News4 mins ago
DISPRORTIONATE REPRESENTION - IS IT ON THE WAY OUT ?
(Reuters) - Most Britons would like to see a change in their country's voting system to give all parties fairer representation, polls published on Sunday showed. Polls at the weekend showed Widespread Support for a change to a more proportional voting system.
A YouGov poll for The Sunday Times showed 62 per cent of voters favoured a more proportional system of voting.
A BPIX poll for The Mail on Sunday found 60 per cent would prefer proportional representation to the current system.
The Sunday Telegraph commissioned an ICM poll which found 48 per cent of voters favoured a move to PR while 39 per cent backed the current system
Given the above Poll Figures, why are so many people on this site in Denial over the British Electorates wish for a fairer PR voting system ? Is it because most AB voters are unfair Tories who wish to maintain the Obviously Unfair Diproportionate Voting System of FPTP ?
A YouGov poll for The Sunday Times showed 62 per cent of voters favoured a more proportional system of voting.
A BPIX poll for The Mail on Sunday found 60 per cent would prefer proportional representation to the current system.
The Sunday Telegraph commissioned an ICM poll which found 48 per cent of voters favoured a move to PR while 39 per cent backed the current system
Given the above Poll Figures, why are so many people on this site in Denial over the British Electorates wish for a fairer PR voting system ? Is it because most AB voters are unfair Tories who wish to maintain the Obviously Unfair Diproportionate Voting System of FPTP ?
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by olddutch. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Don't confuse the number of contributions to AB with the number of contributors - there is a small number ofcontributors who are the most vociferous in the News section, the ones who are forever linking to items in the Mail and who seem to post the majority of comments, they are so far right-wing that they consider the Tories to be a bunch of pinko lefties. They are the reactionaries.
I am a Tory and I am very much in favour of a voting reform. However it needs to also meet the following two important criteria
1) It must produce a single governing party, coalitions do not work.
2) It must not give too much creedence or allow extremists such as the BNP to gain power.
Not sure how this could be achieved entirely, my personal view is that the alternative voting (AV) would be the way forwar.
We should not rush it in though and I would say a public reforendum is required as it is changing the fundamental constitution, and polls are polls nothing more.
1) It must produce a single governing party, coalitions do not work.
2) It must not give too much creedence or allow extremists such as the BNP to gain power.
Not sure how this could be achieved entirely, my personal view is that the alternative voting (AV) would be the way forwar.
We should not rush it in though and I would say a public reforendum is required as it is changing the fundamental constitution, and polls are polls nothing more.
>2) It must not give too much creedence or allow extremists such as the BNP to gain power.
Oh so we allow people into government we like, but not those we dont like. That seems fair.
So if the Greens and BNP got the same number of votes the Greens would be given say 5 seats, the BNP none (because we dont like them).
Does the same apply to the communist party?
I am afraid it dont work like that. If enough people vote for a party (any party) you have to give them a voice. That is democracy.
Oh so we allow people into government we like, but not those we dont like. That seems fair.
So if the Greens and BNP got the same number of votes the Greens would be given say 5 seats, the BNP none (because we dont like them).
Does the same apply to the communist party?
I am afraid it dont work like that. If enough people vote for a party (any party) you have to give them a voice. That is democracy.
-- answer removed --
Just because a system sounds fair doesn't mean it is. The voter can still vote tactically which immediately makes it unfair again. With the AV system the voter can choose not to use their alternative vote at all which again makes the result unfair. With pure PR every registered party is represented in parliament which can mean over a 100 parties in Westminster. All these polls are pointless as people don't know what they are voting for and how these other systems can be manipulated.
Local government proves 'hung parliaments' can work. Of the 355 councils in England, around 125 have either no overall control or are run by coalitions and parties that cannot command a majority
Britain has largely come to terms with coalition government and administrations where one party manages to stay in control without commanding an overall majority. A sweeping statement? Maybe once, but no longer. Yet, surprisingly, many senior politicians seem unaware that, away from the Westminster village, sharing power is often the norm, rather than the exception.
From a national perspective, coping with what some call a "hung parliament", and others label a "balanced" legislature, may seem a step into the political unknown, a recipe for indecision, compromise and weak government. In a party election broadcast last week, the Conservatives even parodied a "hung parliament party". They should have known better.
Of the 355 councils in England, around 125 have either no overall control or are run by coalitions and parties that cannot command a majority. In Scotland, where proportional representation has been introduced for local elections, only three of the 33 councils have majority control, while the Scottish government itself is run by an SNP minority administration.
During the last decade, Labour has lost control of a string of large towns and cities, and the political make-up of "local Britain" has changed beyond recognition. For some councillors, this "new normal" in town halls provides a fascinating insight into how Westminster might function
Britain has largely come to terms with coalition government and administrations where one party manages to stay in control without commanding an overall majority. A sweeping statement? Maybe once, but no longer. Yet, surprisingly, many senior politicians seem unaware that, away from the Westminster village, sharing power is often the norm, rather than the exception.
From a national perspective, coping with what some call a "hung parliament", and others label a "balanced" legislature, may seem a step into the political unknown, a recipe for indecision, compromise and weak government. In a party election broadcast last week, the Conservatives even parodied a "hung parliament party". They should have known better.
Of the 355 councils in England, around 125 have either no overall control or are run by coalitions and parties that cannot command a majority. In Scotland, where proportional representation has been introduced for local elections, only three of the 33 councils have majority control, while the Scottish government itself is run by an SNP minority administration.
During the last decade, Labour has lost control of a string of large towns and cities, and the political make-up of "local Britain" has changed beyond recognition. For some councillors, this "new normal" in town halls provides a fascinating insight into how Westminster might function
This current 'fiasco' is the ultimate condemnation of FPP.
Now everyone is feeling disappointed, disenfranchised and bitter.
Usually, FPP only leaves 60-odd% of us feeling like that!
We need to get away from the mind-set of winners and losers. This is our country's government not a football match; it's several years of our lives, not a couple of months until two teams have a rematch.
Whenthe two parties got huge majorities for Thatcher and Blair, why was it right for millions of us who voted differently be left with no voice for years other than the yaboo of opposition?
I don't support UKIP or BNP but they are legitimate parties and many of our fellow citizens voted for them. Why is that just swept under the carpet as invalid?
Under PR, the voting patterns would adjust anyway because the 'wasted vote' syndrome will disappear and yes, different programmes will need to be negotiated, but why is that bad?
A much higher proportion of us will see programmes and policies we have some investment in.
And the rapid response to the recent financial crisis by euro countries with PR showed they function fine in an emergency.
Now everyone is feeling disappointed, disenfranchised and bitter.
Usually, FPP only leaves 60-odd% of us feeling like that!
We need to get away from the mind-set of winners and losers. This is our country's government not a football match; it's several years of our lives, not a couple of months until two teams have a rematch.
Whenthe two parties got huge majorities for Thatcher and Blair, why was it right for millions of us who voted differently be left with no voice for years other than the yaboo of opposition?
I don't support UKIP or BNP but they are legitimate parties and many of our fellow citizens voted for them. Why is that just swept under the carpet as invalid?
Under PR, the voting patterns would adjust anyway because the 'wasted vote' syndrome will disappear and yes, different programmes will need to be negotiated, but why is that bad?
A much higher proportion of us will see programmes and policies we have some investment in.
And the rapid response to the recent financial crisis by euro countries with PR showed they function fine in an emergency.
No Geezer the average tenure of a coalition in this country where we have FPTP is a year.
It produces stable Governments in many countries as you well know!
What it produces is moderate governments that work together - rather than extreme ideological governments lurching from right to left and back again.
It produces stable Governments in many countries as you well know!
What it produces is moderate governments that work together - rather than extreme ideological governments lurching from right to left and back again.
VHg, since when have the Greens been extremist ? Take your point though. I think AV would satisfy my requirements by and alrge though and be fairer.
Coalitions though are a waste. There is a world of difference between deciding how much to pay to emty the bins vs how to run a major economy.
There have never been any statues of a committee to my knowlege.
Coalitions though are a waste. There is a world of difference between deciding how much to pay to emty the bins vs how to run a major economy.
There have never been any statues of a committee to my knowlege.
Geezer
I think you misread my post.
I cited the disproportionate majorities of FPP as an issue too.
If I was to assume you are a Tory, ask yourself why Tony B liar was given a mandate to 'take action' and 'get on with things' and all those other cliches that are used to defend FPP.
What about you and the millions of people who opposed Labour. You were 'losers'!! Heck, you're still a citizen, why should all those votes count for nothing other than perhaps a seat in parliament for booing from.
Most business in Parliament is now done in committee, PR would (whatever its shortcomings) at least represent us, the electorate, which FPP by definition can never do!
I think you misread my post.
I cited the disproportionate majorities of FPP as an issue too.
If I was to assume you are a Tory, ask yourself why Tony B liar was given a mandate to 'take action' and 'get on with things' and all those other cliches that are used to defend FPP.
What about you and the millions of people who opposed Labour. You were 'losers'!! Heck, you're still a citizen, why should all those votes count for nothing other than perhaps a seat in parliament for booing from.
Most business in Parliament is now done in committee, PR would (whatever its shortcomings) at least represent us, the electorate, which FPP by definition can never do!
The electorate have shown that they will not be cowed by the media nor the markets into voting for a particular outcome. Instead, they have sent a message that has confused everyone by its unfamiliarity. What can it all mean? Well, clearly they are not happy with the government as it is, nor are they convinced that the Tories offer something better. Instead they have voted for something different and sent the parties away to hammer out a consensus. Under a PR system, there would be a mandate for such an administration. It is only the familiarity of our current electoral arrangement that allows the media to treat the result as some terrible misunderstanding.
The electorate have shown that they will not be cowed by the media nor the markets into voting for a particular outcome. Instead, they have sent a message that has confused everyone by its unfamiliarity. What can it all mean? Well, clearly they are not happy with the government as it is, nor are they convinced that the Tories offer something better. Instead they have voted for something different and sent the parties away to hammer out a consensus. Under a PR system, there would be a mandate for such an administration. It is only the familiarity of our current electoral arrangement that allows the media to treat the result as some terrible misunderstanding.
Under the current FPP Lib Dem supporters need three times as many votes to elect an MP as Labour and Tories supporters do; Tories need a much greater swing than Labour to win power; working-class voters have been taken for granted by New Labour over the past 10 years; Millions havent bothered to vote because they live in "safe seats" where their participation is a waste of time. All this would disappear under PR - a fairer democratic system.
The electorate have shown that they will not be cowed by the media nor the markets into voting for a particular outcome. Instead, they have sent a message that has confused everyone by its unfamiliarity. What can it all mean? Well, clearly they are not happy with the government as it is, nor are they convinced that the Tories offer something better. Instead they have voted for something different and sent the parties away to hammer out a consensus. Under a PR system, there would be a mandate for such an administration. It is only the familiarity of our current electoral arrangement that allows the media to treat the result as some terrible misunderstanding.
Under the current FPP Lib Dem supporters need three times as many votes to elect an MP as Labour and Tories supporters do; Tories need a much greater swing than Labour to win power; working-class voters have been taken for granted by New Labour over the past 10 years; Millions havent bothered to vote because they live in "safe seats" where their participation is a waste of time. All this would disappear under PR - a fairer democratic system.
Good point old dutch.
I wonder how many FPP polls have been distorted by the 'he'll not get in' syndrome.
The people who stand in the booth, they have a preferred candidate but decide it will be a wasted vote and at the last moment vote for someone with at least a chance of FPP.
It might be a good thing if we could all vote for whoever we really believe in and know that it could count for something.
I wonder how many FPP polls have been distorted by the 'he'll not get in' syndrome.
The people who stand in the booth, they have a preferred candidate but decide it will be a wasted vote and at the last moment vote for someone with at least a chance of FPP.
It might be a good thing if we could all vote for whoever we really believe in and know that it could count for something.
1 to 20 of 20
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.