.
Comments
As far as what cuts and how deep they would have been, no-one knows what would have happened. However, the original Labour plans, not spelt out in detail, would have resulted in significant cuts.
That's how "lovely" democracy can be!
And a strong argument against PR!
It really isn't. Just because you don't particularly like who a section of society want to represent them doesn't mean they shouldn't be represented. It's the price you pay for a democratic system. The FPTP system is wholly undemocratic where a party that gets around 38% of the vote can get 65% of the seats. Having the BNP gain seats is a price worth paying.
I knew I should have clarified my comment, what I meant was that it could be used as a strong argument against PR because most people hate the BNP and would hate to see them in the House of Commons. Of course it's an emotive point rather than a logical one, but one that I think is strong enough to turn most people off PR.
Its doubly undemocratic as it stops smaller Parties getting a start in the UK as they know the system wont reward them / is rigged forever - the lost deposit cost alone is prohibitive .Ifa middle East dictator designed a system where their party got two thirds of the votes on a minority of vote would it be called a democracy .
There are lots of ways of implementing PR.
Well, it does say on the graph!:rolleyes:
Firstly it is impossible to truly analyse results under a different voting system because I'm more than willing to bet many people who voted BNP only did so as a protest vote because they knew it wouldn't count - if their vote did count, I very much doubt so many people would have voted for them.
Secondly, you can't prevent fair representation because people are voting for parties you don't like. That's what Hitler did.
I'd rather have equal representation and equality of vote than a system where 35% public support can produce a strong majority government (2005).
What % of the vote did the BNP actually get in the GE? In Germany they have a 5% hurdle - any party getting less than 5% has no reperesentation.
However, that would have to be a very pure list system (which l am against) that would allow the racist neo-Nazis in. The good news is that AV would be high unlikely to result in any BNP MPs (even less likely than under the current system).
You can see here http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/10/alternative-vote-minimal-impact-general-election what the election result would have been under AV (and STV) and AV is a bit more proportional than the current system but without allowing extremist loons in.
Which is precisely why the FPTP advocates always bring it up.
Democracy entails accepting some outcomes that one might not personally agree with; I can live with that no problem.
In fact, it is really no different to the system we have now - not one of us could honestly say we support the decisions of any government 100%.
You mean no chance of free ice cream on Tuesday and socks being sold in threes? Damn, I'll stick with what we have then thanks.
It doesn't actually :rolleyes:
The BNP actually benefit from FPTP as they do not need majority support to get in.
Under AV they would need 50% support, something they have never got and almost certainly will never get. That's why theyre opposing it.
As one poster highlighted earlier, that would certainly dissuade me from supporting PR - yes it flies in the face of pure democracy, and yes, it's an emotive viewpoint that I would hold.
Careful, you'll be accused of being just like Hitler if you don't allow the BNP in
Ideally we should have STV like they do in Ireland - not only can you choose your preferred party you can also choose your preferred candidate in that party. Who says that system doesn't deliver change - the party which has been in power for much of Ireland's existence as a separate nation has almost been wiped out there!
We do of course use a PR system (constituencies plus a PR top up) for the Scottish, Welsh and London Assemblies - but no party gets seats unless they get 5% of the vote. That generally keeps out extremist parties - but hey if the BNP gets over the 5% threshold then in respecting the will of the people they should be entitled to seats as well.
Some people on here only seem to like democracy if it elects the people they want?
If we had an across the board 5% threshold that would mean only the 3 main parties would have any MPs.
Not necessarily - if they thought their votes would actually get people elected people would vote with their hearts and not their heads. First past the post forces people to back the lesser of 3 evils (Labour, Tory or Lib Dem) and doesn't necessarily reflect people's true party preferences (e.g. Greens vote Labour to keep the Tory out and UKIP voters back Tories to keep out Labour).
They have a 5% threshold in London/Holyrood and they have Green party members (they had UKIP members in the previous assembly). In London the Green vote on the PR top up ballot ends up being far higher than on the first past the post constituency ballot because people know that vote will help elect Green assembly members.