Captain Sensible
Well-known member
Is this a joke?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Electoral reform needed now
- Thread starter Notters
- Start date
Is this a joke?
Captain Sensible
Well-known member
The more the SNP use language like 'Ending Austerity' and 'more money for Scotland' etc etc, it will unfortunately strengthen the story grip on the rest of the Country. This is hopefully the beginning of the End of Scotland in the UK and I just hope they mind the door doesn't smack them on their sweaty arses on the way out.
The Tories won because most of England was worried about a Labour SNP pack and the Lib dems lost a lot of voters back to the Tories for the same reason. I can't see any of this changing until the SNP go back to Scotland with their independence. But, considering their economic model was designed on oil being over $100 a barrel and upward, they might think they are in a better position being in the UK and have 50odd MP's.
We are in a bit of a state here.
The Tories won because most of England was worried about a Labour SNP pack and the Lib dems lost a lot of voters back to the Tories for the same reason. I can't see any of this changing until the SNP go back to Scotland with their independence. But, considering their economic model was designed on oil being over $100 a barrel and upward, they might think they are in a better position being in the UK and have 50odd MP's.
We are in a bit of a state here.
Yoda
English & European
Here's another.
For the 2010 election, at least 59% of those that voted wanted either the Tories or Lib Dems to govern the Country.
This time around, 63% didn't want the Tories.
sydney
tinky ****in winky
if those figures are correct and i'm not disputing them at all , it makes a bit of a mockery of the whole process doesn't it...
- Jan 3, 2012
- 17,279
Apologies to Herr Tubthumper, but I was afraid he might miss this very salient point. I feel there is an unfair weight of expectations on his shoulders.
Creaky
Well-known member
Proportional representation at a local level can enhance the democratic process in my opinion - at a national level it merely supports the real scourge of democracy, the party system.
Why should votes placed in one constituency be used as an argument to support the view that more, (or fewer), members of a particular party should have a voice in Parliament? The basis of our democracy is that we vote for an individual to represent us - the person we vote for may belong to a particular party but that doesn't give other members of that party any right to our vote.
So what if 4 million votes were cast for individuals who were UKIP members - that is irrelevant - the important and deciding factor is that apart from in one constituency those who stood for election and were members of UKIP were judged by those entitled to vote for them as inferior in their ability to represent them than the candidate who was elected. All that proportional representation achieves is to ensure that candidates who aren't supported by the majority of voters get the same right to vote in Parliament as those who are - that is NOT democracy!
We've had this same argument over the number of women MPs, the number of MPs who are from the ethnic minorities, disabled, gay community etc. The answer to 'fairer representation is not to change the voting system but to put forward better candidates.
I live in an area, as do the majority of us in this country, where candidates from a particular party will invariably get elected no matter how good or bad they may be. The only democratic solution to this would be to separate party affiliations from the campaign process - the first step in my opinion should be to remove their party membership details from ballot slips - there is no more reason for a candidates party to appear on these slips than there is for their gender, sexuality or race.
Why should votes placed in one constituency be used as an argument to support the view that more, (or fewer), members of a particular party should have a voice in Parliament? The basis of our democracy is that we vote for an individual to represent us - the person we vote for may belong to a particular party but that doesn't give other members of that party any right to our vote.
So what if 4 million votes were cast for individuals who were UKIP members - that is irrelevant - the important and deciding factor is that apart from in one constituency those who stood for election and were members of UKIP were judged by those entitled to vote for them as inferior in their ability to represent them than the candidate who was elected. All that proportional representation achieves is to ensure that candidates who aren't supported by the majority of voters get the same right to vote in Parliament as those who are - that is NOT democracy!
We've had this same argument over the number of women MPs, the number of MPs who are from the ethnic minorities, disabled, gay community etc. The answer to 'fairer representation is not to change the voting system but to put forward better candidates.
I live in an area, as do the majority of us in this country, where candidates from a particular party will invariably get elected no matter how good or bad they may be. The only democratic solution to this would be to separate party affiliations from the campaign process - the first step in my opinion should be to remove their party membership details from ballot slips - there is no more reason for a candidates party to appear on these slips than there is for their gender, sexuality or race.
Lord Bracknell
On fire
One of the consequences of proportional representation might easily be the restructuring of the two political parties who have benefitted historically from the first past the post system. The result might be this:-
Pro-Europe Conservative 158
Centre Left Labour 133
UKIP 81
Eurosceptic Conservative 79
Left Labour 67
Lib Dem 51
SNP 32
Green 25
Make a coalition out of that !
Weatherman
New member
- Jun 10, 2008
- 323
The real scumbags in this country are the ones who resort to vile abuse of others who don't agree with their views..........the left wingers in particular.
glasfryn
cleaning up cat sick
PR
and a legal requirement to vote as it is in Australia
and a legal requirement to vote as it is in Australia
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,940
this is a nonsence, based on extrapolating national votes to numbers of seats. some seats return a majority on mid teens, if the vote is split many ways. would you want a system where the candidate shouldnt win because they havent won enough votes, they should have to get, say 25k votes? and what about the different size of the constituencies? theres 10-15k difference between many, 45k at the extreme. need to start there i think.
end of day, if you want to talk reform, it needs to be root and branch of the whole system, not focusing on the apparent discrepencies from comparing local and national numbers.
and i'd agree with Lord B's point, if we had full PR we'd certainly see the major parties split. you may very well find a permenent left or permenant right bloc emerge out of that, then we're back to "my vote doesnt count".
Last edited:
Don Quixote
Well-known member
- Nov 4, 2008
- 8,362
Have the house of lords as PR. We should really be electing our upper house, to hold the lower house acountable.
Sounds good. Best argument for PR that I've seen yet.
- Jan 3, 2012
- 17,279
Why single out left-wingers? Doesn't the UKIP candidate who threatened to shoot his asian opponent between the eyes if he ever became prime minister count? or the EDL? or the BNP?
Wrong-Direction
Well-known member
- Mar 10, 2013
- 13,587
Weatherman
New member
- Jun 10, 2008
- 323
I wouldn't verbally abuse anyone for the way they've voted. It's the hypocrites with obvious leftist leanings who show their intolerance.
Being concerned about the future impact of uncontrolled immigration and the ever increasing cost and power of the EU doesn't make me a twisted f__cker for voting UKIP who i think are the only party who would deal with these issues and there seem to be plenty more who share this view.
maltaseagull
Well-known member
Leekbrookgull
Well-known member
Try this,if not posted before ?http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27187434
Leekbrookgull
Well-known member
It may have lead to this ?http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32601281
symyjym
Banned
I saw on the BBC that if votes were under PR it would have been a Conservative/UKIP Government.
Changing the system wouldn't improve it, it would just be different, and there will obviously always be pecentage of voters who are disappointed.