Harrystottle Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 We should have had a referendum on proportional representation Agreed. The sooner we have a PR system where the number of seats you get mirrors the votes you get, the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 The Bishops in the Lords can't vote yes they can That doesn't sound right to me. If one party gets 40% of the vote and 2 other parties each get 30%, surely a coalition of the 2 smaller parties would be appropriate. There were hints of that here after the 2010 election. the largest party should have the first go, if they can't achieve a majority then the next largets should have a go. a coalition of labour and pretty much everyone else would in theory have had a majority in 2010 however such a coalition would have lasted three weeks before they all fell out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 Labour also didn't want PR because they also benefit from the unfair system we have. The problem I have with PR is it does away with the concept of constituency representation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 The problem I have with PR is it does away with the concept of constituency representation. not necessarily, we still elect constituancy mp's and then add additional mp's on a regional basis to make the numbers right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 yes they can Quite right. My mistake. For clarity I said that the Bishops in the House of Lords could not vote. Which in fact they can, and often do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ez8004 Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 not necessarily, we still elect constituancy mp's and then add additional mp's on a regional basis to make the numbers right Let's not do that. The cost of government is costly enough already. Don't want to increase the number of MPs in the Commons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 Let's not do that. The cost of government is costly enough already. Don't want to increase the number of MPs in the Commons. we dont have to increase the number of mp's. make the constituancies larger and "free up" some mp's to fulfill the regional roles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 we dont have to increase the number of mp's. make the constituancies larger and "free up" some mp's to fulfill the regional roles. In the Bundestag less than half the members are directly elected, the rest coming from lists. Surely one can do better than half. A constituency MP with twice as many constituents would be rather unsatisfactory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 Not really. Before that the Roman Catholic church had a major role in the government as it did in a lot of the rest of Europe. Uhmmm... that is exactly my point. So leadership of the government goes to whoever gained the most? That's madness. And rather a long way from democracy. Such a leader has no mandate. No it isn't madness, it reflects the tide of the vote. It makes perfect sense. When the populace gets to a point where they stop voting for the comfy pluche the elite have got used to it makes sense to take that swing into account and react. It also doesn't influence the formation, those holding most seats have most power in the formation. In my example, if Geert Wilders decides he needs the 35 seats of the VVD it is normal for him to defer the actual prime minister-post to the VVD, the other cabinet posts are divided between the parties making up the coalition, the VVD would still get a big say in the formation of the cabinet (as that is what is being formed). Yes. I don't like lists. I vote for a candidate first and a party second (if at all). I'll tolerate a minimum of top-ups to achieve proportionality, but no more. That is in theory how the Dutch system works. In practice there is freedom to vote however you want, either for a candidate or for a party, though if you choose to vote for a party you are bound by picking one of the candidates (usually top of the list). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 In the Bundestag less than half the members are directly elected, the rest coming from lists. Surely one can do better than half. A constituency MP with twice as many constituents would be rather unsatisfactory. i'm sure we can do better than that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts