Proportional representation
Discussion
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/MPs-To-V...
MPs will vote today on proposals to hold a referendum on abandoning the first-past-the-post system for general elections.
Under electoral reform plans championed by Gordon Brown, the country would be asked to choose whether to switch to the alternative vote (AV) method.
Ok what am I missing here ? At the moment don't the Tories get more votes than Labour but the way the seats are divided still lose.
MPs will vote today on proposals to hold a referendum on abandoning the first-past-the-post system for general elections.
Under electoral reform plans championed by Gordon Brown, the country would be asked to choose whether to switch to the alternative vote (AV) method.
Ok what am I missing here ? At the moment don't the Tories get more votes than Labour but the way the seats are divided still lose.
MrV said:
Under electoral reform plans championed by Gordon Brown, the country would be asked to choose whether to switch to the alternative vote (AV) method.
So long as we are asked. I think everybody realises by now that if Winky thinks something is a good idea, it should be avoided at all costs.MrV said:
.
Ok what am I missing here ? At the moment don't the Tories get more votes than Labour but the way the seats are divided still lose.
This is not true PR, it is an Alternative Vote system by which peoples second choices are counted as well.Ok what am I missing here ? At the moment don't the Tories get more votes than Labour but the way the seats are divided still lose.
With this system Labour would actually increase their number of seats (Lib Dem, Green & BNP voters are more likely to select Labour as second choice). This might be why Winky now favours it...
If the voting system is going to be reformed the constituency boundaries should be modified so each constituency contains approximately the same number of voters - all votes should be equal.
Currently many Labour seats are in constituencies with less than 50,000 voters yet Tory seats often contain considerably more...
jesusbuiltmycar said:
If the voting system is going to be reformed the constituency boundaries should be modified so each constituency contains approximately the same number of voters - all votes should be equal.
jesusbuiltmycar said:
Currently many Labour seats are in constituencies with less than 50,000 voters yet Tory seats often contain considerably more...
It is simply wrong that more people can vote Conservative than Labour and they STILL aren't in power.thinfourth2 said:
I think that winky will still be in power at the end of this year by fair means or foul.
Probably foul
It is a possibility. A rather worrying one - but nonetheless possible.Probably foul
However - he'd be in charge of a weak government, probably incapable of getting anything through parliament. Winky would get the title, but Clegg would get the veto.
The outcome for the economy is unthinkable.
I really hope it doesn't happen.
Iain Dale said:
Gordon Brown's deathbed conversion to AV has flummoxed many, as it was he who scuppered such a deal with Paddy Ashdown in 1998. But those wonderful academics at the University of Plymouth, Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher have revealed the reason why Brown now thinks AV is best. It would give Labour more seats! Bet that's surprised you, hasn't it! According to their studies, if there had been AV for the 2005 election, Labour would have won 364 seats rather than 356. The Conservatives would have won 15 fewer (183, asopposed to 198) and the LibDems would have gone up from 62 to 71.
A referendum could easily be phrased to gain popular support, I mean who doesn't want to support two rather than one parties? It really does show this corrupt cabal to be nothing other than power crazed,avaricious careerists.Since their ascention to power their only concern has been to retain their position,irrespective of the damage they do to the country
13 years of shoring up their key vote by creating a client state and porous borders haven't been enough.
Not content with the movement of constituency boundaries for election gain,now they blatently attempt to manipulate the voting process to avoid becoming political history.
Let's not forget that in a sop to the Lib Dems prior to '97 Blair promised electoral reform in the shape of PR,as soon as the final vote had been counted and his majority assured.The idea was quickly dropped.
I f
king despise New Labour/Labour
s
13 years of shoring up their key vote by creating a client state and porous borders haven't been enough.
Not content with the movement of constituency boundaries for election gain,now they blatently attempt to manipulate the voting process to avoid becoming political history.
Let's not forget that in a sop to the Lib Dems prior to '97 Blair promised electoral reform in the shape of PR,as soon as the final vote had been counted and his majority assured.The idea was quickly dropped.
I f
king despise New Labour/Labour s 
jesusbuiltmycar said:
If the voting system is going to be reformed the constituency boundaries should be modified so each constituency contains approximately the same number of voters - all votes should be equal.
Currently many Labour seats are in constituencies with less than 50,000 voters yet Tory seats often contain considerably more...
Wouldn't this require a constant rejigging of the faster moving urban seats? As well as the larger rural ones I suppose.Currently many Labour seats are in constituencies with less than 50,000 voters yet Tory seats often contain considerably more...
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:YmsL...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdo...
http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections.cfm
They cant possibly get this through before the gen election can they? What about the studies and panning, what about a debate, even a mass-terbate of the general population ( we are being screwed over already) What about a referendum to this major change in how we vote.
As has been said if winky wants it - its only because it will help him.
If we are going down the route of AV or PR then each vote needs to count for the same, boundaries need to contain a similar number of voters. Have this in the manifesto if they want but dont impose it now just before a GE. Crazy.
As has been said if winky wants it - its only because it will help him.
If we are going down the route of AV or PR then each vote needs to count for the same, boundaries need to contain a similar number of voters. Have this in the manifesto if they want but dont impose it now just before a GE. Crazy.
For most points of law and politics i feel holding a public vote would be counter productive (on a lot of issues it introduces massive bias due to the people who turn out) The one thing that should be decided by the people rather than by parliment is the system by which we elect them! If the brittish people want proportional representation or indeed any other system of voting it should not be for politicians to decide.
Halb said:
jesusbuiltmycar said:
If the voting system is going to be reformed the constituency boundaries should be modified so each constituency contains approximately the same number of voters - all votes should be equal.
Currently many Labour seats are in constituencies with less than 50,000 voters yet Tory seats often contain considerably more...
Wouldn't this require a constant rejigging of the faster moving urban seats? As well as the larger rural ones I suppose.Currently many Labour seats are in constituencies with less than 50,000 voters yet Tory seats often contain considerably more...
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:YmsL...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdo...
http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections.cfm
Hardly every vote is equal is it...
Einion Yrth said:
MrV said:
Ok what am I missing here ?
Winky's betting on a hung parliament; this is a sop to the illiberal dumbocrats to tempt them into forming a coalition/pact.Gordon Brown will be in power for ever if Nick Clegg gets PR
Wondering how the alternative / transferable vote system system would work with negative votes as well as positive votes.
You can vote for No 1, No2 and so on, but you could also vote negatively, and a negative vote would count for minus two.
Would Labour ever be in power again?
Of course there would be the "It's all bloody Thatcher's fault, and No Poll Tax, Can Pay, but Won't Pay "scumbags mob as well to muddy the waters a bit.
You can vote for No 1, No2 and so on, but you could also vote negatively, and a negative vote would count for minus two.
Would Labour ever be in power again?
Of course there would be the "It's all bloody Thatcher's fault, and No Poll Tax, Can Pay, but Won't Pay "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/vote2005/html/eng...
its rather worrying that the torys need 40% of the vote vs lab 30% just to get the same number of seats! where as if lab have the same 10% majority they win by a landslide. there's no easy answer... proportional representation inevitably leads to hung parliament and election of a load of single issue crackpots. perhaps we need compulsory pr voting with a sliding scale ie 50% of the vote gives you 50% of the seats, 55% gives you 60% etc...
nothing will ever change
its rather worrying that the torys need 40% of the vote vs lab 30% just to get the same number of seats! where as if lab have the same 10% majority they win by a landslide. there's no easy answer... proportional representation inevitably leads to hung parliament and election of a load of single issue crackpots. perhaps we need compulsory pr voting with a sliding scale ie 50% of the vote gives you 50% of the seats, 55% gives you 60% etc...
nothing will ever change
The electoral system in this country is broken. Yes, it does return strong governments, but that is about the only thing it has going for it.
The major issue, is that the majority of people's votes simply have no effect. If you happen to live in a constituency that has a large majority for a party you don't support, then in practice it does not matter whether you vote or not - it simply has no effect on the outcome of the election. This leaves the seats with small majorities as the only ones likely to see any change in them.
The alternative vote system does nothing to address this. It is not proportional representation. It still results in the election of a single person in a single constituency.
The only reason Brown is choosing to do this now is because he thinks that Labour will do best out of it, not because it is a reform that will be good for the country. AV will tend to give the Liberal Democrats more seats than they have at the moment, and because the Lib Dems contest more seats directly with the Conservatives than Labour, The Conservatives will lose more seats than Labour will.
I have posted many times before that STV is the probably the best system to switch to, for a variety of reasons, not least that it eliminates safe seats, so if the electorate don't like someone they won't be re-elected only because they are deep in the territory of their party. It also returns majority governments and stops minority parties holding the balance of power.
Electoral reform is needed, but it is the wrong time and wrong way to go about it.
Edit - The Electoral Reform Society have a report (pdf) that discusses AV and its effects.
The major issue, is that the majority of people's votes simply have no effect. If you happen to live in a constituency that has a large majority for a party you don't support, then in practice it does not matter whether you vote or not - it simply has no effect on the outcome of the election. This leaves the seats with small majorities as the only ones likely to see any change in them.
The alternative vote system does nothing to address this. It is not proportional representation. It still results in the election of a single person in a single constituency.
The only reason Brown is choosing to do this now is because he thinks that Labour will do best out of it, not because it is a reform that will be good for the country. AV will tend to give the Liberal Democrats more seats than they have at the moment, and because the Lib Dems contest more seats directly with the Conservatives than Labour, The Conservatives will lose more seats than Labour will.
I have posted many times before that STV is the probably the best system to switch to, for a variety of reasons, not least that it eliminates safe seats, so if the electorate don't like someone they won't be re-elected only because they are deep in the territory of their party. It also returns majority governments and stops minority parties holding the balance of power.
Electoral reform is needed, but it is the wrong time and wrong way to go about it.
Edit - The Electoral Reform Society have a report (pdf) that discusses AV and its effects.
Edited by tank slapper on Tuesday 9th February 15:33
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff