The beauty of PR in the Euro elections is that a vote for UKIP is NOT a wasted vote. TRoll on Thursday.
No wonder "they" don't want a PR democracy electing MPs for Westminster.
ISTR UKIP being against PR as well before La Farage tore up the manifesto. I wonder if that'll now change, or whether they'll remain strongly in favour of Christmas.
Farage likes PR list system. He can put his name at the top of the list and choose the order of candidates on the list. So he can pick himself and the people he likes to be UKIP meps.
No we haven't. A referendum on voting reform would have asked "Should we reform the voting system?" The referendum we got asked "Should we replace the FPTP voting system with the AV+ voting system?"
The fact that parties you don't like would get MPs is no argument against PR. Hope that's not your only reason!
It isn't. There's the whole debate surrounding manifesto's. PR is basically one ruddy great political compromise. If you vote for policies rather than personalities then short of an absolutely overwhelming majority there's no guarantee of ever seeing what you vote for ever getting implemented with PR whoever you vote for.
It isn't. There's the whole debate surrounding manifesto's. PR is basically one ruddy great political compromise. If you vote for policies rather than personalities then short of an absolutely overwhelming majority there's no guarantee of ever seeing what you vote for ever getting implemented with PR whoever you vote for.
Yes, and?
If the country chooses to not give a single political party a majority, then why the hell should a single party get one?
The Green Party currently have a single seat, perhaps you could enlighten us all as to the deals that the government has had to do with Caroline Lucas and how many times she has held the balance of power in parliament?
You've clearly failed to grasp the nettle on this one.
But folk whinge when the likes of the BNP might win a seat, use the presence of such people against you when you find yourself having to do deals with them in office....
Your somewhat garbled grammar notwithstanding, you appear to be arguing against PR on the basis that the BNP might win a seat and that would result in other parties having to do deals with them.
On the basis that The Green Party have a single seat, I would like to use them as a real world example to test the veracity of your claim. Otherwise I might just have to conclude that your claim is nonsense.
If we had a PR system they would have MPs though. right now.
I'm just pointing out that you can't argue how great it would be for say the greens without accepting that it would be just as good for any other lunatic party.
I honestly can't see how having a couple of BNP MPs would be so bad TBH. We already have some right-wing crazies in the Commons as it is thanks to the DUP, yet the nation still stands.
At the moment it's possible for a majority of votes cast at a general election to be completely wasted. That's not good for democracy, and it's well past the point where it needs to be reformed. Maybe if the electorate felt less disenfranchised by the current system there would be less clamouring for the likes of the BNP at all.
Sorry, I left my crystal ball at home so I had to rely on the words you wrote. Here they are again:Your somewhat garbled grammar notwithstanding, you appear to be arguing against PR on the basis that the BNP might win a seat and that would result in other parties having to do deals with them.
On the basis that The Green Party have a single seat, I would like to use them as a real world example to test the veracity of your claim. Otherwise I might just have to conclude that your claim is nonsense.
Under PR the BNP would win a lot more than one seat in a parliament of 650.
Using the general election 2010 share of vote they would get 12 MPs.
Using the european elections 2009 share of vote they would get 41 MPs.
And no one party would have a majority 326, they would need to do deals including with minor parties to make a majority.
Using the general election 2010 share of votes the Conservatives would be the largest party with 235 MPs.
Using the european election 2009 share of votes the Conservatives would be the largest party with 245 MPs
Under PR the BNP would win a lot more than one seat.
Using the general election 2010 share of vote they would get 12 MPs.
Using the european elections 2009 share of vote they would get 41 MPs.
You can discard the Euro 2009 result, which artificially inflated the BNP's success thanks to an extremely low turnout. Given the form of the BNP for splintering those 12 MPs would most likely now be in at least three different parties now too, so I still wouldn't be crying if they were there another year.
The Germans have a 3% limit on their PR system BTW. If you get less than 3% your votes are discarded. That tends to remove all the one angry man and his dog parties. We could do similar here.
And no one party would have a majority they would need to do deals including with minor parties to make a majority.
The Tories and Lib Dems between them carried nearly 60% of the vote in 2010. We'd have the same government we have now, only with less Tories and more Lib Dems.
The Germans have a 3% limit on their PR system BTW. If you get less than 3% your votes are discarded. That tends to remove all the one angry man and his dog parties. We could do similar here.
Then you are not talking about true PR you are talking about PR with caveats, and the Germany system has more caveats than just the 3% threshold.
Under PR the BNP would win a lot more than one seat in a parliament of 650.
Using the general election 2010 share of vote they would get 12 MPs.
Using the european elections 2009 share of vote they would get 41 MPs.
And no one party would have a majority 326, they would need to do deals including with minor parties to make a majority.
Using the general election 2010 share of votes the Conservatives would be the largest party with 235 MPs.
Using the european election 2009 share of votes the Conservatives would be the largest party with 245 MPs
Just like our current government elected with FPTP
Under PR the BNP would win a lot more than one seat in a parliament of 650.
Using the general election 2010 share of vote they would get 12 MPs.
Using the european elections 2009 share of vote they would get 41 MPs.
And no one party would have a majority 326, they would need to do deals including with minor parties to make a majority.
Using the general election 2010 share of votes the Conservatives would be the largest party with 235 MPs.
Using the european election 2009 share of votes the Conservatives would be the largest party with 245 MPs
They wouldn't need to do deal with anybody, that's just a hangover from the stupidly partisan nature of our political system where the question of the actual pros and cons of an individual proposal comes a very distant second to the question of who made the proposal in the first place.
There isn't, never has been and there never will be a single political party that has all the best answers and thus no single political party should ever be handed absolute control. The government is not there to rule; ruling's the queen's job. The government is there to serve, specifically it's there to serve us and it's high time that the entire wretched pack of slobbering, dimwitted regressives realised that and started working together for something that's at least vaguely for our benefit.
Still a huge improvement over our system, which is essentially exactly as it was back in the 17th Century.
About 70% of Germans think their first vote and second vote are an order of preference, or that the first vote is the more important vote, they are mistaken. At least in the UK the electoral system is simple for voters to understand.
German system
The first vote allows the elector to vote for a direct candidate of his constituency using first past the post. There are 299 constituencies.
The second vote is more important than the first vote. However the electors' second votes are not counted if those electors give their first votes to a successful and autonomous direct candidate. And there is a 5% threshold. The remaining votes not removed due to the above are counted. The 598 regional list seats are then assigned using the Sainte-Laguë/Schepers method (After all the votes have been tallied, successive quotients are calculated for each party. The formula for the quotient is total number of votes for party devided by one plus two times the number of seats the party has so far won. The party with the highes quotient wins a seat. The Sainte-Laguë/Schepers method does not give true proportionality)
At least in the UK the electoral system is simple for voters to understand.
Our voting forms wouldn't need to change, only what happens to the votes cast. The British public, who I see as quite capable of being able to think their way around this, would still only be required to scrawl an X against their preferred party.
Our voting forms wouldn't need to change, only what happens to the votes cast. The British public, who I see as quite capable of being able to think their way around this, would still only be required to scrawl an X against their preferred party.
Not if we used the German system. As in the German system, voters who don't vote tactically can waste their vote by getting the local constituency MP elected by a wider margin and have their second more important vote not counted. Then in the German system there is the issue of the Sainte-Laguë/Schepers method which does not give true proportionality. The German system is so bad most Germans don't understand it. Most German voters think their first vote is more important than the second or that it is an order of preference. It is not just a matter of sticking an X on a ballot if those who know how the system works can get their votes to matter more.
Comments
Only by your estimation of fair.
we have had a referendum on voting reform and overwhelmingly rejected it. how can anything be fairer.
And those people, regardless of what you might think of them, are equally as entitled to democratic representation as you are.
But it was the British electorate that choose not to have any sort of electoral reform.
There is only one left, Brons left the BNP a few years ago.
Oh, please, DO enlighten us as to how receiving the same share of the seats as your share of the vote can be construed as unfair.
No we haven't. A referendum on voting reform would have asked "Should we reform the voting system?" The referendum we got asked "Should we replace the FPTP voting system with the AV+ voting system?"
It isn't. There's the whole debate surrounding manifesto's. PR is basically one ruddy great political compromise. If you vote for policies rather than personalities then short of an absolutely overwhelming majority there's no guarantee of ever seeing what you vote for ever getting implemented with PR whoever you vote for.
If the country chooses to not give a single political party a majority, then why the hell should a single party get one?
Sadly they didn't! A missed opportunity. Bit worrying though that quite a few people confuse AV with PR.
They didn't though. They chose to reject one particular reform.
You've clearly failed to grasp the nettle on this one.
On the basis that The Green Party have a single seat, I would like to use them as a real world example to test the veracity of your claim. Otherwise I might just have to conclude that your claim is nonsense.
At the moment it's possible for a majority of votes cast at a general election to be completely wasted. That's not good for democracy, and it's well past the point where it needs to be reformed. Maybe if the electorate felt less disenfranchised by the current system there would be less clamouring for the likes of the BNP at all.
Under PR the BNP would win a lot more than one seat in a parliament of 650.
Using the general election 2010 share of vote they would get 12 MPs.
Using the european elections 2009 share of vote they would get 41 MPs.
And no one party would have a majority 326, they would need to do deals including with minor parties to make a majority.
Using the general election 2010 share of votes the Conservatives would be the largest party with 235 MPs.
Using the european election 2009 share of votes the Conservatives would be the largest party with 245 MPs
The Germans have a 3% limit on their PR system BTW. If you get less than 3% your votes are discarded. That tends to remove all the one angry man and his dog parties. We could do similar here. The Tories and Lib Dems between them carried nearly 60% of the vote in 2010. We'd have the same government we have now, only with less Tories and more Lib Dems.
Just like our current government elected with FPTP
There isn't, never has been and there never will be a single political party that has all the best answers and thus no single political party should ever be handed absolute control. The government is not there to rule; ruling's the queen's job. The government is there to serve, specifically it's there to serve us and it's high time that the entire wretched pack of slobbering, dimwitted regressives realised that and started working together for something that's at least vaguely for our benefit.
German system
The first vote allows the elector to vote for a direct candidate of his constituency using first past the post. There are 299 constituencies.
The second vote is more important than the first vote. However the electors' second votes are not counted if those electors give their first votes to a successful and autonomous direct candidate. And there is a 5% threshold. The remaining votes not removed due to the above are counted. The 598 regional list seats are then assigned using the Sainte-Laguë/Schepers method (After all the votes have been tallied, successive quotients are calculated for each party. The formula for the quotient is total number of votes for party devided by one plus two times the number of seats the party has so far won. The party with the highes quotient wins a seat. The Sainte-Laguë/Schepers method does not give true proportionality)