if there was an election tomorow

Announcements Posted on
How helpful is our apprenticeship zone? Have your say with our short survey 02-12-2016
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by asmuse123)
    Yeah, sure, because saying "F*ck you" to the 48%, out of the 72% who voted, who wanted to stay is so democratic.
    It's a lot more democratic that saying f you to the 52%
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by New- Emperor)
    The Tories seem to have got worse after Cameron (pig fancier) left office and
    now seem quite elitist.
    I didn't know that the Tories were not elitist before.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Labour, of course. The only alternative to a weak, insular and infighting Tory government.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Tory.

    Labour have elected an extremist, the Lib Dems have abandoned the coalition years and have turned on the Tories and although James is preferable to Farage, they still come across as being a party who blames others for the countries personal failings.

    I do prefer Cameron to May though, i think the country will miss him in time.

    Where do you think May stands economically in comparison to Cameron? At the moment she almost seems to be peddling an anti-uber wealthy type message such as 'make boardrooms publish pay' and 'go tough on tax avoiders' etc. Not that I expect her to do the latter though.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    My answer is and in all likeliness always will be Labour under the current electoral system.
    However that is not because I really agree with Corbyn, nor that I really agree with the Blairites. But rather the fact that our electoral system makes it entirely pointless to vote for a party that I actually would support.

    I'd love it if we had PR so that the public would have a genuine array of choices, be far better represented and there would be no gerrymandering or tactical voting.

    The Tories would split into the hard right and the 'modernisers', Labour would split into the Corbynite left and the Social Democrats.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    My answer is and in all likeliness always will be Labour under the current electoral system.
    However that is not because I really agree with Corbyn, nor that I really agree with the Blairites. But rather the fact that our electoral system makes it entirely pointless to vote for a party that I actually would support.

    I'd love it if we had PR so that the public would have a genuine array of choices, be far better represented and there would be no gerrymandering or tactical voting.

    The Tories would split into the hard right and the 'modernisers', Labour would split into the Corbynite left and the Social Democrats.
    PR is so much worse, though. It gives overwhelmingly disproportionate power to small parties.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    PR is so much worse, though. It gives overwhelmingly disproportionate power to small parties.
    How is it disproportionate if they would be receiving a number of seats proportionate to their votes?

    The only reason UKIP are a small party is because of the electoral system. If seats were attributed fairly to votes, they would have around 60-80 seats.

    Instead they have one seat for four million votes. How is that proportionate?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I'm so happy to see the left in disarray.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    How is it disproportionate if they would be receiving a number of seats proportionate to their votes?

    The only reason UKIP are a small party is because of the electoral system. If seats were attributed fairly to votes, they would have around 60-80 seats.

    Instead they have one seat for four million votes. How is that proportionate?
    If you can't gain a large amount of support in more than 1 area it really says a lot
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zayn008)
    If you can't gain a large amount of support in more than 1 area it really says a lot
    Not really.
    Is it democratic that the SNP gets 1.5 million votes and 56 seats and UKIP gets four million votes and just one seat?

    Why does it matter where the votes are?

    It's amazing that so many wanted Brexit because the EU was undemocratic yet support an electoral system in which one party can get over twice as many votes as another and have 56 times less seats.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    How is it disproportionate if they would be receiving a number of seats proportionate to their votes?

    The only reason UKIP are a small party is because of the electoral system. If seats were attributed fairly to votes, they would have around 60-80 seats.

    Instead they have one seat for four million votes. How is that proportionate?

    You get a magnified coalition effect, where a small party (or parties) get to act as kingmakers and can make all sorts of demands that would never be entertained - either in coalition, or to support a minority government.

    There was an IPSOS poll in August - just take that as an example. It has CON 40%, LAB 34%, LIB 8%, UKIP14%, GRN 4%.The realistic coalitions there are Con/UKIP or Lab/Lib/Green - either way, the big parties have to make policy that they almost certainly never would, or certainly not to the magnitude that can be demanded. LAB/LIB might not be too far off the reservation, but what price would the Greens ask to put Labour into power? Realistically they could name any one of their crackpot policies, and Labour would have to agree if they want to be in government. Similarly, what would UKIP demand from the Tories? Certainly not something they think the Tories might deliver anyway, like immigration controls. They might want a 4 places on the cabinet - for a party that has no hope of forming its own government.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Not really.
    Is it democratic that the SNP gets 1.5 million votes and 56 seats and UKIP gets four million votes and just one seat?

    Why does it matter where the votes are?

    It's amazing that so many wanted Brexit because the EU was undemocratic yet support an electoral system in which one party can get over twice as many votes as another and have 56 times less seats.
    That's only an issue for the losers - the biggest party usually gets to form the government in FPTP. It also delivers certainty and strong government unless there's a hung parliament.

    PR will almost always deliver a coalition.

    Think about the situation we have at the moment - on the 2015 GE result, the Tories can form a government with a majority - but critically, they have to get UKIP on board (giving them 49.5%) at what cost? A UKIP home secretary?They would still be .5% short to command a majority - so they'd obviously turn to the UUP and DUP. Two parties with about 0.5% of the national vote share - but who can now basically hold the government to ransom for their own demands. How is it fair that a party with 0.5% vote share gets to pick who becomes PM?
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Donkey******)
    Green.

    Theresa May needs a trip to Switzerland, Corbyn hasn't got half the back bone he promised us, the Lib Dems really are the chocolate tea pot party, and let's not get started on UKIP, we know what they are, they serve no purpose but appeasing that racist bloke down the pub who keeps talking to you but you really wish he'd stop breathing on you.

    The Greens aren't ideal by any stretch, but I disagree with less of what they stand for than the rest of them.
    KIinda done that already
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Definitely Tory.

    The Conservatives are the only party who can provide us with stability for the future and an effective Brexit negotiation. Labour are a joke and the Lib Dems are just sore remainers, UKIP are 'fruitcake loonies' and the Greens are just tree worshippers.

    I believe that Theresa May will turn out to be a strong, pragmatic leader who can build on the economy recovery made by Cameron, as well as continuing with social compassion.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    You get a magnified coalition effect, where a small party (or parties) get to act as kingmakers and can make all sorts of demands that would never be entertained - either in coalition, or to support a minority government.

    There was an IPSOS poll in August - just take that as an example. It has CON 40%, LAB 34%, LIB 8%, UKIP14%, GRN 4%.The realistic coalitions there are Con/UKIP or Lab/Lib/Green - either way, the big parties have to make policy that they almost certainly never would, or certainly not to the magnitude that can be demanded. LAB/LIB might not be too far off the reservation, but what price would the Greens ask to put Labour into power? Realistically they could name any one of their crackpot policies, and Labour would have to agree if they want to be in government. Similarly, what would UKIP demand from the Tories? Certainly not something they think the Tories might deliver anyway, like immigration controls. They might want a 4 places on the cabinet - for a party that has no hope of forming its own government.
    This is all rather irrelevant to the point of representative democracy.
    If four million people vote UKIP, they deserve to have a proportionate number of MPs to their vote.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    That's only an issue for the losers - the biggest party usually gets to form the government in FPTP. It also delivers certainty and strong government unless there's a hung parliament.

    PR will almost always deliver a coalition.

    Think about the situation we have at the moment - on the 2015 GE result, the Tories can form a government with a majority - but critically, they have to get UKIP on board (giving them 49.5%) at what cost? A UKIP home secretary?They would still be .5% short to command a majority - so they'd obviously turn to the UUP and DUP. Two parties with about 0.5% of the national vote share - but who can now basically hold the government to ransom for their own demands. How is it fair that a party with 0.5% vote share gets to pick who becomes PM?
    I don't see coalitions as bad things. I prefer a system where parties are forced to compromise with one another and that way people who voted for them are actually represented somewhat. In our current system, the 36% who voted for tory get everything, while the other 64% get nothing. How is that democratic?

    It works in Germany, it can work here.

    Your example holds that every single other MP would have to vote against the government which obviously would not be the case.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I don't see coalitions as bad things. I prefer a system where parties are forced to compromise with one another.

    It works in Germany, it can work here.

    Your example holds that every single other MP would have to vote against the government which obviously would not be the case.
    It probably would be the case. Without it, there's no working majority. There's also no real compromises to be made. The only people compromising are those in coalition - in the English example, the Tories only have to come to an agreement with UKIP. In the national example, they are just dealing with UKIP and the Ulster Unionists - and it won't be compromise - the little parties will just be making demands.And the losers? Well, no-one is compromising with them.

    Sure, you might like the idea that UKIP get 4m votes and get more seats. But the flip side of that is what might realistically happen. If you vote for a party, and that party wins - you expect to get that party's policies.

    Say you're a shipbuilder, staunch union man. You vote Labour, and Labour gets the biggest share, but has to throw in with the Greens to get a majority. The price the Greens demand is cancelling Trident upgrades, and you're out of a job. Never in your imagination could you have thought that voting for a party - that then wins - would lead to a policy directly against your own interest like this.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I don't see coalitions as bad things. I prefer a system where parties are forced to compromise with one another and that way people who voted for them are actually represented somewhat. In our current system, the 36% who voted for tory get everything, while the other 64% get nothing. How is that democratic?

    It works in Germany, it can work here.

    Your example holds that every single other MP would have to vote against the government which obviously would not be the case.
    I didn't realise that we don't vote on a constituency basis but a national winner takes all basis...

    Regardless, something tells me that you would prefer straight Tory to Tories appeasing UKIP

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I didn't realise that we don't vote on a constituency basis but a national winner takes all basis...

    Regardless, something tells me that you would prefer straight Tory to Tories appeasing UKIP

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I never said we didn't vote on a constituency basis. However it is undemocratic in a broad sense that four million votes nationally equates to just one seat.

    I support an electoral system that produces a proportionate votes to seats ratio across the country which will get rid of tactical voting and gerrymandering.

    Of course I would support straight Tory than UKIP+Tory, but i'd much rather have the latter if it meant having a truly proportionate electoral system.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    It probably would be the case. Without it, there's no working majority. There's also no real compromises to be made. The only people compromising are those in coalition - in the English example, the Tories only have to come to an agreement with UKIP. In the national example, they are just dealing with UKIP and the Ulster Unionists - and it won't be compromise - the little parties will just be making demands.And the losers? Well, no-one is compromising with them.

    Sure, you might like the idea that UKIP get 4m votes and get more seats. But the flip side of that is what might realistically happen. If you vote for a party, and that party wins - you expect to get that party's policies.

    Say you're a shipbuilder, staunch union man. You vote Labour, and Labour gets the biggest share, but has to throw in with the Greens to get a majority. The price the Greens demand is cancelling Trident upgrades, and you're out of a job. Never in your imagination could you have thought that voting for a party - that then wins - would lead to a policy directly against your own interest like this.
    You seem to be missing the point of a PR system.
    In Germany, parties are far more co-operative with each other. There's less of an us vs them mentality and far more collaboration.

    I want that here. I don't want 36% of the country to get everything they want and 64% to get nothing.

    I firmly believe that people should be represented fairly and proportionately. What happens after is largely irrelevant. UKIP get 18% of the vote, they deserve 18% of the MPs.

    PR systems work elsewhere. They can work here.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 6, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
Would you rather have...?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.