An explanation of why FPTP isnt fair

[wednesday1]

If AV is brought in, then it will hit the BNP and other extreme parties hard.

 

What it will do is make the major parties more middle of the road as they try to appeal to everybody. They will no longer be able to take a seat with just, say 40% of people liking what they stand for if the other 60% hate them but also have some common purpose around which they can unite. A left wing and a right wing party are unlikely to unite. It will be middle of the road groups which can forge a consensus. Extremist parties will become impotent.

 

 

 

Many of the backers of AV have claimed it is the first stage in the direction of PR.

It was PR which allowed the nazi MEPS to be elected a couple of years ago , on just 6% of the vote.

 

If it ain't broke don't fix it!

[harvey19]

It has to be YES for AV.

[Magilla]

Although this link is a little long, I do think it explains why our current voting system is outdated.

 

http://fairervotessheffield.org.uk/the-problems-with-first-past-the-post-explained/

 

 

A similar thing, but with cats (and a dog):-

 

[Eater Sundae]

Many of the backers of AV have claimed it is the first stage in the direction of PR.

It was PR which allowed the nazi MEPS to be elected a couple of years ago , on just 6% of the vote.

 

If it ain't broke don't fix it!

 

But it is broke. A party that is actively hated by 60 to 70% of the people can get their man/woman elected. With AV, the winner may not be the first choice of the majority (although it often will be), but at least he/she will be acceptable to the majority.

 

This ISN'T a vote on PR, it is a vote on AV, so there is no need to scaremonger. AV will not give us extremist parties in power, just the opposite.

[wednesday1]

But it is broke. A party that is actively hated by 60 to 70% of the people can get their man/woman elected. With AV, the winner may not be the first choice of the majority (although it often will be), but at least he/she will be acceptable to the majority.

 

This ISN'T a vote on PR, it is a vote on AV, so there is no need to scaremonger. AV will not give us extremist parties in power, just the opposite.

 

 

Well the current systems' kept 'em out so far. You can't get lower than NONE

over the period of time the current system has been in.

 

 

You are right that this referendum IS about AV not PR. If the Lib Dems get AV then they won't stop here, they will keep on 'til they get PR. Even if their vote stops at just 10% as it is in polls now, that would still give them more MP's than they've currently got.

[daftlad]

if clegg supports it, then im against it-end of, lets send this man back to obscurity where his party belongs

[HeadingNorth]

if clegg supports it, then im against it-end of, lets send this man back to obscurity where his party belongs

 

The result of the referendum won't make any difference at all to Clegg's position, so that's a terrible reason on which to base your decision.

[holmac]

Whats wrong with letting the person with the most votes win??

 

Whats right with it? If you see the figures below, the ones with the most votes were the conservatives, however, more people voted collectively for a non conservative government.

 

I also get the impression that most/well, quite a few people are not happy that the Condems are in power but the same people are willing to let things continue as they are.

 

If it ain't broke don't fix it!

 

At the last general election:

 

Conservative Party 306 seats with 10,706,647 votes

Labour Party 258 seats with 8,604,358 votes

Liberal Democrat Party 57 seats from 6,827,938 votes

 

From the smaller parties:

UKIP got no seats but 917,832 voted for them.

BNP got no seats but 563,743 votes.

Green Party got one seat but only 285,616 votes.

 

Seems broke to me.

[HeadingNorth]

Whats right with it? If you see the figures below, the ones with the most votes were the conservatives, however, more people voted collectively for a non conservative government.

 

If you start looking at the number of people who didn't vote for various parties, you would have no government at all. Every party was opposed by more than half of the electorate.

[dink]

Whats right with it? If you see the figures below, the ones with the most votes were the conservatives, however, more people voted collectively for a non conservative government.

 

I also get the impression that most/well, quite a few people are not happy that the Condems are in power but the same people are willing to let things continue as they are.

 

 

 

At the last general election:

 

Conservative Party 306 seats with 10,706,647 votes

Labour Party 258 seats with 8,604,358 votesLiberal Democrat Party 57 seats from 6,827,938 votes

 

From the smaller parties:

UKIP got no seats but 917,832 voted for them.

BNP got no seats but 563,743 votes.

Green Party got one seat but only 285,616 votes.

 

Seems broke to me.

 

So the two highlighted above would then be in the running with who ever voted for the others, third and second votes then going to the them.

 

Does it seem fair that Labour could then get into power using people who voted for the Greens, third and second vote?

 

Who ever gets the most votes has won, seems fair to me, How can someone who didnt want to vote labour then be allowed to use a second or third vote for them??