bickster Posted July 5 Moderator Share Posted July 5 4 minutes ago, CarryOnVilla said: It encourage me to vote a smaller party Who will ultimately lose in that constituency and nothing will change, just prolongs the voting process in about 85% of seats, result mostly the same. It encourages absolutely nothing and most people won't even express a second preference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarryOnVilla Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 Just now, bickster said: Who will ultimately lose in that constituency and nothing will change, just prolongs the voting process in about 85% of seats, result mostly the same. It encourages absolutely nothing and most people won't even express a second preference Spoilt Ballard in my opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 5 Moderator Share Posted July 5 1 minute ago, CarryOnVilla said: Spoilt Ballard in my opinion What you’d call a spoilt ballot for someone only expressing one preference? You really haven’t thought about that, it’s anti-democratic. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy Lifeboats Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 6 minutes ago, viivvaa66 said: Are we voting for a party or are we voting for policies? Now we have government that 80% of the electorate didn’t vote for, I would say that is close enough to say we have a government no-one voted for. Technically we vote for people to represent us. Those who didn’t vote gave up their right. They decided to leave the choice to others. You cannot include them. The present government has been elected because more people wanted them to rule than any other party. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarryOnVilla Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 (edited) 11 minutes ago, bickster said: What you’d call a spoilt ballot for someone only expressing one preference? You really haven’t thought about that, it’s anti-democratic. how would not counting an incomplete ballot in RCV system not be democratic? Edited July 5 by CarryOnVilla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 5 Moderator Share Posted July 5 4 minutes ago, CarryOnVilla said: how would not counting an incomplete ballot in RCV system not be democratic? Seriously, it’s completed, there’s just one choice on it. Forcing someone to make a second preference is antidemocratic 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarryOnVilla Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 Just now, bickster said: Seriously, it’s completed, there’s just one choice on it. Forcing someone to make a second preference is antidemocratic But to get to a RCV system would take a binary choice democratic referendum. if people thought it wasn’t right they would vote no. No probably would be the answer, but we are talking about the hypothetical idea of it being an implemented system. To even get to the position to not compete a ballot, you’ve already made a democratic decision on the rules of the system Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted July 5 VT Supporter Share Posted July 5 It doesn't need to be AV, AV+, STV etc to be properly representative. In Poland you cast one vote with party-list proportional representation via the D'Hondt method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viivvaa66 Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 42 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said: Technically we vote for people to represent us. Those who didn’t vote gave up their right. They decided to leave the choice to others. You cannot include them. The present government has been elected because more people wanted them to rule than any other party. Why are you so afraid of democracy? Most modern and prosperous nation have ditched FPTP and embraced democracy. The present government does not have the UK people behind them, only a small minority. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phily85 Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 What's people feelings and it being a requirement to vote as per Australia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarryOnVilla Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 24 minutes ago, phily85 said: What's people feelings and it being a requirement to vote as per Australia Fine by me, if they make polling day a national holiday. Small price to pay for having a day off 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkyvilla Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 I would just scrap the Lords and have an upper chamber that is made up proportionally from the GE vote. Then the parties can choose the people that fill their quota of seats. At least then an 'outsider' vote in any particular constituency does count for something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 1 hour ago, viivvaa66 said: Why are you so afraid of democracy? Most modern and prosperous nation have ditched FPTP and embraced democracy. The present government does not have the UK people behind them, only a small minority. I'm guessing this is because people had their right to vote and chose not to? That's on them if they didn't want the current government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 5 Moderator Share Posted July 5 1 hour ago, sharkyvilla said: I would just scrap the Lords and have an upper chamber that is made up proportionally from the GE vote. Then the parties can choose the people that fill their quota of seats. At least then an 'outsider' vote in any particular constituency does count for something. Vote for me so we can get two says at once seems a little wild Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy Lifeboats Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 2 hours ago, viivvaa66 said: Why are you so afraid of democracy? Most modern and prosperous nation have ditched FPTP and embraced democracy. The present government does not have the UK people behind them, only a small minority. Wow! You couldn't have made a more insulting post. I am very proud of our democracy and the part I personally play in maintaining it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 5 Moderator Share Posted July 5 2 hours ago, viivvaa66 said: The present government does not have the UK people behind them, only a small minority I’m in favour of PR, very much so but this argument holds no water. We have no idea if that’s even true the way FPTP suppresses voting. For example yesterday the turnout across Liverpool was spectacularly low. The missing votes are pretty much all Labour votes that really couldn’t be bothered voting because the seats were a foregone conclusion. The Green Party are celebrating getting 2nd in my seat with 6k votes. The Labour candidate got 23k, I think Reform got 3k and LibDems 2k. Tory maybe 1k. If everyone in the seat voted all that would happen is a massive increase in Labour votes and possibly an increase slightly in LibDem and Tory. But the Labour vote share would increase massively. This will be replicated in any safe seat for any party. Vote share is irrelevant under FPTP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 4 hours ago, Mandy Lifeboats said: Proportional representation often leads to a government that no-one voted for. Again, I accept this can happen under FPTP but it's a rarity. If I vote Labour it's because I want a Labour government. I don’t necessarily want a Lab/Lib alliance, or a Lab/Green alliance or a Lab/Communist alliance. No it gives a government that the majority of people identified with in at least some part. FPTP is the bigger anomaly. You can get a government from less than 50% of the vote. A government that more than 50% of the electorate vehemently hate but unfortunately they lost to that hated minority because the majority vote was split. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 2 hours ago, sharkyvilla said: I would just scrap the Lords and have an upper chamber that is made up proportionally from the GE vote. Then the parties can choose the people that fill their quota of seats. At least then an 'outsider' vote in any particular constituency does count for something. Australia has a lower chamber voted by transferrable preference vote and an upper chamber voted on a proportional vote. The upper chamber has a different electoral cycle and very different constituency sizes. I think it actually gives a pretty good balance between the two systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 5 Moderator Share Posted July 5 9 minutes ago, LondonLax said: Australia has a lower chamber voted by transferrable preference vote and an upper chamber voted on a proportional vote. The upper chamber has a different electoral cycle and very different constituency sizes. I think it actually gives a pretty good balance between the two systems. Not sure on the Aussie system (not enough knowledge) but electing two chambers from one vote cycle seems utterly pointless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viivvaa66 Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 26 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said: Wow! You couldn't have made a more insulting post. I am very proud of our democracy and the part I personally play in maintaining it. A voting system that gives 33.8% of the voters the right to elect the government and ignores the will of 65.2%, can’t honestly be called a democracy. Democracy is often defined as the rule of the majority, with free and fair elections, the UK voting system doesn’t even come close to meet those requirements. The truth is often very insulting, I’m sorry about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts