| |
|
|||
|
||||
|
|
IMPORTANT PLEASE READ This website and forum has been living on borrowed web server time for years. At the end of this month silsden.net in it's present form will cease to exist, BUT there is a new silsden.net in the making, and a new forum, and lots of exciting new things coming to this space. Peter |
back
to Have Your Say !!!! | back to forum index | login
|
sign
up | help
| latest topics | search
Replies in this thread : 12
Author |
Topic : First Past The Post is just WRONG! |
|
| jonno |
this post has been edited 3 time(s) I don't know if you know how the First Past the Post method of voting works here in the UK but if you did maybe you'd agree with me about how wrong it is. To explain as simply as possible lets imagine a very small country with just two areas, Keighley & Silsden. Each has three candidates up for election, 1 tory, 1 labour and 1 libdem. votes are cast as follows ...............Tory.........Labour.....Libdem Keighley.......60,000.......90,000.....30,000 Silsden........20,000.......30,000.....10,000 total votes....80,000.......120,000....40,000 So these votes would return 2 labour members of parliament even though they had only 50% of the total votes cast. So the people who didn't vote labour might as well not have turned out to vote as their votes count for nothing. The people who voted labour in Keighley after the first 60,001 labour votes were cast didn't need to have turned up either, they wasted their time. Or another example, Say the votes in five places were cast as:- ..........Tory......Labour....Libdem 1..........10........1..........8 2..........1.........10.........8 3..........10........1..........8 4..........1.........10.........8 5..........10........1..........8 6..........1.........10.........8 total votes 33.......33.........48 % of votes 28%......28%........42% MPs returned 3.......3..........0 So although Libdem have the most votes overall, they would get no MPs elected, while Labour & Tory would get three each even though they only got 28% each of the total votes cast. This happens purely because support for certain parties is concentrated in a few constituencies. This actually happend in Scotland in the last election, despite Labour having more votes overall in Scotland, concentrated Libdem support in a few areas meant they had more Scottish MPs elected. What we need is fully proportional representation now! (PS Peter, does this forum software support anything like PRE or CODE tags to help with layout of tables?) __________________ sorry, the forum formating capabilities are very basic  Peter |
|
| gazzer |
So you would rather have a system where the who came say third would have a bigger say on policy than the party who comes 1st or 2nd depending on which party 3rd place supports. Its a recipe for disaster and would end up with elections every 6 months when the parties fall out. Usually first past the post produces strong government whilst PR could possibly leave the Scottish Nationalists holding the balance of power on the whole UK Government. |
|
| ted |
another way of looking at it: Even if the tories get in this time the chances are that labour and libdems will get more votes combined then the tories. So we could have a right wing gorvernment in a liberal society. |
|
| jonno |
@gazzer, I would rather have a system where the party with the most votes has the most power in government. There is nothing to suggest that the 1st and 2nd placed parties couldn't agree compromises on issues to enable things to move forwards. FPTP may produce governments with strong majorities in the House of Commons but it disenfranchises a large percentage of the electorate and is basically undemocratic in that it can allow a party with significantly less than 50% of the votes to take power. |
|
| carliol |
this post has been edited 2 time(s) Work this out, if the % votes are cast as follows, each main party would get seats:- Labour 28% 276 seats Cons 33% 245 seats Libdem 30% 100 seats (Balance of figures is Others) So the party with the lowest % of votes gets the most seats! System is rigged, not democratic. Ask Labour how they have managed to rig it. |
|
| gazzer |
Politicians are bent enough without having a system where parties do secret deals with each other. These deals wont be for the benefit of the public but just benefit of politicians. |
|
| ilyama |
quoteWork this out, if the % votes are cast as follows, each main party would get seats:- Labour 28% 276 seats Cons 33% 245 seats Libdem 30% 100 seats (Balance of figures is Others) So the party with the lowest % of votes gets the most seats! System is rigged, not democratic. Ask Labour how they have managed to rig it. If Labour have "rigged it" then how come they didn't do so between 1979 and 1997 ? |
|
| old_miner |
The single transferable vote system is a good system. It maintains the constituency system which I think is better than the list system. All you do is list the candidates in order of preference. You can list all, or just one. Basically if on the first count does not have 50% or more of the vote then the bottom candidate drops off and their second and third votes redistributed. This continues until one candidate has a majority, usually over half the votes cast. It is probably possible for less than 50% to win only if people do not give second and third preferences, but no where as out of balance as the present system. The trouble with pure list systems is the ability of 'nutter' parties to get a few candidates elected. Israel suffers from this. |
|
| carliol |
this post has been edited 2 time(s) ilyama...as it now clearly favours Labour above all others, I am entitled to be suspicious! Constituency boundaries are changed frequently, supposedly without political interference, but who knows these days? Labour have allowed more immigration (they vote Labour), they employ more public sector workers (they vote Labour), they set up hundreds of Quangos (they vote Labour). Turkeys don't vote for Xmas. The point I was trying to make was that number of seats don't relate to total votes cast, but seats hold the power. |
|
| ilyama |
quoteilyama...as it now clearly favours Labour above all others, I am entitled to be suspicious! Constituency boundaries are changed frequently, supposedly without political interference, but who knows these days? Labour have allowed more immigration (they vote Labour), they employ more public sector workers (they vote Labour), they set up hundreds of Quangos (they vote Labour). Turkeys don't vote for Xmas. The point I was trying to make was that number of seats don't relate to total votes cast, but seats hold the power. rigging it....? www.heraldscotland.com/warning-of-super-sized-constituencies-under-tory-proposals-1.848970 |
|
| carliol |
thanks for that ilyama....looks like a great idea to me...less MP's, fairer split on voter numbers, supported by Libdems who want even less MP's. Couldn't have put it better! Where's the "rigging" in suggesting a more common sense and equal approach? Unless it upsets the existing Labour bias I suppose. |
|
| localman |
at least people who vote BNP, ukip, green party would all get a say in how this messed up country is run  |
|
| old_miner |
The 'nutter' parties only get a look in if there is a system of national party lists. A PR maintaining constiuencies is less likely. OK, I do not think the Greens are 'nutters', but the rest! |
|
| Replies in this thread : 12 |
|
events sale / wanted general have your say looking for.. skippy greengrass |
|
DON'T FORGET THE SUBJECT IS >>>>>>>> Forums Home > Have Your Say !!!! > First Past The Post is just WRONG! |
|||
|
<< HOME PAGE < RETURN ^ PAGE TOP ^ | ||
 |
|||
|
webenquiries to |
||
20/04/2010 : 11:30:27 
22/04/2010 : 09:00:57