|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jul 12, 2024 13:40:03 GMT
You're not paying attention. The SNP only had to appeal to 80,000 voters to secure each of its seats in the Westminster parliament, while Reform needed over ten times as many for each of the five seats it won.
There is something very wrong with this calculus and silly arm-waving about regional versus national does make it any less wrong.
A Westminster seat ought to be worth the same number of votes no matter what the party or where the constituency is situated. That is, after all, the basis on which constituency boundaries are defined, and are re-defined from time to time.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jul 12, 2024 13:54:59 GMT
You're not paying attention. The SNP only had to appeal to 80,000 voters to secure each of its seats in the Westminster parliament, while Reform needed over ten times as many for each of the five seats it won. There is something very wrong with this calculus and silly arm-waving about regional versus national does make it any less wrong. A Westminster seat ought to be worth the same number of votes no matter what the party or where the constituency is situated. That is, after all, the basis on which constituency boundaries are defined, and are re-defined from time to time. rubbish. The snp got 30% of its electorate turnout , thus should have got 17 seats , and reform got 14% of its electorates turnout , so 91 seats by my reckoning. I can't help it dan if you can't recognise reality , and want to inhabit some fantasy universe where scotland and black people dont exist. Britain isnt a single country , it's the name of an island that is part of the uk multi national state. If you want a multi national parliament , with the various nations sending representatives , then you have to recognise reality . If you want an English only parliament , then exclude the "Celtic" representatives , in recognition of devolution and the existing Celtic parliaments. Dan wants his cake and to eat it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2024 15:11:34 GMT
Labour won because their leader was not Boris, Liz or Rishi.
It was not their policies it was because they weren't Tories.
They increased their vote share by 1%, so the electorate were not that enamoured.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hutchyns on Jul 12, 2024 16:26:11 GMT
thomas I quite agree that no one is going to convince you otherwise  . As you say, you know how fptp works, and thinking back to Election night, you'll recall how often the various Returning Officers, when reading out the results just read out the names of individuals and the number of votes received, and sometimes we get a voice from the TV studio telling us which Party. You still discount this to the extent of saying it is a Political Party rather than candidate who get the votes (as in bold above), and therefore I do quite see why a Proportional Representation system would better suit the way you prefer to translate the votes cast ....lumping them together into one big Election, rather that accepting we hold 600 separate elections simultaneously, or some other method of marginalising if not eradicating the individual, and making us choose only our favoured Party instead. Proportional Representation isn't entirely bad, but as was the case of the Referendum we had on changing our Electoral system, once the British public were given the full picture, and grasped what they'd be giving up by relinquishing FPTP, and the transfer of influence that Party machines and officials would gain, with the power to hire or fire the individual MP no longer the exclusive domain of the constituencies electorate, I'd expect them to weigh the pros and cons, and again vote conclusively to retain FPTP. |
|
. As you say, you know how fptp works, and thinking back to Election night, you'll recall how often the various Returning Officers, when reading out the results just read out the names of individuals and the number of votes received, and sometimes we get a voice from the TV studio telling us which Party. You still discount this to the extent of saying it is a Political Party rather than candidate who get the votes (as in bold above), and therefore I do quite see why a Proportional Representation system would better suit the way you prefer to translate the votes cast ....lumping them together into one big Election, rather that accepting we hold 600 separate elections simultaneously, or some other method of marginalising if not eradicating the individual, and making us choose only our favoured Party instead.