'Should we change the general election voting system?' poll discussion

omnipotentstudenttype

Gordon_the_Moron wrote: »

On the other hand if you want to see UKIP and BNP MPs in parliament, voting for instant run off voting is a great way of doing so.

Which is why the BNP are campaigning for the NO side of the referendum? To do so they must believe they've a greater chance of winning elections under FPTP than otherwise

omnipotentstudenttype

Bazny wrote: »

You should always vote your conscience and vote for who you believe is the best candidate regardless of the consequences. You shouldn't vote for the lesser of two evils as part of some strategy. This is why we're left with the choices we have.

If you truly believe a minor party or candidate is worth getting elected, then vote that way. If that party or candidate represents something appealing to the majority or plurality, they'd get in. The problem is the acceptance that our leaders have to be from a particular party. It doesn't have to be that way if there's an informed electorate. The people have to change, not the voting system.

Democracy is one of the most misused terms today. Democracy is mob rule. Democracy is very dangerous and cannot survive. A REPUBLIC restrained by the rule of law is the most secure form of government.

I'm not the kind of person who votes tactically, I'll always vote for who I feel is the best choice, and usually that has been the candidate least likely to win a particular election. I can understand the reasons that people vote tactically under a FPTP system though, and that is something a move to AV will help adress.

I do agree with you though regarding an informed electorate. Too much apathy in the system is part of the problem, and rigid tribalism is another...

moggylover

It certainly needs change of some kind, but I'm not overly impressed with AV tbh. Proportional representation might be better: although I'm not convinced that gives a truly 1 man 1 vote result either.

Mind, I can remember my father moaning when the election results were on some 40 odd years ago and saying that our "seat" system is so warped that it is no wonder people don't bother to vote because a government can get a majority of seats with a minority of votes.

I often think that the way forward is for a total coalition, with all those elected to parliament having to form a Government between them, with cabinet ministers having to be picked from parties according to the percentage of the seats their party holds in the house and possibly a separate election for a "president". Whether they could be grown up enough to do it though I very much doubt:D

niccatw

Bazny wrote: »

I just don't accept that it's chance if everyone voted the way they truly wanted.

But you have to accept not every-one votes the way they ruly want. And to change that means changing attitudes; which is rarely fast or easy.

omnipotentstudenttype wrote: »

I'm not the kind of person who votes tactically, I'll always vote for who I feel is the best choice, and usually that has been the candidate least likely to win a particular election. I can understand the reasons that people vote tactically under a FPTP system though, and that is something a move to AV will help adress.

I do agree with you though regarding an informed electorate. Too much apathy in the system is part of the problem, and rigid tribalism is another...

I concur. Though admit I have voted tactically becasue the party I wanted to vote for wasn't an option in my constituency. I really wanted a "none of the above" option! Or PR.

But if AV is what is on the table, then I would give more time to considering all of the options open to me - and surely that's got to be a positive step in changing people's attitudes to voting?

Bazny

niccatw wrote: »

But you have to accept not every-one votes the way they ruly want. And to change that means changing attitudes; which is rarely fast or easy.

I never presumed it would be fast or easy, but I do think it's the right way to go in the long run. Quick fixes usually have a way of biting you back.

angry

One strand of objection seems to be "we shouldn't change to AV, because it will mean a higher percentage of Lib Dems, and more 'minor' parties".

But if this is what the public want (as evidenced by the mismatch in total percentage of votes vs number of seats achieved), then regardless of which party I like, who am I to say that we should artificially suppress the views of others?

slimmer1

Surely this is all about abuse of power. Currently, a party can come to power by having a pariamentary majority on only a small fraction of votes cast and is then free to persue their agenda (usually well hidden before the election!!).

Simple having one vote for your personal preference is currently risky because it may 'let in' somebody else, so perfectly suitable candidates get few votes. If you knew that your vote for your 1st choice, if not elected, could then transfer to your second choice, there would be a much more representative outcome.

Coalitions happen the world over and in reality actually dampen down excesses and ensure that agreed policies are followed.

rwdgray

It all comes down to what one values in a political system.

We are taught from an early age what democracy is. Hands up in class voting etc. The majority wins etc. Then we read that no single party since before WWII has won an overall majority of votes cast in a general election.

What kind of democracy is it that for over seven decades gives governments with a minority of support amongst voters almost total legislative power (bar the odd backbench rebellion)?

AV is not perfect. It's not even remotely proportional. However, it is a step towards democracy and away from a system which minimises voter power. That can only be a good thing.:T

WinnyWoo

Current voting system is corrupt and unrepresentative. Do not even have a secret ballot! (all ballot papers have a number corresponding to the voter!)

AV will probably not give more seats to minority parties, as PR would. Most voters second preferences will be given to parties most likely to keep out their most hated party.

Any alternative system will probably lead to more coalition government, but that's not a problem as it curbs excess on both sides. Its not liked by main parties as it prevents them having supreme power from time to time.


If we miss this opportunity to change the system - we won't get another chance for twenty years.

grahamm

teddyco wrote: »

"The proposed “reform” of our voting system has all the faults and flaws which the Prime Minister has enumerated in his judicious, scholarly critiques:

You mean like a blatant Straw Man argument saying that AV would result in Usain Bolt getting the Silver Medal?

Can you not see this for the nonsense it is? FPTP is like declaring the result of the 100 metres when the contestants are half-way down the track!

it is less fair and less clear than our present arrangements and it leads to unaccountable, perverse electoral outcomes.

ROFL! If you want to talk about "unaccountable, perverse electoral outcomes" you only have to look at the results of the 2005 general election!

Labour got 35% of the vote, Conservative got 32%, Lib Dems got 22% and Others made up the rest, yet, somehow, under the utterly broken and unaccountable FPTP system we got a totally perverse result where Labour ended up with 56% of the seats in Parliament!

How on earth can that be considered to be a sensible result??

But the absolutely, definitively, cataclysmically worst thing about it is that it produces hung parliaments, which result in coalition governments whose composition is one for which nobody voted, in which all previous party statements or manifestos become nothing more than opening gambits in a post-election carve-up between professional politicians to which voters are not even privy."

I think Janet Daley needs to do a bit more research into the way the British Parliament currently works!

Manifestos are already nonsense. You have *one* vote, yet by placing that vote for a particular party they can claim that you support *every* policy in their manifesto! And even then we've seen enough examples of parties blatantly ignoring manifesto commitments when they're not convenient to show them for they sham they are.

As for "post-election carve-ups" there's enough horse-trading and back-room dealing that goes on, not to mention blatant examples of whoever is in power "playing the system" by guillotining debates thus not allowing *our* elected representatives to properly discuss the contents of a Bill or even forcing such a debate into the Lords to be dealt with by *non-elected* Peers.

(Oh and did you know that, in the Lords the Tory Party as a general principle do *not* vote on Lib Dem Amendments?!)

Far better to have a system where the number of elected representatives actually *represents* how we, the people, voted such that one party does not have all the power and can push through any legislation they want, no matter if all the opposition MPs vote against it.

One last question: Do you think that the "Save the Forests" campaign would have succeeded had the Tories had a majority...???