Politically safe seats.

[crankedup]

Conservative or Labour so called safe seats are not in the best interests of our political system?
The M.P. or local Council Member concerned should not enjoy unfettered access and power by a system of voting that allows for a tiny minority of people to ensure such a situation?
My own experience of this current system ensures that my democratic vote is simply wasted whilst other voters are simply now staying at home rather than voting' not worth voting as my candidate will never be elected' attitude. If you agree or not this cannot be good for our democracy or peoples interest in politics?

[crankedup]

tubbystu said:

It is not ideal obviously, but has always been that way, and is unlikely to ever change. Even if they shuffled all the boundaries you would never get into a position that sufficient Tory voters were in the catchment area of say Liverpool Central, or South Bucks for Labour voters etc.

Every individual has a single vote. In some locations those that think politically alike have tended to live in the same area with similar political aspirations.

How much locally do you perceive your MP to do ? If you tend to vote against the local norm, local elections are far more likely for you to get a candidate of your chosen political bent.

There are many areas where say the supposed natural choice Tory MP has a Lib Dem council or vice versa etc.

If you really want your national vote to count you'll need to move to a marginal constituency..............

It is fair comments that you make and most likely correct, the issue of corruption and / or laziness aspects of those Members who enjoy the safe seat. Further we see the Political use of the parachute candidates which is quite possibly the worst abuse of the current system. With such a lack of interest in politics currently there has to be a better way.

[crankedup]

MX7 said:

crankedup said:

The M.P. or local Council Member concerned should not enjoy unfettered access and power by a system of voting that allows for a tiny minority of people to ensure such a situation?

If it's a safe seat, it's the majority that make it so.

Yes of course, but it brings with it the problems that I have mentioned. In too many seats the electorate turn out is tiny.

[crankedup]

s2art said:

crankedup said:

tubbystu said:

It is not ideal obviously, but has always been that way, and is unlikely to ever change. Even if they shuffled all the boundaries you would never get into a position that sufficient Tory voters were in the catchment area of say Liverpool Central, or South Bucks for Labour voters etc.

Every individual has a single vote. In some locations those that think politically alike have tended to live in the same area with similar political aspirations.

How much locally do you perceive your MP to do ? If you tend to vote against the local norm, local elections are far more likely for you to get a candidate of your chosen political bent.

There are many areas where say the supposed natural choice Tory MP has a Lib Dem council or vice versa etc.

If you really want your national vote to count you'll need to move to a marginal constituency..............

It is fair comments that you make and most likely correct, the issue of corruption and / or laziness aspects of those Members who enjoy the safe seat. Further we see the Political use of the parachute candidates which is quite possibly the worst abuse of the current system. With such a lack of interest in politics currently there has to be a better way.

See Dan Hannan on open primaries. By giving the voters the power to select their MP for a given party it reduces the problem you mention.

Thanks for info', I shall look it up.