|
|
Post by Dogburger on Jul 8, 2024 8:30:29 GMT
I find it astonishing that the Right of British politics has generally always been opposed to proportional representation, but then suddenly they propose a move in favour of PR. Sectarian politics has been a part of British politics for a very long time, Republicans versus Unionists, Nationalists versus Unionists, so a Muslim dimension with regards to Gaza is simply something new, and to be expected. When we had high turn outs and a right of centre Conservative party and a left wing labour party it wasn't such a problem . Today with the main parties all fighting over the social democrat middle ground half the country dont have anyone to vote for that could possibly win enough seats to form a government. For me that says the time for PR has arrived . |
|
|
|
Post by jeg er on Jul 8, 2024 8:31:09 GMT
There is literally no information in your quote stating vote share figures Those same vote shares The table based on vote shares independent on 6th reform on 8th I repeat, what you have quoted literally includes no information detailing vote shares. Those figures do not exist in your quote |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 8, 2024 8:43:11 GMT
PR would provide a route for extremists to force their way into the political mainstream. For example; in Germany many on the left and many within the political establishment including president Steinmeier, want to see AfD banned claiming the party is far right. But the only reason AfD are in parliament is because of PR.
I think people in this country who claim to be pro PR are looking at the good points, while ignoring or perhaps not understanding the bad points.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 8, 2024 8:53:25 GMT
PR would provide a route for extremists to force their way into the political mainstream. For example; in Germany many on the left and many within the political establishment including president Steinmeier, want to see AfD banned claiming the party is far right. But the only reason AfD are in parliament is because of PR. I think people in this country who claim to be pro PR are looking at the good points, while ignoring or perhaps not understanding the bad points. So in Germany parliament represents the opinions of the electorate.
Whereas right now ours couldn't be less representative.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 8, 2024 9:03:53 GMT
PR would provide a route for extremists to force their way into the political mainstream. For example; in Germany many on the left and many within the political establishment including president Steinmeier, want to see AfD banned claiming the party is far right. But the only reason AfD are in parliament is because of PR. I think people in this country who claim to be pro PR are looking at the good points, while ignoring or perhaps not understanding the bad points. So in Germany parliament represents the opinions of the electorate.
Whereas right now ours couldn't be less representative.
Rubbish. This government represents the majority who voted for it. PR means endless weak coalition governments often three or four way coalitions who never get anything done because they cant agree on anything. If we had PR we would still be in the EU. Why do you suppose the EU like PR? It ensures EU states are most unlikely to ever leave the EU. PR will see the end of majority rule and the end of democracy. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jul 8, 2024 9:12:00 GMT
So in Germany parliament represents the opinions of the electorate.
Whereas right now ours couldn't be less representative.
Rubbish. This government represents the majority who voted for it. PR means endless weak coalition governments often three or four way coalitions who never get anything done because they cant agree on anything. If we had PR we would still be in the EU. Why do you suppose the EU like PR? It ensures EU states are most unlikely to ever leave the EU. PR will see the end of majority rule and the end of democracy. It will end the two-party one-party system for sure, as it did in the last EU election. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 8, 2024 9:19:21 GMT
Rubbish. This government represents the majority who voted for it... LOL!  What does that even mean? This government doesn't represent the majority. It represents a minority of people who voted Labour. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jul 8, 2024 9:23:42 GMT
Rubbish. This government represents the majority who voted for it... LOL! What does that even mean? This government doesn't represent the majority. It represents a minority of people who voted Labour. Have to agree. I can't remember when the winner of the GE actually represented a majority of the population? |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 8, 2024 9:29:40 GMT
LOL! What does that even mean? This government doesn't represent the majority. It represents a minority of people who voted Labour. Have to agree. I can't remember when the winner of the GE actually represented a majority of the population? Well that's always been the issue, it's just that it's never been more disportionate than it is now.
And with decreasing voter turnouts, it will only get more so.
And I think that's the reason so many are disengaging: They know that their vote is effectively worthless.
And it's not democracy when 2/3 of votes are worthless.
|
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Jul 8, 2024 9:39:56 GMT
So in Germany parliament represents the opinions of the electorate.
Whereas right now ours couldn't be less representative.
Rubbish. This government represents the majority who voted for it. PR means endless weak coalition governments often three or four way coalitions who never get anything done because they cant agree on anything. If we had PR we would still be in the EU. Why do you suppose the EU like PR? It ensures EU states are most unlikely to ever leave the EU. PR will see the end of majority rule and the end of democracy. Good point. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 8, 2024 9:40:32 GMT
Rubbish. This government represents the majority who voted for it... LOL! What does that even mean? This government doesn't represent the majority. It represents a minority of people who voted Labour. It means the government we get represents the majority of people who voted for it, the winners are the party who get most votes. I can see why some people think PR may be a good idea, but it isn't. PR produces weak coalition governments and causes all sorts of problems. Look at Belgium, without a functioning government for nearly two years because of PR, it caused huge problems in Italy. In the Netherlands in spite of the vote count PR kept the CDA in power for 17 years because under PR it's almost impossible for the electorate to throw a party out of government, and in Germany many people claim PR has allowed the far right into government. FPTP is not perfect, no voting system is. But PR is a case of the grass is greener on the other side, but once you get there you will quickly discover it's an illusion and once PR is adopted there will be no going back. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 8, 2024 9:46:32 GMT
LOL! What does that even mean? This government doesn't represent the majority. It represents a minority of people who voted Labour. It means the government we get represents the majority of people who voted for it, the winners are the party who get most votes. I can see why some people think PR may be a good idea, but it isn't. PR produces weak coalition governments and causes all sorts of problems. Look at Belgium, without a functioning government for nearly two years because of PR, it caused huge problems in Italy. In the Netherlands in spite of the vote count PR kept the CDA in power for 17 years because under PR it's almost impossible for the electorate to throw a party out of government, and in Germany many people claim PR has allowed the far right into government. FPTP is not perfect, no voting system is. But PR is a case of the grass is greener on the other side, but once you get there you will quickly discover it's an illusion and once PR is adopted there will be no going back. Yes, but as I said: It represents a minority of people who voted Labour.
This government is not representative. It holds a massive majority despite only approx 20% of the electorate voting for it.
I get your concern that PR can result in paralysis. Yep, that's valid.
But did you miss the last 5 years? The Tories had a large majority, still became mired in infighting and achieved nothing.
FPTP does not eliminate your concerns and introduces a whole lot more serious ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jul 8, 2024 10:12:07 GMT
It means the government we get represents the majority of people who voted for it, the winners are the party who get most votes. You seem to have a different interpretation of the word "majority" to me. Majority by definition should mean more than half, but whatever way you split the vote share Labour did not do that. Labour won the election because out of the 2 potential prime ministers, people favoured Starmer over Sunak. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 8, 2024 10:19:35 GMT
It means the government we get represents the majority of people who voted for it, the winners are the party who get most votes. You seem to have a different interpretation of the word "majority" to me. Majority by definition should mean more than half, but whatever way you split the vote share Labour did not do that. Labour won the election because out of the 2 potential prime ministers, people favoured Starmer over Sunak. Andrew, first-past-the-post is a voting system where voters cast a vote for a single candidate, and the candidate with the most votes wins the election. Unlike PR, FPTP is not complicated. More info here - link |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 8, 2024 10:20:52 GMT
It means the government we get represents the majority of people who voted for it, the winners are the party who get most votes. You seem to have a different interpretation of the word "majority" to me. Majority by definition should mean more than half, but whatever way you split the vote share Labour did not do that. Labour won the election because out of the 2 potential prime ministers, people favoured Starmer over Sunak. Or, given that both parties lost votes vs last time, people disfavoured Starmer less than they disfavoured Sunak.
Objectively there was no winner, just a least worst loser.
|
|
