An explanation of why FPTP isnt fair

[bazjea]

Thats not what I asked - how many countries use FPTP that involves only one round of voting?

 

A quick look in wikipedia shows basically no western democracies use the FPTP system we have.

 

Quote from Electorial Reform Society

 

" Of the many countries that use FPTP, the most commonly cited are the

UK, the US, India and Canada."

 

I think those would be most upset, to be thought of as not democracies

[nightrider]

Quote from Electorial Reform Society

 

" Of the many countries that use FPTP, the most commonly cited are the

UK, the US, India and Canada."

 

I think those would be most upset, to be thought of as not democracies

 

I did not say no, I said "basically no" - i.e. most western democracies do NOT use the same system as us. Of course that implies some do, but most don't.

[nightrider]

Possibly because their electorate is not comprised of Lib Dems!

 

right - so you mean they know they are not popular enough to actually win a real majority, so they want to keep hold of a voting system that is rigged in their favour. Well they won't be feeling so pleased at a no vote so much once the Tories adjust the constituency boundaries and they find themselves locked out under FPTP from now on...

[just a bloke]

Surely the biggest issue of them all is the fact that, for whatever reason, the vast majority of the electorate simply won't get off their backsides and vote? I would imagine that even under AV, there will be the same old whining that candidate XYZ is only supported by 30% of the electorate ... Not much you can do about that when 70% couldn't be bothered in the first place. Over 50% of the votes of 20% of the electorate still aint a great deal of support ... or am I missing something?