Why do people wanna change the electorial system?

grubby23

I know that in some seats the vote count for nothing, but still I have never seen such an
exciting election. Back home in Germany we have proportional representation, the result is announced at 8pm and that's it. Here you don't know until the early morning
how the balance will look in parliament

Enjoy the rest of the night!.

WhiteThierry

grubby23 wrote: »

I know that in some seats the vote count for nothing, but still I have never seen such an
exciting election. Back home in Germany we have proportional representation, the result is announced at 8pm and that's it. Here you don't know until the early morning
how the balance will look in parliament

Enjoy the rest of the night!.

So let me get this right.

We have 5 years of totally unrepresentative government and many meaningless votes, just for one night of fun?

You could just go to the pub on your election night!:beer:

misskool

Labour's only talking about proportional representation to get into Clegg's pants. If they were serious, they've had the last 5 years to do it.

Nice to see them all singing the same sheet as they faced the results night and not before.

kennyboy66_2

misskool wrote: »

Labour's only talking about proportional representation to get into Clegg's pants. If they were serious, they've had the last 5 years to do it.

Nice to see them all singing the same sheet as they faced the results night and not before.

Labours 1997 manifesto included a pledge to hold referendum on electoral reform, so it hardly a new issue for them.

The problem is Turkeys don't vote for Xmas - PR would surely give both main parties less seats. In addition Gordon Brown was dead set against it.

How he can say he is "passionately” in favour and keep a straight face is beyond me.

Degenerate

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Labours 1997 manifesto included a pledge to hold referendum on electoral reform, so it hardly a new issue for them.

The problem is Turkeys don't vote for Xmas - PR would surely give both main parties less seats. In addition Gordon Brown was dead set against it.

How he can say he is "passionately” in favour and keep a straight face is beyond me.

I don't think they have that much to lose from a referendum.

Both major parties would be out in force campaigning along the lines of: "Do you want it to be like this every time?"

I think the public's answer would be no.

JasonLVC

Uplifted from the BBC website :-

Conservative = 290 Seats on 10,121,863
Labour = 246 seats on 8,175,832
Liberal Democrat = 51 seats on 6,416,7252

So the Tories have got 10,121,863 votes and that gives them 290 seats whilst the Lib Dems get 6,416,725 votes and only 51 seats.

Logically, Labours 8,175,832 votes would give you a figure somewhere close to the LibDems as there's only 2m in the difference but labour have 246 seats.

Whether PR or Brown's proposed offering is the solution I don't know, but from a pure logic perspective the above stats don't make any sense which is why there has always been an argument to change the system.

lemonjelly

JasonLVC's post highlights the reason very well. In essence, the actual majority of votes go against the party who actually takes power under the current system. Therefore the majority of voters do not get the party they vote for. In essence, the party in power are there on a minority, as the vast majority have not voted for them.

JasonLVC wrote: »

Uplifted from the BBC website :-

PartySeatsGainLossNetVotes%+/-%Conservative290943+9110,121,86336.1+3.9Labour246287-858,175,83229.2-6.3Liberal Democrat51713-66,416,72522.9+1.0

So the Tories have got 10,121,863 votes and that gives them 290 seats whilst the Lib Dems get 6,416,725 votes and only 51 seats.

Logically, Labours 8,175,832 votes would give you a figure somewhere close to the LibDems as there's only 2m in the difference but labour have 246 seats.

Whether PR or Brown's proposed offering is the solution I don't know, but from a pure logic perspective the above states don't make any sense which is why there has always been an argument to change the system.

abaxas

JasonLVC wrote: »

Uplifted from the BBC website :-

PartySeatsGainLossNetVotes%+/-%Conservative290943+9110,121,86336.1+3.9Labour246287-858,175,83229.2-6.3Liberal Democrat51713-66,416,72522.9+1.0

So the Tories have got 10,121,863 votes and that gives them 290 seats whilst the Lib Dems get 6,416,725 votes and only 51 seats.

Logically, Labours 8,175,832 votes would give you a figure somewhere close to the LibDems as there's only 2m in the difference but labour have 246 seats.

Whether PR or Brown's proposed offering is the solution I don't know, but from a pure logic perspective the above states don't make any sense which is why there has always been an argument to change the system.

The problem with PR is it removes democracy. It may be fair but it removed the choice of government from the people to the politicians.

Do we really want more under the counter governement?

Degenerate

abaxas wrote: »

The problem with PR is it removes democracy. It may be fair but it removed the choice of government from the people to the politicians.

Do we really want more under the counter governement?

It can also give undue power to minority parties who end up holding the balance of power.

abaxas

Degenerate wrote: »

It can also give undue power to minority parties who end up holding the balance of power.

That is an interesting question, under the proposed PR system how many BNP candidates would have got seats in the house?

Someone needs to work that out.

tomterm8

Whereas, the current system generally gives dictatorial power to a minority party who ends up with the ability to game the system so they stay in for the next decade. When that party gets so unpopular even weasels wouldn't be in the same room with them, another minority party is given dictatorial power, even though most people don't agree with its policies.