Why don't we just add all the votes in elections?

Like instead of first past the post and the US eelctoral college, why don't we just add up the total votes for each canadidte and give the leadership to the party with the most total votes?

Reply 1

AlexS101

19

Because you wouldn't be able to have constituency MPs that way

Reply 2

Lauren-x-

13

What you're talking about is proportional representation. :smile:

In a way, that is a good thing as it's 'fairer' to those parties who just miss out on getting a seat, and gives smaller parties the chance to get a place in the Commons.

But it's not appropriate for Britain. Like the person above said, we wouldn't have constituency MPs and it's better for that region to be 'governed' by a party wanted by the majority in that area, rather than a party who did well the other side of the country, but are not necessarily popular within that region.

Tradition also has quite an impact; we're kinda stuck in our roots with the '2 party politics' system, with the Tories and Labour, and the negative viewpoint of the time the Lib Dems did have in the coalition government (tuition fees and all that stuff, even if some opinions are factually wrong) has solidified many peoples' attitudes in the uncertainty of a 'smaller party' being in control of the country.

Though if it were just for the PM, not the constituencies, then I see where you're coming from. Although combining the two won't be great as it may lead to (e.g.) a Labour Prime minister in a Commons which is Conservative-dominated. People are already confused enough about politics as it is, so leading to reforms (especially at the time of this Brexit drama) will just lead to further misunderstandings and disillusionment :tongue:

Reply 3

Lauren-x-

13

I meant in the way that some people may wrongly think that the reforms would somehow be reflected to solve our current problems, or expect them to, and then be disappointed and critical of the political system when nothing drastically improves (bc people suck & love to bash politics). Okay I probably didn't write that very clearly :erm:

Do you think we should reform the voting system? :smile:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 4

Ladbants

OP

21

Original post by AlexS101

Because you wouldn't be able to have constituency MPs that way

Original post by Lauren-x-

What you're talking about is proportional representation. :smile:

In a way, that is a good thing as it's 'fairer' to those parties who just miss out on getting a seat, and gives smaller parties the chance to get a place in the Commons.

But it's not appropriate for Britain. Like the person above said, we wouldn't have constituency MPs and it's better for that region to be 'governed' by a party wanted by the majority in that area, rather than a party who did well the other side of the country, but are not necessarily popular within that region.

Tradition also has quite an impact; we're kinda stuck in our roots with the '2 party politics' system, with the Tories and Labour, and the negative viewpoint of the time the Lib Dems did have in the coalition government (tuition fees and all that stuff, even if some opinions are factually wrong) has solidified many peoples' attitudes in the uncertainty of a 'smaller party' being in control of the country.

Though if it were just for the PM, not the constituencies, then I see where you're coming from. Although combining the two won't be great as it may lead to (e.g.) a Labour Prime minister in a Commons which is Conservative-dominated. People are already confused enough about politics as it is, so leading to reforms (especially at the time of this Brexit drama) will just lead to further misunderstandings and disillusionment :tongue:

But surely we could still constituency MPs if we count the votes for each constituency, determine which party won each constituency, then add up all the votes for the entire country and decide who won the national election?

Reply 5

Lauren-x-

13

Yes, that's what I tried to say in my last paragraph haha. Although the case I mentioned would be extremely unlikely, the more likely case would be that there would be no majority (as you wouldn't necessarily be using the 326 benchmark) so it'd be harder for the Prime Minister to get a mandate. For example: the 2010 election where the Conservatives got 306 seats and the most votes - in the scenario mentioned, with no majority it could so happen that all of the other parties would oppose any of the bills the Conservatives are in favour of, meaning it would be 344-306 against the bill and it wouldn't be approved (even if the Prime Minister was for it). It'd just drag out the time it takes to come to any conclusion or reforms. Though you could argue that it's a good thing, as then the laws/proposals accepted will not be 'biased' towards one particular party and may be better for the country, as they'd go under more scrutiny before being passed.

But I'm not all that clued up on this stuff, just suggesting some reasons as to why we don't use it (so please don't destroy me or take anything I've said as facts :colondollar:

). I've probably come across really anti-proportional representation now haha, but if anyone else could add anything then I'd love to read what you think (as I don't know much lol)

Reply 6

Retired_Messiah

21

Nobody actually cares about their MPs. If you changed how it worked very few people would care about the difference and it would actually be more representative of how most people actually want **** done

Why don't we just add all the votes in elections?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you