Should we change the voting system in the UK?

Hi guys,
Do you think that the current first-past-the-post system is becoming increasingly outdated?
If so, what voting would you recommend we replace it with?
Personally, I think we could replace it with the Supplementary Vote. It has its advantages and disadvantages.
What do you think?

Reply 1

13WallisR

Yes definitely!! FPTP is outdated and does not do what it claims to do - I would prefer STV

Reply 2

PTMalewski

I think that only people who have passed university-level examn on logic, economy, political philosophy and international relations should be allowed to vote.

Reply 3

Napp

Original post by PTMalewski

I think that only people who have passed university-level examn on logic, economy, political philosophy and international relations should be allowed to vote.

What an outrageous suggestion, anything less than a Masters with merit should be discounted.

Reply 4

13WallisR

Original post by Napp

What an outrageous suggestion, anything less than a Masters with merit should be discounted.

I now see why Sir Humphrey is your profile picture... :smile:

Reply 5

avacados1

Original post by PTMalewski

I think that only people who have passed university-level examn on logic, economy, political philosophy and international relations should be allowed to vote.

As if the outcome only affects them- what a selfish way of thinking .

Reply 6

landscape2014

Keep the voting system, amalgamate adjacent constituencies and allow the first two past the post to be elected with the the power of the votes actually cast for them as an alternative to a non-representative MP being sent to parliament because they secured the largest minority of constituency votes.

Reply 7

username402722

Yes I would like to see a form of PR. I like the system used by the Irish Republic as you are represented by more than one person. More likely to be someone of the party you support, and also you can think about other aspects of representation (age, gender, ethnicity, for example).

Reply 8

Rakas21

Original post by RedAli23

Having seen the rise of UKIP, the Greens and Brexit Party in recent years I am substantially opposed to removing FPTP.

I would cut the HOC to 500 seats and abolish the fixed terms act but FPTP is the least worst of any other system.

Reply 9

Mr Daily Mail

I would have the Additional Member System for House of Commons elections with the size reduced to 600, either 300 single member constituencies and 300 elected via multi-member constituencies or 400 single member constituencies and 200 elected via multi-member constituencies.

I would also reform the House of Lords to an elected/partially elected Senate of the UK with 200 members, elected in halfs. Could maybe increase it to 300 and have 100 appointed members via some independent commission provided appointed members are not party affiliated and generally offer expertise.

Reply 10

username1799249

Original post by Rakas21

Why? If you live in a safe seat and oppose the incumbent you vote is. Worthless? Why bother Voting?

Reply 11

landscape2014

Original post by Rakas21

Just make it more democratic by electing the first two past the post.

Reply 12

Rakas21

Original post by landscape2014

Just make it more democratic by electing the first two past the post.

Interesting, has that been trialed anywhere?

Reply 13

landscape2014

Original post by Rakas21

Interesting, has that been trialed anywhere?

Not that I'm aware of, but it has at least three things to recommend it; 1) the present election procedure is retained, 2) The MPs go to parliament with the voting power they receive from their electorate, 3) The majority of electors' votes actually have a value in parliament so the cause of democracy is better served.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 14

PTMalewski

Original post by avacados1

As if the outcome only affects them- what a selfish way of thinking .

Specifically, if the outcome affects them, they should NOT be allowed to vote, for their own sake!

Ask yourself, if you were onboard of a sinking ship, would you prefer the situation to be handled by highly skilled autocrats- that is, the captain and his crew, or would you prefer to make a general election in which all passengers would vote on what to do and how?

Management of the state is even more complicated than handling an emergency situation on a sinking ship. It's irrational to believe that anyone, regardless if he or she has even a slightest knowledge on economics, law and other things, should have a right to decide on what policy should be follow.