"Change politics and abolish safe seats by introducing a fair, more your say. Our preferred Single Transferable Vote system gives people the choice between candidates as well as parties"
In the 2010 general election, the LibDems wanted electoral reform without a referendum
Indeed. However as they couldn't achieve this in a coalition government, they would have settled for a referendum on the subject. But the Tories wouldn't even agree to that.
This thread reminds me that a long time ago I wrote to the then PM asking for a referendum on PR. The reply was that the Conservative Party didn't believe in PR. I knew that - I was asking if they would let the electorate decide!
[QUOTE=Clarisse76;73842259Nice try, but I haven't changed anything. You like FPTP because it helps to keep minority parties that you consider to be extremists out of Parliament. You don't care that it also keeps minority parties who you don't consider to be extremists out of Parliament, that's acceptable collateral damage to you. As far as you're concerned, people being denied the representation they seek is fine as long as you get what you want.
Not only is that undemocratic, it's arrogant and obnoxious.[/QUOTE]
Of course you have. First of all you pompously claimed that "who was I to deny......etc", ( as if I had that power!!!), but now you are merely, albeit, still arrogantly making the assumption that I merely wish to deny extremists a seat in Parliament. I repeat, for the umpeenth time, that I have pointed out that fact as a disadvantage to the PR system - because I don't believe extremists of any hue are commendable - BUT, if the majority of a constituency voters voted for such, that would be DEMOCRATIC - and I see nothing in that that is anything like being arrogant or obnoxious - apart from the obtuse of course, who appear to fail to understand what they read.
Yes I can, because the point is that they were given the opportunity to run amok thanks to a majority that they didn't actually win. Whether or not you or I or anyone else regards as what they did as actually running amok is irrelevant to the point.
There, that's three times. There won't be a fourth - if you can't or won't grasp that very simple point then you'll go on ignore.
No you can't - because my response was pertinent - and I shall take your latter comment as a promise.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm talking about representative democracies, and they have nothing to do with helping people to deal with central government departments and everything to do with representing the political will of the people in a democracy. Do some research.
Rubbish - practise what you preach and do a little research. But I would suggest you take some lessons in comprehension first though.
Nope. Nothing in MMP to say we would have to increase the number of MPs in order to implement it.
When a party wins more constituency seats than it would be entitled to from its proportion of 'Party' votes, overhang seats can occur - but each elected candidate retains his/her seat. NZ used to have 60+ seats - they now have 120.
No, it isn't reflected in FPTP. It is, however, reflected in PR because the majority of the population ends up with the party they support in Parliament. Congratulations on a truly spectacular own goal.
That isn't democratic - it is just the spread of voting - with the usual result that many policies implemented by the governing Party, or Coalition do not have the support of the majority of the electorate. No wonder many LibDems have left the fold!
No it wouldn't. It sounds like a more expensive and time consuming form of AV. And like AV it would see minority parties being squeezed out, the existence of safe seats and governments gerrymandering elections through boundary changes.
So no, not democratic at all.
It would be democracy in action - with the elected representative for each consituency being the one most favoured by the constituents - even if it was one's second choice.The minority Parties may well be squeezed out, but that is how it should be if the majority of the constituents do not favour it. That is democracy - and a very small additional price to pay for it.
And boundary changes are essential if any 'fairness' that you keep speaking of is to be engendered into our electoral system. It is currently is extremely biased because of the non-standard sizes.
I trust you will now enjoy your much needed further eduction - and remeber your promise!!:D
The LibDems wanted electoral reform - PR - preferring the single transferable vote of electing politicians.
As I said earlier, the AV was the only compromise that could be agreed on electoral reform - but , the electoral reform referendem was held because of the LIBDems, and was their half of the electoral reform and boundary reform paired agreement - even though on paper, they also stood to gain by the boundary standardisation proposal.
As I said earlier, the AV was the only compromise that could be agreed on electoral reform - but , the electoral reform referendem was held because of the LIBDems, and was their half of the electoral reform and boundary reform paired agreement - even though on paper, they also stood to gain by the boundary standardisation proposal.
It's at the point that I wish the LibDems had declined the Conservative's offer an AV referendum in return for a place in Coalition government.
You are correct,
'A true democracy reflects the 'will of the people'.
And true democracy reflects the will of the people, to have a representative or representatives, of the party that they voted for, in parliament.
Except for the 5% cutoff PR achieves this.
Now as people tend to disagree on all sorts of things, there will rarely, if ever, be 100% agreement, therefore, the 'will of the people' should reflect what the 'majorirty' wish for.
This too occurs within the PR structure, when to form a government a coalition must obtain a true majority, that is.. It must obtain more than 50% of the seats, and therefore 50% of the voters that voted for those seats.
The 'will of the people' (the voters) is reflected in the forming of the government.
No it doesn't. People vote for a constituency representative, usually because the candidate is their favoured political Party choice. It follows therefore that only a government formed by a Party receiving a majority of the votes would be democratic. Anything less is not the will of the people, but a virtual record of their wishes - and incidentally, also clearly 'unfair' when using your preferred system, if 5% of the wishes of the electorate are ignored - even if it is more practical.
Inevitably, no government will command 100% approval or support - but if they have more than 50%, then that is the democratic reflection of the will of the people.
The minority Parties may well be squeezed out, but that is how it should be if the majority of the constituents do not favour it. That is democracy - and a very small additional price to pay for it.
It's not really democracy if minority parties are denied fair - or in some cases any - representation in Parliament. Your preferred idea is very much second best.
No it doesn't. People vote for a constituency representative, usually because the candidate is their favoured political Party choice.
Under the present system, yes, that's what happens. However there's nothing to stop us changing to a different system, e.g. one where you vote both for a constituency representative and a regional party list.
Inevitably, no government will command 100% approval or support - but if they have more than 50%, then that is the democratic reflection of the will of the people.
It would be, but that is never likely to happen where you have more than two parties standing.
I think PR would be the fairest way but only with a rule that the person selected by the party to represent a constituency should have lived there at least 5 years and not just be a dumping ground for party favourites.
I think PR would be the fairest way but only with a rule that the person selected by the party to represent a constituency should have lived there at least 5 years and not just be a dumping ground for party favourites.
PR eliminates safe seats so we'd see a reduction in such dumping anyway.
PR eliminates safe seats so we'd see a reduction in such dumping anyway.
For me, this is the single biggest flaw in FPTP.
At the May 2015 general election, it's likely that fewer than 70 seats will change hands. So expect the bulk of electioneering to take place in these constituencies.
For the remaining 90% of the electorate, your vote will scarcely determind the outcome of the election. This explains why Labour do well under FPTP. In safe Labour seats, scarcely 50% of the electorate bother to vote. It's hardly worth it. And you only need one more vote than the runner up to win, regardless of how many people actually vote for you.
It's not really democracy if minority parties are denied fair - or in some cases any - representation in Parliament. Your preferred idea is very much second best.
They are not being denied anything. It is up to the electorate to decide who represents them - and anyone, whether as an individual, or a Party candidate can present themselves to the electotate for election.
It is incumbent upon democracies to rule with the consent of the people, AND, ensuring that minority groups are not disadvantaged. I consider that the UK's record of the latter illustrates that provision is more than adequately provided.
Under the present system, yes, that's what happens. However there's nothing to stop us changing to a different system, e.g. one where you vote both for a constituency representative and a regional party list.
I agree - but a change isn't mandatory either.
It would be, but that is never likely to happen where you have more than two parties standing.
My proposed two tier system would guarantee it, irrespective of the number of candidates.
FPTP has its flaws but one of its main strengths is the MP-Constituency link. If you had "pure" PR and the Greens got, as in the example above, 5 seats, where would they represent?
One way around it would be to have much larger constituencies and have multiple MPs for each, in a similar way that the EU elections work.
We have two houses of parliament, one has FPTP constituency representatives and the other has PR legislators. I would make the commons PR and the Lords FPTP.
In fact we could vote for our MP and they could be on the PR list as well. That would be better than just party names. The parliaments could sit on odd and even days, saving money. Powers could be split between the two, such as foreign policy and finance.
We have two houses of parliament, one has FPTP constituency representatives and the other has PR legislators. I would make the commons PR and the Lords FPTP.
In fact we could vote for our MP and they could be on the PR list as well. That would be better than just party names. The parliaments could sit on odd and even days, saving money. Powers could be split between the two, such as foreign policy and finance.
Powers split between the two house along the lines of policy is a daft idea, government needs some semblance of being coherent.
I like that we have the house of Lords which has no need to fear the electorate or political leaders, and can take a critical look at proposed legislation from often an expert stance as to practicality and consequences, often spends more time in reasoned debate, and if the legislation is objectionable can send it back for reconsideration along with some suggestions, but ultimately can only delay not stop the house of Commons.
At the May 2015 general election, it's likely that fewer than 70 seats will change hands. So expect the bulk of electioneering to take place in these constituencies.
For the remaining 90% of the electorate, your vote will scarcely determind the outcome of the election. This explains why Labour do well under FPTP. In safe Labour seats, scarcely 50% of the electorate bother to vote. It's hardly worth it. And you only need one more vote than the runner up to win, regardless of how many people actually vote for you.
Indeed. This site lets you know exactly how much your vote is worth and in doing so blows the idea that FPTP is even remotely democratic right out of the water. Strangely enough, it's always been conveniently overlooked by the FPTP fans every time I've posted it - I can only marvel at the levels of delusion and denial.
My proposed two tier system would guarantee it, irrespective of the number of candidates.
You would only get a majority in each constituency. You would be unlikely to get a majority of actual votes in the country for any one party. That's where your system falls down.
They are not being denied anything. It is up to the electorate to decide who represents them - and anyone, whether as an individual, or a Party candidate can present themselves to the electotate for election.
It is incumbent upon democracies to rule with the consent of the people, AND, ensuring that minority groups are not disadvantaged. I consider that the UK's record of the latter illustrates that provision is more than adequately provided.
You're not taking account of the fact that the two biggest parties have their votes concentrated in particular areas, whereas the smaller ones have their votes spread out more evenly over the country. This is why the Lib Dems and other parties are not represented in Parliament to the extent that they should be. FPTP fails miserably to reflect the way people actually vote in elections.
FPTP fails miserably to reflect the way people actually vote in elections.
Since 1910, there have three occassions when the party with the most House of Commons seats were actually runners up in the popular UK vote.
And in 2005, Labour 'won' the general election and governed outright with a Commons majority of 60. Yet polled only 35% of the popular vote. The lowest of a winning governing party ever.
Indeed. This site lets you know exactly how much your vote is worth and in doing so blows the idea that FPTP is even remotely democratic right out of the water. Strangely enough, it's always been conveniently overlooked by the FPTP fans every time I've posted it - I can only marvel at the levels of delusion and denial.
The only way to make my vote count is to make me the sole voter.
Comments
In the 2010 general election, the LibDems wanted electoral reform without a referendum
Go to page 87-88 of their 2010 manifesto.
http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge10/man/parties/libdem_manifesto_2010.pdf
"Change politics and abolish safe seats by introducing a fair, more your say. Our preferred Single Transferable Vote system gives people the choice between candidates as well as parties"
IMO the LibDems were one step ahead of themselves.
The referendum question should have been ..
Does Britain require electoral reform ? Yes ..No..
A much simpler question, considering that many people do not understand AV, or PR, or any of the PR variants.
And if the answer was yes, that would establish strong ground to move towards a referendum on PR.
Just my opinion of course.
Not only is that undemocratic, it's arrogant and obnoxious.[/QUOTE]
Of course you have. First of all you pompously claimed that "who was I to deny......etc", ( as if I had that power!!!), but now you are merely, albeit, still arrogantly making the assumption that I merely wish to deny extremists a seat in Parliament. I repeat, for the umpeenth time, that I have pointed out that fact as a disadvantage to the PR system - because I don't believe extremists of any hue are commendable - BUT, if the majority of a constituency voters voted for such, that would be DEMOCRATIC - and I see nothing in that that is anything like being arrogant or obnoxious - apart from the obtuse of course, who appear to fail to understand what they read.
No you can't - because my response was pertinent - and I shall take your latter comment as a promise. Rubbish - practise what you preach and do a little research. But I would suggest you take some lessons in comprehension first though.
When a party wins more constituency seats than it would be entitled to from its proportion of 'Party' votes, overhang seats can occur - but each elected candidate retains his/her seat. NZ used to have 60+ seats - they now have 120. That isn't democratic - it is just the spread of voting - with the usual result that many policies implemented by the governing Party, or Coalition do not have the support of the majority of the electorate. No wonder many LibDems have left the fold! It would be democracy in action - with the elected representative for each consituency being the one most favoured by the constituents - even if it was one's second choice.The minority Parties may well be squeezed out, but that is how it should be if the majority of the constituents do not favour it. That is democracy - and a very small additional price to pay for it.
And boundary changes are essential if any 'fairness' that you keep speaking of is to be engendered into our electoral system. It is currently is extremely biased because of the non-standard sizes.
I trust you will now enjoy your much needed further eduction - and remeber your promise!!:D
As I said earlier, the AV was the only compromise that could be agreed on electoral reform - but , the electoral reform referendem was held because of the LIBDems, and was their half of the electoral reform and boundary reform paired agreement - even though on paper, they also stood to gain by the boundary standardisation proposal.
It's at the point that I wish the LibDems had declined the Conservative's offer an AV referendum in return for a place in Coalition government.
Inevitably, no government will command 100% approval or support - but if they have more than 50%, then that is the democratic reflection of the will of the people.
And you are far from being alone with that view - for differing reasons
It would be, but that is never likely to happen where you have more than two parties standing.
For me, this is the single biggest flaw in FPTP.
At the May 2015 general election, it's likely that fewer than 70 seats will change hands. So expect the bulk of electioneering to take place in these constituencies.
For the remaining 90% of the electorate, your vote will scarcely determind the outcome of the election. This explains why Labour do well under FPTP. In safe Labour seats, scarcely 50% of the electorate bother to vote. It's hardly worth it. And you only need one more vote than the runner up to win, regardless of how many people actually vote for you.
They are not being denied anything. It is up to the electorate to decide who represents them - and anyone, whether as an individual, or a Party candidate can present themselves to the electotate for election.
It is incumbent upon democracies to rule with the consent of the people, AND, ensuring that minority groups are not disadvantaged. I consider that the UK's record of the latter illustrates that provision is more than adequately provided.
Clearly, you haven't commenced your much needed education programme - and as it was a promise - please keep it.
We have two houses of parliament, one has FPTP constituency representatives and the other has PR legislators. I would make the commons PR and the Lords FPTP.
In fact we could vote for our MP and they could be on the PR list as well. That would be better than just party names. The parliaments could sit on odd and even days, saving money. Powers could be split between the two, such as foreign policy and finance.
I like that we have the house of Lords which has no need to fear the electorate or political leaders, and can take a critical look at proposed legislation from often an expert stance as to practicality and consequences, often spends more time in reasoned debate, and if the legislation is objectionable can send it back for reconsideration along with some suggestions, but ultimately can only delay not stop the house of Commons.
You would only get a majority in each constituency. You would be unlikely to get a majority of actual votes in the country for any one party. That's where your system falls down.
You're not taking account of the fact that the two biggest parties have their votes concentrated in particular areas, whereas the smaller ones have their votes spread out more evenly over the country. This is why the Lib Dems and other parties are not represented in Parliament to the extent that they should be. FPTP fails miserably to reflect the way people actually vote in elections.
Since 1910, there have three occassions when the party with the most House of Commons seats were actually runners up in the popular UK vote.
And in 2005, Labour 'won' the general election and governed outright with a Commons majority of 60. Yet polled only 35% of the popular vote. The lowest of a winning governing party ever.
The only way to make my vote count is to make me the sole voter.