Go to first unread
Back
to top
Short video showing why our voting system sucks
Watch this thread
ChaoticButterfly
Badges:
20
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
The spoiler effect is what is happening with Greens and Labour now.
Why can't we make a new better more representative system that lets people vote for what they actually want rather than voting for who you like least?
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/
1
reply
democracyforum
Badges:
4
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
MatureStudent36
Badges:
5
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
democracyforum
Badges:
4
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report
#4
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Ever thought people do get who they want?
Ever thought people do get who they want?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurroc...s_in_the_2010s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camborn...onstituency%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_W...2.E2.80.931885
FPP is dead.
The Av campaign was deliberately confusing and done badly. We need a new referendum, with a real debate on it.
The only problem is, many voters don't realise, you don't have to put down 1,2, or 3.
You could just select one candidate.
But what people may be too afraid to say is, are the British public smart enough for it ?
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges:
5
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report
#5
(Original post by democracyforum)
no
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurroc...s_in_the_2010s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camborn...onstituency%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_W...2.E2.80.931885
FPP is dead.
The Av campaign was deliberately confusing and done badly. We need a new referendum, with a real debate on it.
The only problem is, many voters don't realise, you don't have to put down 1,2, or 3.
You could just select one candidate.
But what people may be too afraid to say is, are the British public smart enough for it ?
no
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurroc...s_in_the_2010s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camborn...onstituency%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_W...2.E2.80.931885
FPP is dead.
The Av campaign was deliberately confusing and done badly. We need a new referendum, with a real debate on it.
The only problem is, many voters don't realise, you don't have to put down 1,2, or 3.
You could just select one candidate.
But what people may be too afraid to say is, are the British public smart enough for it ?
0
reply
william walker
Badges:
3
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report
#6
The problem isn't the voting system. The problem is one institution within the British nation state has to much power, the government. Changing the voting system will not solve this problem, in fact it would simply make the problem worse.
0
reply
democracyforum
Badges:
4
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report
#7
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
So basically you're saying that peole are stupid for disagreeing with you?
So basically you're saying that peole are stupid for disagreeing with you?
Well, look at the areas that voted majority Yes. Cambridge, Oxford.
No, I am saying, the campaign deliberately made it confusing and played on people's ignorance, and was a massive propaganda campaign. People were told a yes vote was a vote for the BNP and other rubbish designed to scare them.
We need another referendum on it from a majority government.
0
reply
dozyrosie
Badges:
5
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report
#8
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
The spoiler effect is what is happening with Greens and Labour now.
Why can't we make a new better more representative system that lets people vote for what they actually want rather than voting for who you like least?
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/
The spoiler effect is what is happening with Greens and Labour now.
Why can't we make a new better more representative system that lets people vote for what they actually want rather than voting for who you like least?
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/
We have had the referendum so abide by it, we don't need another until at least 2036, for the next generation.
0
reply
username402722
Badges:
19
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report
#9
I would prefer a form of PR, the Irish one I think is my preference as you are represented by several people, so more likely to be one or more whom you supported. The EU and London Assembly one with closed party lists I object to, as there could be an individual in a party whom I dislike, whilst liking the party overall.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges:
5
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#10
Report
#10
(Original post by democracyforum)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...,_2011#Polling
Well, look at the areas that voted majority Yes. Cambridge, Oxford.
No, I am saying, the campaign deliberately made it confusing and played on people's ignorance, and was a massive propaganda campaign. People were told a yes vote was a vote for the BNP and other rubbish designed to scare them.
We need another referendum on it from a majority government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...,_2011#Polling
Well, look at the areas that voted majority Yes. Cambridge, Oxford.
No, I am saying, the campaign deliberately made it confusing and played on people's ignorance, and was a massive propaganda campaign. People were told a yes vote was a vote for the BNP and other rubbish designed to scare them.
We need another referendum on it from a majority government.
Maybe people voted no because they didn't want it.
I don't.
0
reply
RF_PineMarten
Badges:
18
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#11
Report
#11
(Original post by dozyrosie)
I have voted with a PR system, and it is crap, it allows very minority parties to share power, in fact it allowed Hitler to succeed in Germany. FPP may not be a perfect system but it has worked well in Britain, giving us stable and balanced government.
We have had the referendum so abide by it, we don't need another until at least 2036, for the next generation.
I have voted with a PR system, and it is crap, it allows very minority parties to share power, in fact it allowed Hitler to succeed in Germany. FPP may not be a perfect system but it has worked well in Britain, giving us stable and balanced government.
We have had the referendum so abide by it, we don't need another until at least 2036, for the next generation.
And if they do, so what? If a protest party starts to gain support, other parties should act. e.g. If the greens had a surge in support, other parties might adopt stricter environmental policies.
If a protest party ends up in a coalition after a PR election, surely that is 100% the fault of other parties for not addressing those concerns, rather than the fault of the voting system through which that protest was eventually expressed?
It does help smaller parties, but it does that by eliminating tactical voting and making protest voting much more viable - the party still needs to have the support to be able to win seats. PR helps minority parties, but only if they represent a significant minority.
Hitler got into power because he had managed to build up enough support - the success he had would have happened under a FPTP system. The voting system was not the problem there.
0
reply
MindTheGaps
Badges:
17
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#12
Report
#12
I know it's a bit of a left-wing shibboleth, but I think the case against FPTP is pretty watertight. The establishment like it because it keeps them in power. That said traditional PR is also pants. Like the Lib Dems (ugh) I'd favour a single transferable vote system, giving a much larger amount of power to the voter, without shielding any MP from the ire of the electorate.
Pity the Lib Dems threw away the chance they had for real electoral change on AV, a compromise which wouldn't make the system fairer in any meaningful way, other than that it just happened to be the system which would most benefit them specifically.
Hitler got into power because he managed to convince Hindenburg the communist revolution had begun, and he needed just a little bit of unlimited power (which he would give back, honest) to protect Germany. Even in a particularly painful time for Germany, he only ever reached about a third of the German vote. But oh well.
Pity the Lib Dems threw away the chance they had for real electoral change on AV, a compromise which wouldn't make the system fairer in any meaningful way, other than that it just happened to be the system which would most benefit them specifically.
(Original post by RFowler)
Hitler got into power because he had managed to build up enough support - the success he had would have happened under a FPTP system. The voting system was not the problem there.
Hitler got into power because he had managed to build up enough support - the success he had would have happened under a FPTP system. The voting system was not the problem there.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges:
20
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#13
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Ever thought people do get who they want?
Ever thought people do get who they want?
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges:
20
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#14
(Original post by dozyrosie)
I have voted with a PR system, and it is crap, it allows very minority parties to share power, in fact it allowed Hitler to succeed in Germany. FPP may not be a perfect system but it has worked well in Britain, giving us stable and balanced government.
We have had the referendum so abide by it, we don't need another until at least 2036, for the next generation.
I have voted with a PR system, and it is crap, it allows very minority parties to share power, in fact it allowed Hitler to succeed in Germany. FPP may not be a perfect system but it has worked well in Britain, giving us stable and balanced government.
We have had the referendum so abide by it, we don't need another until at least 2036, for the next generation.
0
reply
RF_PineMarten
Badges:
18
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#15
Report
#15
The argument about FPTP keeping extremists in check is something I've always had problems with.
It's basically saying "we can't have a fairer voting system because the British public will all vote for the BNP if we do that". It's stupid and incredibly insulting to the British public to say that extremist parties would be voted in to positions of power if we change the voting system. In the 2009 European elections, the BNP won 2 seats out of 70-something in a proportional system, and that was their peak - they lost both those seats in 2014, and have lost lots of non-PR council seats as well.
It's not the voting system that keeps fascists and similar extremists out of government. The British public overwhelmingly rejecting the racism of parties like the BNP is what keeps extremists out of government.
It's basically saying "we can't have a fairer voting system because the British public will all vote for the BNP if we do that". It's stupid and incredibly insulting to the British public to say that extremist parties would be voted in to positions of power if we change the voting system. In the 2009 European elections, the BNP won 2 seats out of 70-something in a proportional system, and that was their peak - they lost both those seats in 2014, and have lost lots of non-PR council seats as well.
It's not the voting system that keeps fascists and similar extremists out of government. The British public overwhelmingly rejecting the racism of parties like the BNP is what keeps extremists out of government.
0
reply
The_Mighty_Bush
Badges:
3
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#16
Report
#16
I agree that we need a proportional or more proportional system. Not sure which one is best though, any ideas?
0
reply
democracyforum
Badges:
4
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#17
Report
#17
People voted no to AV to spite Nick Clegg.
We demand a new referendum.
AV favours centrists and the Lib Dems and second favourite.
FPTP favours quality, not quantity.
PR favours quantity.
You decide.
We demand a new referendum.
AV favours centrists and the Lib Dems and second favourite.
FPTP favours quality, not quantity.
PR favours quantity.
You decide.
0
reply
IBIB
Badges:
2
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#18
Report
#18
It would be harder to form a government because a coalition would often have to be made up of more smaller parties. More instability because of greater idealogical differences etc
0
reply
B-FJL3
Badges:
5
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#19
Report
#19
In two minds about that video. It did make the topic easily digestible but it also drew some rather debatable conclusions.
FPTP does not make a two party system inevitable, whatever "math" might think about it (if it does I'd appreciate some actual proof of that rather than a cartoon of a blackboard full of "math" and a meaningless graph). It then made the assumption (at around 04:00 I think) that, once a two-party system was in place, 60% or so actually didn't want the two parties that had secured 49% and 51% of the vote. Well no actually because it's very simple: if you actually don't want a party, then don't vote for them because if you do then they'll tend to get into power.
People get the politicians and the government they deserve. If they behave in such a defeatist manner, switching their votes to other parties because they think "oh well... our guy will never win anyway" then yes, you might end up with a two party system. If you vote properly and go with what you believe, and try and persuade others of that too, and maybe put a bit more effort in... well then maybe you might get the MP or even the government you want.
The whole argument is indicative of the current rather selfish, childish and individualistic attitude of "Why can't I get what I want? I voted for this guy and he never wins, so I'm going to go and have a big sulk over it and never vote again." It ignores the fact that you have had your say and you have had your voice heard, because that is exactly what happens when you cast your vote!
Besides every MP is duty-bound to serve the interests of all his constituents, including those who did not vote for him... so you can be represented if you get off your arse and go and speak to him. I didn't vote for my MP but when I wanted him to do something for me, I made an appointment, he actually came to my house and I told him what I wanted done.
All this is not to say that other voting systems don't have their merits, I just don't believe in changing something for the sake of it. It must be proven that it will change things for the better.
FPTP does not make a two party system inevitable, whatever "math" might think about it (if it does I'd appreciate some actual proof of that rather than a cartoon of a blackboard full of "math" and a meaningless graph). It then made the assumption (at around 04:00 I think) that, once a two-party system was in place, 60% or so actually didn't want the two parties that had secured 49% and 51% of the vote. Well no actually because it's very simple: if you actually don't want a party, then don't vote for them because if you do then they'll tend to get into power.
People get the politicians and the government they deserve. If they behave in such a defeatist manner, switching their votes to other parties because they think "oh well... our guy will never win anyway" then yes, you might end up with a two party system. If you vote properly and go with what you believe, and try and persuade others of that too, and maybe put a bit more effort in... well then maybe you might get the MP or even the government you want.
The whole argument is indicative of the current rather selfish, childish and individualistic attitude of "Why can't I get what I want? I voted for this guy and he never wins, so I'm going to go and have a big sulk over it and never vote again." It ignores the fact that you have had your say and you have had your voice heard, because that is exactly what happens when you cast your vote!
Besides every MP is duty-bound to serve the interests of all his constituents, including those who did not vote for him... so you can be represented if you get off your arse and go and speak to him. I didn't vote for my MP but when I wanted him to do something for me, I made an appointment, he actually came to my house and I told him what I wanted done.
All this is not to say that other voting systems don't have their merits, I just don't believe in changing something for the sake of it. It must be proven that it will change things for the better.
0
reply
QuantumOverlord
Badges:
16
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#20
X
Quick Reply
