-
Posts
-
@toybulldog wrote:
@legend wrote:
@pete wrote:
Listen…you chased no one, never have never will.
I’m quite large despite my effeminate demeanor. I could kill a set of chavs with my bare fists so I could, with only slight major injuries.
:lol:
and even if it missed with its punches , the wind behind is so strong that all right-wing fascists would simply perish from pneumonia.
Imagine Mr(s) T with boobies, bad spelling, and much, much wind. . . . .
.
:shock:
Slight major injuries?…please explain Leggy :lol:
Set of Chavs?…please explain Leggy :lol: thought it was a pack of chavs :lol:
@pete wrote:
The Libs want PR because it’ll give them more seats, not because it’s fairer.
Correct it would but thats cos its what the numbers dictate so it IS fairer by that reason alone
and is going to give us hung parliaments where the minority party holds far more sway than the public voted for
@pete wrote:
and is going to give us hung parliaments where the minority party holds far more sway than the public voted for
Hmmm :-k …
Let’s have a look at some of the national results from last Thursday..
CONSERVATIVE PARTY – Votes 10,706,647 – Seats 306
LABOUR PARTY – Votes 8,604,358 – Seats 258
LIBERAL DEMOCRATS – Votes 6,827,938 – Seats 57
UKIP – Votes 917,832 – Seats 0
BNP – Votes 563,743 – Seats 0
SNP – Votes 491,386 – Seats 6
GREENS – Votes 285,616 – Seats 1
SINN FEIN – Votes 171,942 – Seats 5
DUP – Votes 168,216 -Seats 8Now, it doesn’t take a genius to see that the complete opposite to the above quote is at work here.
First up (as we all know) under this existing majority “first past the post” system the UK now has a hung parliament… Although granted, for the first time since 1974.
The more pressing and disproportionate shortcomings of the present system are worryingly numerous, ranging from the Liberal Democrats gaining a QUARTER of the TOTAL VOTES CAST yet taking LESS THAN TEN PERCENT of the SEATS to the likes of UKIP receiving almost as many votes as the SNP, GREENS, SINN FEIN and the DUP COMBINED yet winning NO SEATS as opposed to the others collecting TWENTY MPs.
Smaller parties holding more sway, yes… But hold on, this is the EXISTING system.Granted yet again, regional and boundary issues with regard to the component countries within the UK inevitably play a part and would invariably warp to some extent the perceived proportionality of any system, but to state that PR would bring about situations “where the minority party holds far more sway than the public voted for” could be construed as a rather creative generalism. To be fair that’s not to say that PR in its various incarnations doesn’t have its flaws, it most certainly does. Smaller parties can be decisive and bargaining can prevail. But what is CRUCIAL is that EVERY party is afforded a REPRESENTATION and at least some form of proportionate ratio with regard to the numbers who actually vote for them! The numbers aren’t always perfect, but believe me they are a darn site closer to reality then the undemocratic stew that we see above.
It’s blatantly obvious from last Thursday’s hard figures that the existing FPTP system demonstrates a total lack of balance and equality. A reliance on a totally antiquated majority vote system perpetuating a sterile, two party monopoly that scaremongers a public paranoia in that they and they alone can be the only “stable” guardians and protectors, but one that also flies in the face of a diverse, progressive and expansive 21st Century nation.The total disenfranchisement of the 8 million or so people who voted for the Lib Dems and UKIP and their right to a fair and reflective representation in parliament is a product of this.
Lets not forget BNP voters too. Lets say Labour got 30 % of the vote, Libs 15 % Conservatives 45% and the other 10% shared amongst UKIP BNP etc. It is possible for a party the majority of the electorate voted for to have little or no say in the running of the country. You vote for an MP you want to “represent” your constituency as much as the party itself. If the majority want a particular party they get that party. With PR which MP’s are assigned to which areas ? Suppose the electorate doesnt want that MP, or do MP’s no longer fight for funds etc for a particular area ?
@pete wrote:
Lets not forget BNP voters too. Lets say Labour got 30 % of the vote, Libs 15 % Conservatives 45% and the other 10% shared amongst UKIP BNP etc. It is possible for a party the majority of the electorate voted for to have little or no say in the running of the country.
True Pete, the biggest vote winner may not be returned to government, but to be fair that can apply to most, if not all, parliamentary democracies, especially if no overall majority threshold is reached by the largest party and the opposite numbers add up. A perfect example of this could (and almost did) apply in relation to the aftermath of the recent UK election.
Just as last Thursday’s result demonstrates that FPTP does not always guarantee an outright winner, so PR does not always presuppose that the party with the most votes gets frozen out.
For example, the Single Transferable Vote system used in parliamentary elections for my own country has in relatively recent history thrown up majority, largest vote winning single party governments as well as two party and alternative multi-party coalition arrangements. In all likelihood the next Irish government will have a single party majority, or very close to it. What is and was significant with all these results however is that every seat taken was at least relatively proportional to the number of votes cast.
The results table in my previous post plainly illustrates that this was not the case in the UK election.With regard to the BNP, of course they should not be forgotten. Over half a million people voted for them and as unpalatable as it may seem to some, democracy must be served with at least the potential for a BNP seat allocation in proportion to the votes they acquired. A PR system would come closest to addressing such a ratio.
So, in answer to your point above, PR systems can and often do carry the party who wins the most votes over the line, but – and this is crucial – rarely (if ever) at the expense of the votes to seats ratio of other parties… an inadequacy that is evidently clear in the FPTP system.
Whilst having the imperfections of other representative democracies, this is where PR (and in particular STV) is essentially fairer than other voting methods.Now..
@pete wrote:
You vote for an MP you want to “represent” your constituency as much as the party itself. If the majority want a particular party they get that party. With PR which MP’s are assigned to which areas ? Suppose the electorate doesnt want that MP, or do MP’s no longer fight for funds etc for a particular area ?
Although I totally agree that on many occasions “You vote for an MP you want to “represent” your constituency as much as the party itself” , I’m not sure I fully follow what you mean by “With PR which MP’s are assigned to which areas ?” or the subsequent points raised.
PR neither negates or diminishes the dual electoral importance of local and national interest (though some Tory scaremongers would argue against the former) but rather brings that potential fusion closer to fruition, especially with STV where larger multi-seat constituencies ranging in size from 3 to 5 seat battlegrounds allow the voter much more choice and flexibility. Numerical preferences are applied to the ballot, with the ordered transfers keeping your vote active in the event of your first preference being elected by passing a predetermined (vote to seat calculated) quota or in your first preference being eliminated by polling in last place. This vote transfer system can continue through numerous counts until the required number of MPs are elected, by either reaching the quota or being left remaining after mass eliminations.MPs are at all times directly elected from the constituencies they run in, to uphold the dual mandate of representing that constituency on the ground whilst also taking their seats in the national assembly, and are never “assigned” in any way.
The same applies to the AV (Alternative Vote) method that the UK has been promised a referendum on soon, and a system that is used for Irish Presidential elections.
Although many don’t see this as democratically proportional as STV when it comes to parliamentary elections, it is yet again a hell of a lot fairer than FPTP.
AV usually (but not always) presupposes single seat constituencies, wherein winning 50 percent of the votes cast deems a candidate elected. Like STV, voting is done by numerical preference, but unlike STV it is invariably a one seat fight and only when your 1st preference candidate is eliminated for coming in last can your number 2 choice become active. In the event of no candidate reaching the 50 percent mark on the first count, transfers from the eliminated candidates in subsequent counts tend to bring the winner over the threshold.It is interesting to note that the Lib Dems campaigned for a referendum on STV for the British people, but the furthest their new coalition partners would go on PR was a vote on AV.. A vote which (to the best of my knowledge) the Tories will be free to campaign against.
Welcome to 21st Century coalition government :)
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!