Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Goose)
    They don't get another vote. It's like asking for fish and chips in the chippy, they tell you they're out of fish so you have pie and chips instead. you've still only had one meal.

    exactly!
    and i think that it is risible the number of tories and labour politicians that bleat on about people getting more than one vote. maybe they have never changed their minds at a fish and chip shop. maybe they are thick. but a lot of them have oxbridge degrees. so in all likelihood they are just being disingenuous.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by melonhead12)
    It's refreshing to see so many votes for FPTP. Likewise to an earlier comment I don't like the idea of my vote going to another party. Also I don't understand why FPTP is considered unfair. If a party wins with 40% then agreed 60% didn't vote for them but it's not like the majority ALL voted for someone else. If someone would like to explain the cons of FPTP without biting my head off please do so I can make a more informed vote.
    say that there was a party that adavocated the tallest 40% of the population having the right to enslave all shorties. so tall people all vote for that party on the basis that they fancy having others to make them tea in the morning. but say that the oppostion is disorganised and divided.
    under first past the post, slavery wins the day.
    under AV, the anti-slavery vote would coalesce, such that the anti-slavery parties would tend to win.
    ....
    so there is your example.
    less melodramatically some people argue that the last century was the tory century because the centre left vote was divided between two parties.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tc323)
    - Bad at being proportional, alright in the 1950s where 95% went Labour or Conservative but with a significant third party proportionality suffers e.g: 1983 election Labour party with 27.6% of the UK vote won 32.2% of the seats… The alliance with 25.4% of the UK vote won only 3.5% of the seats

    - Lots of wasted votes, in constituency dosent matter if you come 2nd by 10,000 or 100 votes you still lose

    - party as a whole can win more votes but lose election e.g. Feb 1974 Heath won more votes but had 297 seats to Wilsons 301

    -Hard for small parties to gain representation e.g. UKIP in 2010 3.1% of vote, 920,000 votes but no seats
    Ah that definately makes more sense. What are the pros of FPTP if any now lol?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by melonhead12)
    Ah that definately makes more sense. What are the pros of FPTP if any now lol?
    The main virtue of FPTP is at the expense of proportionality it consistently delivers a single party majority government, negating the need for coalitions and creating "strong government" where excepting back bench revolts a government will remain in power until the next election. This means the government has a mandate to follow a clear policy line not the compromise of a coalition . Other reasons:

    -can quickly and cleanly get rid of an unpopular government which is not always guaranteed if coalitions have to be formed after each election.

    -(don't subscribe to this one personally) is familiar to the electorate with votes easy to both cast and count

    -Winner takes all on a single member constituency basis means smaller parties struggle to win, ergo smaller parties have to broaden their appeal to win seats which discourages extremism

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tc323)
    The main virtue of FPTP is at the expense of proportionality it consistently delivers a single party majority government, negating the need for coalitions and creating "strong government" where excepting back bench revolts a government will remain in power until the next election. This means the government has a mandate to follow a clear policy line not the compromise of a coalition .
    Yes even that argument is blown out of the water by the fact that we currently have a coalition, and that we have ha more coalition governments then Australia which uses the AV system.

    Personally I am a fan of STV which would lead to lots of coalition governments (But I don't think thats a bad thng)
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Azog 150)
    Yes even that argument is blown out of the water by the fact that we currently have a coalition, and that we have ha more coalition governments then Australia which uses the AV system.

    Personally I am a fan of STV which would lead to lots of coalition governments (But I don't think thats a bad thng)
    Absolutely right, and brings me back to my point - having AV will make PR less likely.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone have an essay, in a form of debate for "first past the post" system? Got test tomorrow
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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