Go to first unread
Back
to top
Is our voting system flawed?
Watch
Announcements
Poll: Fair?
Yes, it dosen't need change
(2)
8.33%
No, it does need change
(19)
79.17%
What's the point, the system is forever corrupt
(3)
12.5%
The SNP got 4.7% of the vote but 56 seats. UKIP got 12.6% of the vote but only 1 seat. Surely (even though I despise UKIP as party) they should have gotten more MPs. As far as I am concerned this is the biggest problem facing British politics today. Is the current system fair?
0
reply
Report
#2
Of course it is. Name the last time a party other than Labour or the Conservatives were in power? (Excluding the Liberal Democrats) I mean a majority.
0
reply
Report
#3
(Original post by FinPOB)
The SNP got 4.7% of the vote but 56 seats. UKIP got 12.6% of the vote but only 1 seat. Surely (even though I despise UKIP as party) they should have gotten more MPs. As far as I am concerned this is the biggest problem facing British politics today. Is the current system fair?
The SNP got 4.7% of the vote but 56 seats. UKIP got 12.6% of the vote but only 1 seat. Surely (even though I despise UKIP as party) they should have gotten more MPs. As far as I am concerned this is the biggest problem facing British politics today. Is the current system fair?
Another Angry Voice has a good blog post about this.
http://www.anotherangryvoice.blogspo...votes-now.html
0
reply
So then if it is unfair what would we change it to? Proportional representation? The german weimar republic (gcse history
) used that system and it led to unstable coalitions in government which helped fuel extremism which led to the rise in the popularity of the Nazi party. And we all know what happened next.
) used that system and it led to unstable coalitions in government which helped fuel extremism which led to the rise in the popularity of the Nazi party. And we all know what happened next.
0
reply
(Original post by ageshallnot)
All voting systems have flaws.
All voting systems have flaws.
0
reply
Report
#7
(Original post by FinPOB)
So then if it is unfair what would we change it to? Proportional representation? The german weimar republic (gcse history) used that system and it led to unstable coalitions in government which helped fuel extremism which led to the rise in the popularity of the Nazi party. And we all know what happened next.
So then if it is unfair what would we change it to? Proportional representation? The german weimar republic (gcse history
) used that system and it led to unstable coalitions in government which helped fuel extremism which led to the rise in the popularity of the Nazi party. And we all know what happened next.
Nothing in the current system stopping extremist from getting into power if they focus regionally. An argument against PR on the basis that extremist could get into power is scare-mongering.
0
reply
Report
#9
(Original post by FinPOB)
Almost everything in life has flaws, but it's about which system has the least flaws
Almost everything in life has flaws, but it's about which system has the least flaws
0
reply
Report
#10
(Original post by FinPOB)
The SNP got 4.7% of the vote but 56 seats. UKIP got 12.6% of the vote but only 1 seat. Surely (even though I despise UKIP as party) they should have gotten more MPs. As far as I am concerned this is the biggest problem facing British politics today. Is the current system fair?
The SNP got 4.7% of the vote but 56 seats. UKIP got 12.6% of the vote but only 1 seat. Surely (even though I despise UKIP as party) they should have gotten more MPs. As far as I am concerned this is the biggest problem facing British politics today. Is the current system fair?
Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Report
#11
(Original post by FinPOB)
So then if it is unfair what would we change it to? Proportional representation? The german weimar republic (gcse history) used that system and it led to unstable coalitions in government which helped fuel extremism which led to the rise in the popularity of the Nazi party. And we all know what happened next.
So then if it is unfair what would we change it to? Proportional representation? The german weimar republic (gcse history
) used that system and it led to unstable coalitions in government which helped fuel extremism which led to the rise in the popularity of the Nazi party. And we all know what happened next.
My solution would be to have the same number of MPs, with boundaries decided independently -- not by the majority party. You would then have multiple MPs representing bigger constituencies, awarded on a more proportional basis to the amount of votes received, with a single transferable vote being applied, something more in keeping with the European parliament elections.
I guess that there would be a FPTP element still built in, with a party needing a majority of seats in parliament, but it should better represent the interests of the party that finishes second, third and fourth in each area of representation.
0
reply
Report
#12
Maybe im just a little cynical but who gives a rats ass, these parties are all the same now... we're on par with the yanks for a state with no real difference between the parties.
0
reply
(warning wall of opinionated text)
Fair point and I agree. Without article 48 Hitler would have had less power once elected in. Though to get in to power proportional representation helped him significantly. During 1919-33, there were twenty separate coalition governments and the longest government lasted only two years. This led to economic uncertainty due to constant government change and very few significant laws were passed due to the required support of a huge amount of parties to get a majority which in many cases, was virtually impossible. This led to disillusionment and perceived weakness of the government which fuelled support for extreme nationalism. While there were of course many other factors that led to Hitler's election, I believe proportional representation was a key one.
(Original post by jammy4041)
Proportional representation wasn't the issue in the Weimar Republic, it was Article 48, and the amount of power that was concentrated in the president that was the issue.
Proportional representation wasn't the issue in the Weimar Republic, it was Article 48, and the amount of power that was concentrated in the president that was the issue.
0
reply
Report
#14
(Original post by FinPOB)
(warning wall of opinionated text)
Fair point and I agree. Without article 48 Hitler would have had less power once elected in. Though to get in to power proportional representation helped him significantly. During 1919-33, there were twenty separate coalition governments and the longest government lasted only two years. This led to economic uncertainty due to constant government change and very few significant laws were passed due to the required support of a huge amount of parties to get a majority which in many cases, was virtually impossible. This led to disillusionment and perceived weakness of the government which fuelled support for extreme nationalism. While there were of course many other factors that led to Hitler's election, I believe proportional representation was a key one.
(warning wall of opinionated text)
Fair point and I agree. Without article 48 Hitler would have had less power once elected in. Though to get in to power proportional representation helped him significantly. During 1919-33, there were twenty separate coalition governments and the longest government lasted only two years. This led to economic uncertainty due to constant government change and very few significant laws were passed due to the required support of a huge amount of parties to get a majority which in many cases, was virtually impossible. This led to disillusionment and perceived weakness of the government which fuelled support for extreme nationalism. While there were of course many other factors that led to Hitler's election, I believe proportional representation was a key one.
But then again, I feel that the system I proposed should be conducive to creating a workable government. UKIP, the Lib Dems and the Green Party would hold the balance of power to create a workable majority. The left coalition would be Labour, the SNP, Plaid, and the Greens. The right coalition would be the Conservatives and UKIP, and I would suggest that the Lib Dems would be the kingmaker of the center.
I've always said that good government needs compromise, and that's what would have to happen with the more proportional system. There would still be an element of first past the post built in since it depends on regions, but allowing a more representative system, in that second place votes (could be of same parties, I guess), third place votes etc. would all then count.
0
reply
(Original post by jammy4041)
Fair enough. But here's where the comparison is slightly less apt: in the UK, there are now five year fixed terms, and that parliamentary elections cannot be called on a whim.
Fair enough. But here's where the comparison is slightly less apt: in the UK, there are now five year fixed terms, and that parliamentary elections cannot be called on a whim.
0
reply
Report
#16
Definitely, but I doubt it'll change.
The party in power (who got there via FPTP) will never agree to sacrificing their own votes.
The party in power (who got there via FPTP) will never agree to sacrificing their own votes.
0
reply
Report
#17
I just thought I should point out that the poll is a bit misleading. The thread is titled "Is our voting system flawed?" and yet the poll is for the question 'Is our voting system fair?'. While it is still possible to work this out, it certainly caused me some initial confusion and I suspect there are others who were thrown by it too. In terms of whether our voting system is flawed, I think my opinion can be summed up as if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Our political system doesn't claim to deal well with national parties; the reason UKIP did so much worse than the SNP despite their greater vote share is because our political system is based on local candidates and local issues. But our political system has been reasonably stable for centuries, unlike places like France where the country historically kept falling into disarray. It also lacks the problems of the USA, where a combination of voting on local issues and voting on national issues (for Congress and President respectivally) consistently leaves them with a legislature hostile to the executive and results in events such as the government shutdown due to political deadlock.
0
reply
Report
#18
(Original post by FinPOB)
So then if it is unfair what would we change it to? Proportional representation? The german weimar republic (gcse history) used that system and it led to unstable coalitions in government which helped fuel extremism which led to the rise in the popularity of the Nazi party. And we all know what happened next.
So then if it is unfair what would we change it to? Proportional representation? The german weimar republic (gcse history
) used that system and it led to unstable coalitions in government which helped fuel extremism which led to the rise in the popularity of the Nazi party. And we all know what happened next.
Look at the BNP as a more recent example. In the 2009 European elections (proportional voting system) they won just 2 seats out of 70-something. And the next election they were wiped out. The voting system does not give power to extremists, an electorate which supports those extremists does, because even under PR those parties need to get support to be able to win seats. The British public overwhelmingly rejects fascism, which is the real reason why the BNP never got any real power, not the voting system.
And let's be clear - "extremists" does not mean alternative/protest parties like the Greens, but to racists/fascists like the BNP.
0
reply
Report
#19
(Original post by FinPOB)
The SNP got 4.7% of the vote but 56 seats. UKIP got 12.6% of the vote but only 1 seat. Surely (even though I despise UKIP as party) they should have gotten more MPs. As far as I am concerned this is the biggest problem facing British politics today. Is the current system fair?
The SNP got 4.7% of the vote but 56 seats. UKIP got 12.6% of the vote but only 1 seat. Surely (even though I despise UKIP as party) they should have gotten more MPs. As far as I am concerned this is the biggest problem facing British politics today. Is the current system fair?
0
reply
Report
#20
Forgive my impudence for the on going discussion for a moment - I thought i'd just throw this one in to the pot: reading the parpers, and the posts on here, there are obviously many who are convinced that the voting system is flawed. So for them, I ask: to what extent do you feel it's the case of the voice of the rich being louder than the voice of the poor? Are the votes of the richest postcodes prioritised over that of the poor and in this way is the democracy that the voting system supposedly represents being drowned by a plutocratic flooding of the peoples voice.
How much privatization or selling of 'shares' in decision-making to private buyers by representetives, in exchange for wealth can the public sector hold before it becomes a characteristic of capitalism before it does a democracry?
How much privatization or selling of 'shares' in decision-making to private buyers by representetives, in exchange for wealth can the public sector hold before it becomes a characteristic of capitalism before it does a democracry?
0
reply
X
Quick Reply
