Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Apr 8, 2019 13:34:12 GMT
There are lies and Statistics SNP say 60% of Scotland voted to remain. Not true only 40% of those eligible to vote voted to remain. On that basis, nationally only 37.5% of the electorate voted Leave. Care to explain why that's necessary now, but wasn't in 2016? It should have been. Also I think you should be legally obliged to vote. That stops small turnouts of dedicated extreemists winning due to the laziness of the majority in normal elections.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,524
Likes: 6,316
|
Post by registerme on Apr 8, 2019 13:53:58 GMT
Also I think you should be legally obliged to vote. That stops small turnouts of dedicated extreemists winning due to the laziness of the majority in normal elections. Agreed, the Australian approach whereby you have to vote, but are allowed to vote for "none of the above" is much better than ours.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Apr 8, 2019 14:09:34 GMT
Also I think you should be legally obliged to vote. That stops small turnouts of dedicated extreemists winning due to the laziness of the majority in normal elections. Agreed, the Australian approach whereby you have to vote, but are allowed to vote for "none of the above" is much better than ours. I think FPTP is a much bigger problem than optional voting. I favour a simple PR system, where if party X gets n% of the votes they get the same percentage of the seats in the HoC. Public doesn't have experience/trust in AV systems.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,606
Likes: 5,020
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Apr 8, 2019 14:27:52 GMT
I think FPTP is a much bigger problem than optional voting. I favour a simple proportional representation system, party X gets n% of the votes they get the same percentage of the seats in the HoC. I'm really strongly against that, for one reason and one reason only. It totally breaks the whole model of constituency representation, which imho is the very core of a representative democracy. Your vote, remember, determines which named individual on that ballot paper is your constituency's MP. No more, no less. Not for his party, not for the PM. Even if you don't vote for the individual who gets the job, his primary job is to represent YOUR interests at Westminster. Not his party's. Not his. YOURS. I can see an argument for something a bit more complex and subtle than FPTP within a constituency - some kind of STV, probably. Not that it'd make a difference in "safe" constituencies such as this - 62% of the votes went to the usual suspect last time. As it happens, my local MP is a halfwit who can't even be bothered to reply to do his job by replying to his constituents. But round here they consistently prove that they'd vote for a dead sheep so long as it had the right colour of ribbon on. <thinks> Actually, it'd probably do a better job...
|
|
jo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 739
Likes: 498
|
Post by jo on Apr 8, 2019 14:28:31 GMT
Also I think you should be legally obliged to vote. That stops small turnouts of dedicated extreemists winning due to the laziness of the majority in normal elections. Agreed, the Australian approach whereby you have to vote, but are allowed to vote for "none of the above" is much better than ours. You don't actually have to vote; you do have to be registered and turn up at the polling place, but once in the booth, you can draw d*** pics, or otherwise spoil your ballot to your heart's content (if that's what floats your boat! ).
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
Member is Online
|
Post by IFISAcava on Apr 8, 2019 15:18:03 GMT
I think FPTP is a much bigger problem than optional voting. I favour a simple proportional representation system, party X gets n% of the votes they get the same percentage of the seats in the HoC. I'm really strongly against that, for one reason and one reason only. It totally breaks the whole model of constituency representation, which imho is the very core of a representative democracy. Your vote, remember, determines which named individual on that ballot paper is your constituency's MP. No more, no less. Not for his party, not for the PM. Even if you don't vote for the individual who gets the job, his primary job is to represent YOUR interests at Westminster. Not his party's. Not his. YOURS. I can see an argument for something a bit more complex and subtle than FPTP within a constituency - some kind of STV, probably. Not that it'd make a difference in "safe" constituencies such as this - 62% of the votes went to the usual suspect last time. As it happens, my local MP is a halfwit who can't even be bothered to reply to do his job by replying to his constituents. But round here they consistently prove that they'd vote for a dead sheep so long as it had the right colour of ribbon on. <thinks> Actually, it'd probably do a better job...As the Jenkins commission proposed after the firs Blair landslide: 500 constituency seats elected on an alternative vote, 150 top up seats to make it proportional. Best of both worlds. Sadly never implemented.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Apr 8, 2019 15:31:04 GMT
I think FPTP is a much bigger problem than optional voting. I favour a simple proportional representation system, party X gets n% of the votes they get the same percentage of the seats in the HoC. Your vote, remember, determines which named individual on that ballot paper is your constituency's MP. No more, no less. Not for his party, not for the PM. Even if you don't vote for the individual who gets the job, his primary job is to represent YOUR interests at Westminster. Not his party's. Not his. YOURS. I As many have pointed out previously on this thread, many MPs see their job to vote on issues as they alone see fit, not what their party manifesto says and not what their voters say.
I don't care what party my local MP belongs to, only which party has most control in the HoC.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,606
Likes: 5,020
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Apr 8, 2019 16:00:45 GMT
Your vote, remember, determines which named individual on that ballot paper is your constituency's MP. No more, no less. Not for his party, not for the PM. Even if you don't vote for the individual who gets the job, his primary job is to represent YOUR interests at Westminster. Not his party's. Not his. YOURS. I As many have pointed out previously on this thread, many MPs see their job to vote on issues as they alone see fit, not what their party manifesto says and not what their voters say.
Yes, many MPs are lousy at their job. Mine included - and he's been in the job for damn near two decades. Makes you wonder why people keep voting for 'em, doesn't it?
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Apr 8, 2019 17:05:50 GMT
Here in Belgium voting is obligatory. I was against that at first but I can see now that people are far more interested in the issues, as they have to turn up, so they might as well make a choice. What is better is that there is more than one candidate for each seat, each party puts up a list with the Party's choice at the top. Generally the ones lower down the list are younger or less experienced ones. You can choose for instance Green Party number 3 candidate on the ballot paper, and if they get more votes than no.1, they get in instead. This leads to active campaigning as the number 1 has to outshine others of their own party who may be locally popular. I imagine that in your constituency, adrianc, your MP probably doesn't bother to go out and face the voters.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,606
Likes: 5,020
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Apr 8, 2019 18:11:45 GMT
I imagine that in your constituency, adrianc , your MP probably doesn't bother to go out and face the voters. You imagine correctly.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,943
Likes: 4,382
|
Post by agent69 on Apr 8, 2019 20:25:59 GMT
I favour a simple PR system Where a minority party holds the balance of power?
Given the experience of 2010, I'll stick with first past the post any time.
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Apr 8, 2019 20:35:51 GMT
I favour a simple PR system Where a minority party holds the balance of power?
Given the experience of 2010, I'll stick with first past the post any time. That’s fine if there are only two candidates when more are standing there is poor representation of constituents as someone who more people voted against gets in.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,033
Likes: 1,857
|
Post by littleoldlady on Apr 8, 2019 21:19:51 GMT
What I dont like about is PR is that it is almost always impossible for one party to get a majority so there has to be a coalition. This sounds OK but in practice each party knows that it will not form a majority and so cannot be held to it's manifesto, so fills the manifesto with popular but impractical policies. Then after the election after meetings and horsetrading a government emerges with a programme of policies that not a single voter voted for. Hardly democratic. It's also very difficult for the electorate to get rid of a government which they don't like, because after an election the MPs will decide on who is in the government. For most of the time in the UK our FPTP system has worked fairly well. Labour and the Conservatives take it in turns to govern, neither can stray too far from the centre ground and neither can rely on being re-elected.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,426
Likes: 2,893
|
Post by michaelc on Apr 8, 2019 21:40:08 GMT
What I dont like about is PR is that it is almost always impossible for one party to get a majority so there has to be a coalition. This sounds OK but in practice each party knows that it will not form a majority and so cannot be held to it's manifesto, so fills the manifesto with popular but impractical policies. Then after the election after meetings and horsetrading a government emerges with a programme of policies that not a single voter voted for. Hardly democratic. It's also very difficult for the electorate to get rid of a government which they don't like, because after an election the MPs will decide on who is in the government. For most of the time in the UK our FPTP system has worked fairly well. Labour and the Conservatives take it in turns to govern, neither can stray too far from the centre ground and neither can rely on being re-elected. Why not have PR but where the largest party automatically forms the government?
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Apr 8, 2019 21:53:49 GMT
What I dont like about is PR is that it is almost always impossible for one party to get a majority so there has to be a coalition. This sounds OK but in practice each party knows that it will not form a majority and so cannot be held to it's manifesto, so fills the manifesto with popular but impractical policies. Then after the election after meetings and horsetrading a government emerges with a programme of policies that not a single voter voted for. Hardly democratic. It's also very difficult for the electorate to get rid of a government which they don't like, because after an election the MPs will decide on who is in the government. For most of the time in the UK our FPTP system has worked fairly well. Labour and the Conservatives take it in turns to govern, neither can stray too far from the centre ground and neither can rely on being re-elected. Why not have PR but where the largest party automatically forms the government? Tories are currently trialling that with little success.
|
|