Changes to the voting system, a suggestion from the Geezer party!

[R1Geezer]

OK I reckon FPTP is the best system but a few of tweaks are needed:
1. Each constituency should be roughly the same number of people
2. Anyone who is fit and well but not contributing to society should not have the vote.
3. Prisoners should never have the vote, despite the ooman rights act/EU meddling
4. Postal voting should be abolished (obviously keep current arrangements for forces etc)
5. I realise that 15 hours is not long enough for some so voting should take place over a weekend to give plenty of time.
6. Some sort of independent boundry commission should be set up to replace the current electoral commission which is abused by the incumbant government.
So what do you think of the Geezer party reforms?

[Count-A-Strong]

Good points R1. I think Britain should be reshaped into those little hexgons we saw
on the beeb with the same mount of people
living in each one.

[TCL-MUMPING]

There are already Boundary Commissions for Scotland, NI,Wales and England and they do not carry out the same functions as the Electoral Commission.

[TCL-MUMPING]

Why do you want to abolish postal votes? What about folk who are away on the day(s) of the vote?

[Eve]

Or a day off for voting with employers being made to make arrangements for staff to be able to vote if so required.

If postal votes were to be abolished, what would happen for people who are genuinely unable to attend a polling station such as being on holiday or in hospital or working abroad etc...

How would you define not contributing to society? As in people who can work but aren't working? Could be difficult to generalise here.

[R1Geezer]

Postal voting is open to fraud and manipulation. If you care you'll be home to vote, if you really can't then arrange a proxy. Bear in mind you'll have the weekend to vote.

[TCL-MUMPING]

What about folk who have booked their holidays months in advance?

[R1Geezer]

regarding option 2 I'm talking about those that live entirely on benefits for no oher reason than that hey ar work shy layabouts. Disabled etc are not affected.

[TCL-MUMPING]

Is proxy voting not also open to abuse?

[R1Geezer]

TCL - Proxy, tada!

[R1Geezer]

each person appoints a proxy, ie a person they trust. So it's much more difficlut abuse, eg it's very difficult for a local reigious leader to go around forcing thousands to appoint him as proxy.

[dzug2]

<What about folk who have booked their holidays months in advance? >

proxy voting

But postal is a lot simpler

<Anyone who is fit and well but not contributing to society should not have the vote.>

Sounds like an incentive for the right wing parties to keep unemployment high - two advantages, keeps inflation down and prevents many of those not likely to vote for them from having a vote.

And excludes the retired too - was that a deliberate exclusion or just an oversight?

[dzug2]

< it's very difficult for a local reigious leader to go around forcing thousands to appoint him as proxy. >

Not allowed anyway - unless for a close relative no one person can hold more than two (I think) proxies

[dzug2]

<regarding option 2 I'm talking about those that live entirely on benefits for no oher reason than that hey ar work shy layabouts.>

How do you identify such people without a large bureaucracy working to subjective criteria?

And would it be worth it - most of them would be too lazy/apathetic to vote anyway.

[R1Geezer]

They can be indentified by a similar process to the current system of reducing benfits if they keep refusing jobs.

regarding pensioners, if they have made the necessary NI contributions to receive a state pension then they can have the vote. If they have spent their whole life scrounging then no.

Obviously single mums living entirely on benefits would not be getting the vote either, hopefully this may be further encouragement to keep their knees together.

Obviously some refinement of the parameters is needed but I think it is clear what is intended here.

[DrFilth]

and if the tory party are still unable to win the next election will you want to change the rules again ?

[123everton]

if they have made the necessary NI contributions to receive a state pension then they can have the vote.
We are free born British people, we have the RIGHT to vote.
That's what our troops fought and died for TWICE in the last century.

[R1Geezer]

so Dr Filth, you agree that workshy layabouts vote Noo Labour then?

Everton, I'm pretty sure if you asked our brave troops they'd agree with me. They don't want to fight and die for those who contribute nothing.

[123everton]

I've got many friend who serve and who have served, they all believe in fighting for democracy and freedom, not a selective list of caveats for to elect governments.
We have rights, and how you determine who contributes is flawed.
See Charles Booth
http://booth.lse.ac.u...1000,180400,6,large,5
You'll note that the poorest, "vicious semi-criminal", inhabit a street in the richest part of town, why?

[TCL-MUMPING]

What about someone who has been working all their life but not earnt enough to pay NI and who is then laid off through no fault of their own? That person would then have to claim income-based JSA but you could hardly describe them as work-shy could you?

"They can be indentified by a similar process to the current system of reducing benfits if they keep refusing jobs." Do you know what that system is then?

[R1Geezer]

How? I'm prety sure those who spend their whole lives on benefits are not net contributors.