Proportional Representation

[El Cid]

In my own constituency in 2010 there were 75,163 voters, 65.8% turned out to vote.

8,186 (16.4%)voted for the third placed Liberal Democrat and fourth place - 3,535 (BNP), fifth place - 1,505 (UKIP)

 

It was basically a two horse race between the Tories and Labour, more than 13,000 people must have voted and knowingly waste their vote.

 

If voters knew their vote would make a difference, the numbers voting for the smaller parties would increase vastly, and turn-out could well increase; the party with the most votes could even change.

[whiteowl]

I agree. There was a vote on AV which, whilst not an ideal solution, is better than now but it got shouted down and voted against.

 

The best analogy I saw was Dan Snow taking 9 people out for some beer. 2 wanted to go to pub A, 2 to pub B, 2 to pub C and 3 to a coffee shop for a latte. First past the post, latte's all round despite 2/3 wanting a beer whereas in reality the pub people would have gone with their second choice of pub making it 6-3

*shrugs*

[RonJeremy]

I agree. There was a vote on AV which, whilst not an ideal solution, is better than now but it got shouted down and voted against.

 

The best analogy I saw was Dan Snow taking 9 people out for some beer. 2 wanted to go to pub A, 2 to pub B, 2 to pub C and 3 to a coffee shop for a latte. First past the post, latte's all round despite 2/3 wanting a beer whereas in reality the pub people would have gone with their second choice of pub making it 6-3

*shrugs*

 

It's a good analogy.

Av and prop rep make for weaker governments in general. It can lead to more coalitions which in turn means special interest parties/nationalists like BNP and SNP can gain a foothold in parliament and hold a balance of power against the interests of the country.

[tzijlstra]

It's a good analogy.

Av and prop rep make for weaker governments in general. It can lead to more coalitions which in turn means special interest parties/nationalists like BNP and SNP can gain a foothold in parliament and hold a balance of power against the interests of the country.

 

Nothing weak about it, just stems the continuous tide of change that is currently destroying the NHS and schooling system and therefore stops the huge waste of money that occurs due to introducing measures in one parliament and scrapping them in the next.

[loraward]

It's a good analogy.

Av and prop rep make for weaker governments in general. It can lead to more coalitions which in turn means special interest parties/nationalists like BNP and SNP can gain a foothold in parliament and hold a balance of power against the interests of the country.

 

I would think that a weak government that is fair and represents the majority is better than a strong government that isn't fair and only represents the minority.

[-Boomer-]

In my own constituency in 2010 there were 75,163 voters, 65.8% turned out to vote.

8,186 (16.4%)voted for the third placed Liberal Democrat and fourth place - 3,535 (BNP), fifth place - 1,505 (UKIP)

 

It was basically a two horse race between the Tories and Labour, more than 13,000 people must have voted and knowingly waste their vote.

 

If voters knew their vote would make a difference, the numbers voting for the smaller parties would increase vastly, and turn-out could well increase; the party with the most votes could even change.

 

Yeah but why are there smaller parties in the first place and can people vote for whom they want anyway?

[Hashtag]

sorry if im hijacking the thread, but help needed, i live in a labour safe seat,but want to vote for a smaller party, is it a waste of a vote ?

thanks.

[El Cid]

sorry if im hijacking the thread, but help needed, i live in a labour safe seat,but want to vote for a smaller party, is it a waste of a vote ? thanks.

 

You have no chance of electing the smaller party, but I was surprised at the 16% for the Liberal Democrats in my area, perhaps next time their percentage might increase over time.

[LeMaquis]

Av and prop rep make for weaker governments in general. It can lead to more coalitions which in turn means special interest parties/nationalists like BNP and SNP can gain a foothold in parliament and hold a balance of power against the interests of the country.

 

The SNP are likely to hold the balance of power under the present system come Friday. If not them then UKIP or the DUP, or that other to be small party, the Lib-Dems.

 

The days of one-party governments are over.

[Harrystottle]

FPTP may have had it's day. The argument for it has always been that it produces "strong governments". Well not last time it didn't, and all the predictions are that it won't this time either.

 

As the Conservatives become less like the old Conservative party, UKIP rises. The SNP grow in Scotland, and so on. It isn't just about two massive parties and a few tiddlers anymore.

 

I reckon the EU elections are fairer. The electoral boundaries are bigger, so less chance of gerrymandering.

 

Where I live I'm in the constituency of Hemsworth, a place I've been maybe twice in ten years. My "natural" constituency is Wakefield, just 3 miles down the road. All the villages around mine are "Wakefield" villages. Most of them are in the Hemsworth constituency too! Even part of the City of Wakefield itself is in the blinking Hemsworth constituency! It is an absolute farce.

 

They also say that the smaller constituencies are important because you have an MP for your immediate local area. It used to be the case, but not any more. Of the four local MP's, none are local people. Three of them are parachutes from London, three of them don't live in their constituencies at all. The local connection has gone.

 

So for me bigger constituencies and proportional representation is the way to go. If you get 33% of the vote you get 33% of the MP's, that's fair.