News8 mins ago
Alternative electoral system
As the Labour government is currently considering making changes to the electoral system we thought we'd ask the AnswerBank users to cast their votes. Which of the most likely options would you support? Each of these options is representative of certain styles of system - so let your vote be broad rather than get caught in the specifics of the various systems (that is what the posts are for afterwards!)
This poll is closed.
Which of the below would you support?
- Proportional Representation - As favoured by the Liberal Democrats - 21 votes
- 43%
- First Past the Post - The current system - 16 votes
- 33%
- Alternative Vote - The system proposed by Labour this week - 12 votes
- 24%
Stats until: 08:37 Thu 21st Nov 2024 (Refreshed every 5 minutes)
© AnswerBank Ltd 2000 - 2024. All Rights Reserved.
Answers
1 to 18 of 18
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by AB Editor. 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.
Labour are planning for a possible hung parliament by toading up to the Lib dems. PR is a flawed system but the libdems love it because they do better. Ask yourself this. In the unlikely even the libdems actually one under the current system would they then change it? I think we all know the answer!
Under the present system, only a few votes in a few seats actually makes a difference. At the last election, Labour got 3% more votes than the Tories, but that gave them a 158 majority. Clearly, not very democratic.
I don't really see the point in the Alternative vote. It is a halfway house. I would favour PR even if it meant the BNP would end up with some MPs.
I don't really see the point in the Alternative vote. It is a halfway house. I would favour PR even if it meant the BNP would end up with some MPs.
R1Geezer
Many countries use PR without it leading to paralysis. The result is often coalitions, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. The desperation of 12 years of Labour (or the 18 years of tyranny before that) would not happen. Coalitions mean Governments have to please two or three sets of voters rather than just their own party.
Many countries use PR without it leading to paralysis. The result is often coalitions, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. The desperation of 12 years of Labour (or the 18 years of tyranny before that) would not happen. Coalitions mean Governments have to please two or three sets of voters rather than just their own party.
"Many countries use PR without it leading to paralysis. The result is often coalitions, but that is not necessarily a bad thing."
I don't know. Coalitions might be nice from a democratic perspective, but they're fragile and they quite often skirt around fundamental issues.
Take Germany's coalition before the last election - because all sides were worried about the coalition falling apart, the major issues were avoided and put off until the next election. So they're not necessarily engines for consensus either. Now, I'm not saying govts need to be doing everything all the time, but I don't think that's healthy.
PR has other undemocratic features as well. If you vote for a party, they're almost certain to end up in coalition with other parties who you didn't vote for and who you might find very distasteful.
---
I voted AV because I like the more nuanced level of expression it allows. When you're voting, you're essentially saying "Well, I'd like it to be this guy, but if it can't be him, I'd like it to be him. And if not him, then..." etc. I like the idea of being able to do that. It also has more emphasis on candidates than it does on parties - which I also like the idea of, and has interesting implications for UK democracy. PR systems emphasise parties just as much as FPTP does.
I don't know. Coalitions might be nice from a democratic perspective, but they're fragile and they quite often skirt around fundamental issues.
Take Germany's coalition before the last election - because all sides were worried about the coalition falling apart, the major issues were avoided and put off until the next election. So they're not necessarily engines for consensus either. Now, I'm not saying govts need to be doing everything all the time, but I don't think that's healthy.
PR has other undemocratic features as well. If you vote for a party, they're almost certain to end up in coalition with other parties who you didn't vote for and who you might find very distasteful.
---
I voted AV because I like the more nuanced level of expression it allows. When you're voting, you're essentially saying "Well, I'd like it to be this guy, but if it can't be him, I'd like it to be him. And if not him, then..." etc. I like the idea of being able to do that. It also has more emphasis on candidates than it does on parties - which I also like the idea of, and has interesting implications for UK democracy. PR systems emphasise parties just as much as FPTP does.
-- answer removed --
1997....In Labour's manifesto......PR to be discussed and debated.
2001....Labour landslide.......PR still not debated
2005 Not a Landslide......but a huge majority.
2010......Labour lead lost and Tory lead suggests a "hung Parliament.
Hung Parliament with a Lib Dem support..........Labour back in, albeit with Lib Dem help.
Lib Dem.........ALWAYS supported PR.
12 weeks to go to the election.
Got the picture?
2001....Labour landslide.......PR still not debated
2005 Not a Landslide......but a huge majority.
2010......Labour lead lost and Tory lead suggests a "hung Parliament.
Hung Parliament with a Lib Dem support..........Labour back in, albeit with Lib Dem help.
Lib Dem.........ALWAYS supported PR.
12 weeks to go to the election.
Got the picture?
-- answer removed --
1 to 18 of 18
Latest Posts
ChatterBank10 mins ago
ChatterBank21 mins ago
Family & Relationships27 mins ago
All Hope Is Not Lost For Humanity
News31 mins ago
