If seats were decided on PPR.

Thrugelmir

Voting system
The Electoral Reform Society tweets

The election results under a fair voting system: CON 244 LAB 201 UKIP 83 LD 52 SNP 31 Greens 25 DUP 3 PC 3 SF 3 UUP 2 SDLP 2 Alliance 1

Interesting perspective.

antrobus

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Interesting perspective.

And misleading.

Because the actual result would depend on what exact kind of PR you have in place.

For example, the Greens have just won 3.8% of the vote and have 1 seat. In the last German elections, the Free Democrat Party won 4.8% of the vote, and got precisely 0 seats.

Generali

antrobus wrote: »

And misleading.

Because the actual result would depend on what exact kind of PR you have in place.

For example, the Greens have just won 3.8% of the vote and have 1 seat. In the last German elections, the Free Democrat Party won 4.8% of the vote, and got precisely 0 seats.

Yup it's normal to have a cut-off where if you get fewer than x votes you get no seats.

Some countries like Greece give a bonus to the party with the most votes.

Some countries (like Australia) give you two votes, one for the constituency and another for a party or parties.

There are lots of ways of skinning that cat.

Pixie5740

With PR people vote differently than how they do under FPTP. Perhaps there would be less tactical voting.

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

Yup it's normal to have a cut-off where if you get fewer than x votes you get no seats.....

Thresholds are fairly standard in most list based system. Most countries see a benefit in preventing their governments from being dominated by a gaggle of super-minor parties.

Generali wrote: »

..Some countries like Greece give a bonus to the party with the most votes....

Called reinforced proportionality, or deformed proportionality. Not to be recommended.

Generali wrote: »

..Some countries (like Australia) give you two votes, one for the constituency and another for a party or parties.....

No, Australia is AV for their commons, STV for their senate. They use preference voting.

Pixie5740 wrote: »

With PR people vote differently than how they do under FPTP. Perhaps there would be less tactical voting.

If you change the rules of the game, you change the game.

Generali

antrobus wrote: »

No, Australia is AV for their commons, STV for their senate. They use preference voting.

Mrs Generali disagrees. We have a constituency MP for one house and a PR-type one for the other house apparently.

I don't get to vote because I'm foreign so I have no opinion. If you disagree with Mrs Generali you're braver than me.

SailorSam

The Tories are very unlikely to bring in any laws that change our voting system. With things as are they are now we're likely to have a Consevative Govt for many many years. The only changes they may make are boudary changes to make their position even stronger.

Mallotum_X

SailorSam wrote: »

The Tories are very unlikely to bring in any laws that change our voting system. With things as are they are now we're likely to have a Consevative Govt for many many years. The only changes they may make are boudary changes to make their position even stronger.

Labour picked up a number of Tory seats in England, and there were a significant number of marginals. It wouldn't take much of a shift to them or even for the libs to take back parts of the south west for a labour based coalition.

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

Mrs Generali disagrees. We have a constituency MP for one house and a PR-type one for the other house apparently.

I don't get to vote because I'm foreign so I have no opinion. If you disagree with Mrs Generali you're braver than me.

I am quite happy to point out Mrs Generali's errors. I have no fear of her, if only because she is 6,000 miles away in Australia.:)

Australia has a House of Representatives with 150 members, each of whom is elected under AV to represent one of Australia's constituencies. There is also the Australian senate which has 76 senators, representing the states/territories who are elected by STV.

I suspect that Mrs Generali only knows the name of the Representative in respect of one house, and the name of the Senator in respect of the other.:)

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/14/how-does-australia-s-voting-system-work

antrobus

Mallotum_X wrote: »

Labour picked up a number of Tory seats in England, ....

Exactly 10. Not a lot really. And the Tories picked up a number of Labour seats in England. 6 to be exact. And another 2 in Wales. Leaving Labour with a net gain of exactly 2.

That's how the Conservatives won the election. They held the line against Labour.

Mallotum_X wrote: »

...and there were a significant number of marginals. It wouldn't take much of a shift to them...

It shouldn't have taken much of a shift to Labour for them to have taken the likes of Warwickshire North and Cardiff North on Thursday, but yet they failed to do so. There were a number of such Con-Lab marginals, which the Cons retained with an increased majority.

That's how the Conservatives won the election. They held the line against Labour.

Mallotum_X wrote: »

.... or even for the libs to take back parts of the south west for a labour based coalition.

Have you given up all hope of a Labour majority in the future? Is any prospect of a future Labour government dependent on a Lib Dem revival?

Thrugelmir

antrobus wrote: »

And misleading.

Arguably more reflective as to what people think. Also will engage those that opt. Turnout in Labour strongholds such as Sunderland is below the national average as in the 50%'s.