What do we get after Thursday?

[RHB]

I have absolutely no idea what the outcome of Thursday's election results will be, apart from whoever gets in, they will not meet the needs of the majority of voters in this country. I've always been a lifelong Labour voter but I'm really struggling to bond this time round and the rest of the bunch attract me even less.

I never thought I would say this, but it may be time for proportional representation or a derivative thereof. The nation is no longer prepared to accept the old style of politics that we have seen for decades. And if we are to engage more people to pay attention to the way their lives are governed, then it has to be a system that folk have an interest in. I'm probably not posting anything new here, but the realisation that my traditional political view is no longer fit for purpose has scared me into wanting something different.

I now need a political leader with three brains who can tell me what the answer is.............easy eh??

 

[londonblue]

I have absolutely no idea what the outcome of Thursday's election results will be, apart from whoever gets in, they will not meet the needs of the majority of voters in this country. I've always been a lifelong Labour voter but I'm really struggling to bond this time round and the rest of the bunch attract me even less.

I never thought I would say this, but it may be time for proportional representation or a derivative thereof. The nation is no longer prepared to accept the old style of politics that we have seen for decades. And if we are to engage more people to pay attention to the way their lives are governed, then it has to be a system that folk have an interest in. I'm probably not posting anything new here, but the realisation that my traditional political view is no longer fit for purpose has scared me into wanting something different.

I now need a political leader with three brains who can tell me what the answer is.............easy eh??

I personally don't like PR because you end up with a system where the smaller parties hold a disproportionately high level of power. Without the small parties the large parties can't form a coalition. If the smaller parties don't get their way they pull out of the coalition, thus forcing another GE. This is what happens in Israel, for example, and leads to a complete mess most of the time.

Pure PR also means that each constituency is allocated an MP rather than voting for an MP that is local.

However, a derivative that I would be in favour of is that a candidate has to win 50% of the vote. Therefore, if no-one does that after the first vote, the candidate that came last drops out, and the people that voted for him have their ballot papers re-allocated to their 2nd choices. That continues until someone has 50%.

The downside of that system, however, is that unless we change our archaic voting system, the voting would take a lot longer.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Might be a good idea for the mods.to put a poll on PR at the top of this thread.

According to something I saw yesterday,currently 60% of British voters are now in favour of PR.Perhaps its time has come.

 

[dloman]

As I previously posted on another thread: Major had the largest number of votes recorded for one party at a GE. Though this does not actually translate into a large majority in seats where the Tories are concerned because of an electoral system that is flawed and biased towards Labour. The last time a party actually achieved what could be regarded as a true majority (Over 50% of votes cast nationally) was way back in the 1930's.

To put the above into context, in 2005 Labour won with 35% of the vote securing a 66 seat majority, whilst the Conservatives actually achieved more votes in England than Labour but obtained over 90 fewer seats. These results were as the Electoral Reform Society claimed at the time " A clear defeat for our so-called democratic process". For the Cons to win a majority you are looking closer to at least 40% of the vote, possibly more.

I am with LB on this though I am not sure that you can only have the bottom one drop out and so on. I think if no candidate achieves 50% then the top two or three have a run off until one does get the elusive figure. The problem with this is elections will take an age but surely that is better than the current system.

And PR, no thank you unless you wish to see the Lib dems or UKIP in power.

 

[RHB]

As I previously posted on another thread: Major had the largest number of votes recorded for one party at a GE. Though this does not actually translate into a large majority in seats where the Tories are concerned because of an electoral system that is flawed and biased towards Labour. The last time a party actually achieved what could be regarded as a true majority (Over 50% of votes cast nationally) was way back in the 1930's.

To put the above into context, in 2005 Labour won with 35% of the vote securing a 66 seat majority, whilst the Conservatives actually achieved more votes in England than Labour but obtained over 90 fewer seats. These results were as the Electoral Reform Society claimed at the time " A clear defeat for our so-called democratic process". For the Cons to win a majority you are looking closer to at least 40% of the vote, possibly more.

I am with LB on this though I am not sure that you can only have the bottom one drop out and so on. I think if no candidate achieves 50% then the top two or three have a run off until one does get the elusive figure. The problem with this is elections will take an age but surely that is better than the current system.

And PR, no thank you unless you wish to see the Lib dems or UKIP in power.

I would actually like to see a government in power which matched the mood and opinions of the majority of the british public. None of the existing parties meet that criteria now in my opinion.

 

[callan]

As I previously posted on another thread: Major had the largest number of votes recorded for one party at a GE. Though this does not actually translate into a large majority in seats where the Tories are concerned because of an electoral system that is flawed and biased towards Labour. The last time a party actually achieved what could be regarded as a true majority (Over 50% of votes cast nationally) was way back in the 1930's.

To put the above into context, in 2005 Labour won with 35% of the vote securing a 66 seat majority, whilst the Conservatives actually achieved more votes in England than Labour but obtained over 90 fewer seats. These results were as the Electoral Reform Society claimed at the time " A clear defeat for our so-called democratic process". For the Cons to win a majority you are looking closer to at least 40% of the vote, possibly more.

I am with LB on this though I am not sure that you can only have the bottom one drop out and so on. I think if no candidate achieves 50% then the top two or three have a run off until one does get the elusive figure. The problem with this is elections will take an age but surely that is better than the current system.

And PR, no thank you unless you wish to see the Lib dems or UKIP in power.

Isn't the point that enough people vote for whatever, that they are represented at Westminster?

Regardless of someone else's opinion.

 

[Sandbach Shrimper]

I think there's a very strong argument for changing our voting system now. At the end of this week we could well end up with a situation in which the Tories get the most votes and seats but aren't in government, Labour go into a coalition with a party that most of the country can't vote for, and UKIP get 15-20% of the national vote but only one seat. That doesn't say much for our democracy.

FPTP has worked up until now because we've had two parties who have dominated and who have been able to command majorities. Now with the main parties losing their traditional dominance and smaller parties growing in popularity, I think there's a strong argument for switching to PR or maybe another voting system. One of the criticisms of PR is that you always end up with a coalition but it looks like we're entering that stage with FPTP now anyway. My main reservation about PR is that there's no local element though.

 

[RHB]

Might be a good idea for the mods.to put a poll on PR at the top of this thread.

According to something I saw yesterday,currently 60% of British voters are now in favour of PR.Perhaps its time has come.

Maybe it would give people the choice to be for or against PR, but that wasn't the complete reason for my original post. I'm tired of the existing system but I don't have a workable alternative in my head. I want something now that re-ignites peoples' interest in politics to point where most if not all want to vote at elections. What the heck that is I don't know. But there must be cleverer people than me that can come up with some starters for 10.

 

[Shrimper]

Friday....

 

[southendkid]

Voter turnout in countries that use PR like Germany is usually high because everyone knows their vote counts, in the UK if you live in a safe seat you have to wonder what the point of showing up is.

A version of PR that still allows you to vote for local MPs is open list PR, which is where I think we should be moving towards. In Open List you'd merge a bunch of our current constituencies together and on the voting slip you'd have the parties running, with each MP running for that party underneath (this order would be randomized for each person). Rather than voting for a party you vote for your favourite MP, those that don't care would just choose an MP from their party's list at random. Percentages are totalled up and seats are allocated in this local PR election to each party, the party would then allocate these seats to their MPs in order of who got the most votes. So if in South Essex there were 10 seats if the Tories got 48% of the vote (let's say that's 5 seats, there are some (rubbish) PR methods that would give them 4 with that percentage) they'd give the seats to the 5 most popular candidates they had.

 

[RHB]

Friday....

Not necessarily. If we are to manage the national deficit down then Friday might just have to go. Only temporarily you understand.

 

[MK Shrimper]

...a mess and another GE in December.

 

[dloman]

Just to give an example of how the electoral system is skewed, based upon the BBC poll of polls of the national share of the vote, the approx number of seat won by each party would be:

Cons - 221 (34%) Probable 250-300
Lab - 214.5 (33%) Probable 250-300
UKIP - 84.5 (13%) Probable 1-10
Lib Dem - 52 (8%) Probable 10-40
Green - 32.5 (5%) Probable 1 - 3
Other (SNP, Plaid Cymru, DUP etc) - 39 (6%) Probable 40-70

So a party with 13% of the national vote are likely to end up, in all truth, with maybe 1 or 2 seats whilst others with only 6% will attain around 65 seats. One very messed up voting system and extremely undemocratic.

Oh by the way I am aware the figures don't add up, blame the BBC for that as they seem to have mislaid the odd 1%.

 

[Thorpe Groyney]

Sod the election. My 48th birthday is far more important, so tomorrow will be spent from opening time until chucking out time in the re-opened Lamb & Lion.

What I'll get after that is a long lie-in. The best result any of the electorate could have.