Should We Replace The First Past The Post Election System ?

[El Cid]

4 hours ago, Jeffrey Shaw said:

You want a good reason why 'First Past The Post' with constituencies beats (hands-down) a truly PR system?

 

Israel.

 

Now don't you agree that the UK's system is better?

Better than Israel, perhaps. But that does meant that there are more things that the UK could do better.

People knowing who there elected representative is, is great, local or national.  But they can still be elected proportionally.

Do you believe that UK democracy could be improved?

The house of Lords is too full, 1/4 of the electorate cannot stand for election, only 20% of the population votes in local elections, all very poor.

[andyofborg]

in addition to reform of th

7 hours ago, El Cid said:

Better than Israel, perhaps. But that does meant that there are more things that the UK could do better.

People knowing who there elected representative is, is great, local or national.  But they can still be elected proportionally.

scotland retains constituancy mp's and returns additional mps based on the local list votes to ensure proportionality. something along those lines would retain the idea of people voting for a winner.

 

where you're electing one person rather than a collection then some sort of transferrable vote would always ensure that the winner had the support of the majority of the electorate. 

 

 

7 hours ago, El Cid said:

only 20% of the population votes in local elections, all very poor.

isn't the way to improve that a radical return of power to the nations, regions, counties, citites, towns and vilages which meant local politicians could actually do things to improve the lot of their citizens and people would have a real choice of alternatives?

 

[GabrielC]

13 hours ago, Jeffrey Shaw said:

You want a good reason why 'First Past The Post' with constituencies beats (hands-down) a truly PR system?

 

Israel.

[NB: this is nothing to do with middle-eastern disputes]

 

In Israel, the Middle East's only true democracy, there are no constituencies and never have been.

Instead, there's 120 electees picked from each national political party's single list.

Subject only to a 5% threshold, the result is that a party which scores X% of votes returns X% of 120 electees.

Hence the constant creation/fracturing/reforming of political parties.

Hence the constant mess.

Hence the constant shenanigans.

Hence the repeated and inconclusive elections.

 

Now don't you agree that the UK's system is better?

It only takes 40/43 per cent of the vote to get into power not 100% of the vote PR shares power not hogs it.

[butlers]

The 2015 election.

66 percent turn out.

 

Tories got 37 %of the vote

 

Got 51%of the seats.

 

[the_bloke]

Can anyone give a good example of two parties sharing power in the UK? You know, one where one of the parties wasn't damaged to the point the next election saw their numbers of MPs reduced to a fraction and the party leader quitting.

[ads36]

to answer the question : yes, obviously.

 

under fptp, parties get 100% of the power, from less than half the vote - it's clearly not democratic.

[El Cid]

1 hour ago, andyofborg said:

isn't the way to improve that a radical return of power to the nations, regions, counties, citites, towns and vilages which meant local politicians could actually do things to improve the lot of their citizens and people would have a real choice of alternatives?

I strongly believe in regional parliaments, not the regional Mayors, local income tax or something similar.

Trouble is that we are relying on Boris Johnson to change things, he will not do anything unless it favours himself.

[apelike]

3 hours ago, El Cid said:

I strongly believe in regional parliaments, not the regional Mayors, local income tax or something similar.

I think regional parliaments would just add another layer of complexity to what is already fairy complex and why should the rate of income tax be dependant on where people live? I'm with you on regional Mayors though as they just seem to be a waste of space and money.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

One way to improve the FPTP system would be to add just a single feature of the French system.

1. UK elections run as at present.

2. If one candidate obtains > 50% of the total votes cast, he/she wins.

3. If no candidate obtains > 50% of the total votes cast, there's a run-off election.

4. That's held two weeks later, with only the top two candidates involved.

5. So one of them then has, by definition, to obtain > 50% of the total votes cast.

[altus]

8 minutes ago, Jeffrey Shaw said:

One way to improve the FPTP system would be to add just a single feature of the French system.

1. UK elections run as at present.

2. If one candidate obtains > 50% of the total votes cast, he/she wins.

3. If no candidate obtains > 50% of the total votes cast, there's a run-off election.

4. That's held two weeks later, with only the top two candidates involved.

5. So one of them then has, by definition, to obtain > 50% of the total votes cast.

It would barely improve it at all since it would still so massively favour Labour and the Conservatives that we'd still effectively have a two party system.