|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 5, 2024 19:21:05 GMT
I think that the "Alternative vote" system - which we had a referendum about some years ago is worth reconsidering. It's not PR but it does allow people to vote tactically in a straightforward way. For example my vote of choice is basically wasted every election because I want to vote for people who never win in my constituency - e.g. UKIP, Reform etc. So I have often voted either Labour or Tory when I would prefer to vote for, say, Reform. That's why we always end up with either Tory or Labour. But if we adopted alternative vote I could happily vote Reform and say my second choice is Tory. This makes it far more likely that the small parties would get a vote. The trouble was that when Cameron allowed the referendum on AV he lied about what it did - he said it meant some people's votes were counted more than once, which ws bollocks. It would be best if we had FPTP for teh Commons and the votes cast PR for a reformed Lords. That way we keep the strong government but also get a revising house based on the electorate's wishes. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 6, 2024 5:15:40 GMT
I agree Reform UK should have it's own board. But I disagree with PR, it would be an absolute disaster for democracy. PR is political wokery, every EU state uses some form of PR which ensures the EU will continue because the more parties there are the less chance of them all agreeing on anything. The fact that the EU loves PR should be warning enough. PR means endless coalitions often three or four way coalitions, it's a nightmare. PR is the end of majority rule.A landslide majority with the support of only a third of the electorate is not democracy. It's not even a third. It's a third of the two-thirds that actually voted.
In reality, only 1 in 5 eligible voters voted Labour. And that's definitely not democracy.
And I wonder how many of the stay-at-homes did so because they knew that their vote would be wasted.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 6, 2024 5:18:30 GMT
Say goodbye to any chance of PR over the next 5 years. Labour just won a super majority with 65% of the seats with 34% of the vote. It is democracy, but not as we know it! Indeed. Given the gross disproportionality of these election results it's clear that FPTP is no longer fit for purpose.
Bring on PR.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 6, 2024 6:46:12 GMT
I think that the "Alternative vote" system - which we had a referendum about some years ago is worth reconsidering. It's not PR but it does allow people to vote tactically in a straightforward way. For example my vote of choice is basically wasted every election because I want to vote for people who never win in my constituency - e.g. UKIP, Reform etc. So I have often voted either Labour or Tory when I would prefer to vote for, say, Reform. That's why we always end up with either Tory or Labour. But if we adopted alternative vote I could happily vote Reform and say my second choice is Tory. This makes it far more likely that the small parties would get a vote. The trouble was that when Cameron allowed the referendum on AV he lied about what it did - he said it meant some people's votes were counted more than once, which ws bollocks. It would be best if we had FPTP for teh Commons and the votes cast PR for a reformed Lords. That way we keep the strong government but also get a revising house based on the electorate's wishes. I have never heard of this before - this is an interesting idea |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 6, 2024 7:31:52 GMT
I think that the "Alternative vote" system - which we had a referendum about some years ago is worth reconsidering. It's not PR but it does allow people to vote tactically in a straightforward way. For example my vote of choice is basically wasted every election because I want to vote for people who never win in my constituency - e.g. UKIP, Reform etc. So I have often voted either Labour or Tory when I would prefer to vote for, say, Reform. That's why we always end up with either Tory or Labour. But if we adopted alternative vote I could happily vote Reform and say my second choice is Tory. This makes it far more likely that the small parties would get a vote. The trouble was that when Cameron allowed the referendum on AV he lied about what it did - he said it meant some people's votes were counted more than once, which ws bollocks. It would be best if we had FPTP for teh Commons and the votes cast PR for a reformed Lords. That way we keep the strong government but also get a revising house based on the electorate's wishes. Personally I'd scrap the HoL. But I still think that "Alternative Vote" would solve a lot of the problems with FPTP. The problem is that we have to face the fact that ONLY the Tories or Labour are going to win the GE - no one else has a chance under the current system. So anyone who votes for anyone else is wasting their vote. In my own constituency either Labour or Tories win. So if I vote for Reform - as the Tories have said - it's more likely to lead to a Labour govt, which I don't want. So logically I have to vote Tory or I effectively lose my vote. So for years I have been voting for the Tories just to keep out Labour - when I actually wanted to vote for UKIP/Reform or other minor parties. However, under AV, I can safely vote for Reform with a second preference for the Tories. So, if Reform aren't in the top 2, my alternative vote gets used and I vote Tory. The beauty of this is that people can vote for a minor party WITHOUT losing your vote. I'm sure this would lead to FAR more votes for the smaller parties, once people have understood how it works.. Actually in this GE I just voted reform anyway - but they never stood a chance of winning in my constituency under the current system. So I might as well not have voted. |
|
|
|
Post by piglet on Jul 6, 2024 9:36:09 GMT
I think it was Kingston and Surbiton, Davey won with a landslide, that truly was a shocker, Davey is crazy. Thats the problem, that an MP will get elected beecause people like him, rather than having sound politics. Thats repeated all over the country.
Its partial. As with Cromwell, voting should be about the whole country, not about regions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 6, 2024 9:46:39 GMT
That doesn't make sense. All votes count, the trick is encouraging people to use their vote. Not easy in a democracy. Britain is now a multi-party system, and first-past-the-post can’t cope. I disagree. The only people who say FPTP cant cope are those who want PR, which imo would be a disaster for democracy and this country. FPTP is not perfect, no system is, but PR will see the end of majority rule, it will mean endless coalitions often three or even four way coalitions that agree on nothing, see Belgium or Italy, or any one of many other EU states that use PR, they cant get anything done because they never agree on anything. This ensures withdrawal from the EU for example is impossible and is why the EU support PR. Besides, this is a pointless discussion, with such a huge majority there isn't a snowballs chance in hell that Labour will even discuss PR. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 6, 2024 9:59:54 GMT
...PR will see the end of majority rule, it will mean endless coalitions often three or even four way coalitions that agree on nothing, see Belgium or Italy, or any one of many other EU states that use PR, they cant get anything done because they never agree on anything... You say that like it's a bad thing. Personally, I'd prefer a government that can't get much done because it means there's less they can fuck up. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jul 6, 2024 11:30:21 GMT
...PR will see the end of majority rule, it will mean endless coalitions often three or even four way coalitions that agree on nothing, see Belgium or Italy, or any one of many other EU states that use PR, they cant get anything done because they never agree on anything... You say that like it's a bad thing. Personally, I'd prefer a government that can't get much done because it means there's less they can fuck up. Exactly, PR might have prevented the disastrous Iraq war. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 7, 2024 6:21:08 GMT
...PR will see the end of majority rule, it will mean endless coalitions often three or even four way coalitions that agree on nothing, see Belgium or Italy, or any one of many other EU states that use PR, they cant get anything done because they never agree on anything... You say that like it's a bad thing. Personally, I'd prefer a government that can't get much done because it means there's less they can fuck up. That's not typically what happens. Instead, the government still gets things done but 'the people' have less ability to identify and sack the people doing it |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 7, 2024 7:14:17 GMT
You say that like it's a bad thing. Personally, I'd prefer a government that can't get much done because it means there's less they can fuck up. That's not typically what happens. Instead, the government still gets things done but 'the people' have less ability to identify and sack the people doing it That is not quite what has happened across Europe - something that Macron may find out later today.. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 7, 2024 7:58:58 GMT
You say that like it's a bad thing. Personally, I'd prefer a government that can't get much done because it means there's less they can fuck up. That's not typically what happens. Instead, the government still gets things done but 'the people' have less ability to identify and sack the people doing it But as Sandypine identifies, that already happens with party infighting under FPTP.
FPTP isn't saving us from the potential downsides of PR but it is preventing people from voting for parties that they actually want, parties that are actually committed to change rather than the cosy status quo.
|
|
