Back
to top
Should we be able to vote for the prime minister? Watch
Announcements
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
In a general election voters do not vote for the prime minister. Strictly speaking they do not even vote for a party. What they do vote for is a candidate to represent their constituency.
However, large numbers of people think along the lines of voting for a prime minister even if a party leader is not contesting their constituency rather than voting for a candidate.
Should we have a system of two votes:
1. For an MP for the local constituency.
2. For the prime minister - in the form of a national vote.
Similar to the London Assembly elections where there is a separate vote for the mayor and for the local assembly member.
Voters will be allowed to vote for candidates from different parties for their constituency MP and the prime minister.
It will be technically possible to have a prime minister from a party that does not have the largest number of MPs.
However, large numbers of people think along the lines of voting for a prime minister even if a party leader is not contesting their constituency rather than voting for a candidate.
Should we have a system of two votes:
1. For an MP for the local constituency.
2. For the prime minister - in the form of a national vote.
Similar to the London Assembly elections where there is a separate vote for the mayor and for the local assembly member.
Voters will be allowed to vote for candidates from different parties for their constituency MP and the prime minister.
It will be technically possible to have a prime minister from a party that does not have the largest number of MPs.
0
reply
Report
#2
No.
I prefer the existing system where constituents choose their local MP and political parties choose their leadership candidate for PM.
I prefer the existing system where constituents choose their local MP and political parties choose their leadership candidate for PM.
0
reply
Report
#3
(Original post by Arran90)
In a general election voters do not vote for the prime minister. Strictly speaking they do not even vote for a party. What they do vote for is a candidate to represent their constituency.
However, large numbers of people think along the lines of voting for a prime minister even if a party leader is not contesting their constituency rather than voting for a candidate.
Should we have a system of two votes:
1. For an MP for the local constituency.
2. For the prime minister - in the form of a national vote.
Similar to the London Assembly elections where there is a separate vote for the mayor and for the local assembly member.
Voters will be allowed to vote for candidates from different parties for their constituency MP and the prime minister.
It will be technically possible to have a prime minister from a party that does not have the largest number of MPs.
In a general election voters do not vote for the prime minister. Strictly speaking they do not even vote for a party. What they do vote for is a candidate to represent their constituency.
However, large numbers of people think along the lines of voting for a prime minister even if a party leader is not contesting their constituency rather than voting for a candidate.
Should we have a system of two votes:
1. For an MP for the local constituency.
2. For the prime minister - in the form of a national vote.
Similar to the London Assembly elections where there is a separate vote for the mayor and for the local assembly member.
Voters will be allowed to vote for candidates from different parties for their constituency MP and the prime minister.
It will be technically possible to have a prime minister from a party that does not have the largest number of MPs.
We are not America. We already have a head of state. What we need is a head of government, and that's exactly what we get when we vote in the current system.
0
reply
Report
#4
I swing on this, I like some aspects of the current system but I think a general is a general election and the lines get too blurred between national and local issues.
So yes for me, but a cautious yes because it largely will depend on what alternative system is proposed
So yes for me, but a cautious yes because it largely will depend on what alternative system is proposed
0
reply
One reason why I put the idea forward is because people tend to overlook and ignore their local MP under the current system but instead focus their attention on the PM.
0
reply
Report
#6
FPTP is a dead relic - as soon as people vote for the candidate/party they identify with and not tactical nonsense or living in a "safe seat" - dont think we need to vote for a head of government though, like other countries happy for them to choose their leaders
Last edited by BlueIndigoViolet; 2 months ago
0
reply
Report
#7
(Original post by BlueIndigoViolet)
FTTP is a dead relic - as soon as people vote for the candidate/party they identify with and not tactical nonsense or living in a "safe seat" - dont think we need to vote for a head of government though, like other countries happy for them to choose their leaders
FTTP is a dead relic - as soon as people vote for the candidate/party they identify with and not tactical nonsense or living in a "safe seat" - dont think we need to vote for a head of government though, like other countries happy for them to choose their leaders
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
