observer Posted July 2, 2010 Report Share Posted July 2, 2010 On a new "proportional" voting system for the Westminister Parliament, presumably status quo (first passed the post) or Single Transferable Vote. The idea of course is to assure the LibDems of some MPs, but it will certainly deliver hung parliaments - which way will you vote? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted July 3, 2010 Report Share Posted July 3, 2010 against If it goes through, why not apply it to all aspects of life? What about Football..... it would be interesting with 2 goals each at the end of the game and then take corners and possession into account to ensure a winner? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry hayes Posted July 3, 2010 Report Share Posted July 3, 2010 Let's have a referendum to see if we want a referendum on voting. Happy days Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 3, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 3, 2010 The STV system is specifically designed to benefit the largest "third"Party, as both Tories and Labour voters are likely to opt for the Libs as second choice - that's the theory anyway - and that's why Clegg & Co are gagging for it. Problem they've got, is after this Coalition episode, I doubt many folk will vote for anything that will provide more hung parliaments and won't be voting LibDem anyway - so the LibDems can look forward to another 90 years out of office! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted July 6, 2010 Report Share Posted July 6, 2010 David Davies stated that if there had been a proportional voting sytem in the 80's - Maggie wouldn't have managed 10 years in power, Bearing that in mind I'm voting in favour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted July 7, 2010 Report Share Posted July 7, 2010 I too am in favour Power to the People Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted July 7, 2010 Report Share Posted July 7, 2010 I don't think the Lib Dems will benefit as much as they think if their system comes in. A large number of voters won't take up the opportunity to select a second choice. They will be the party who will lose most because a large number of their voters at the last election feel that they have been sold down the river. The Tories will also lose support for forming the alliance so the party that should come out best is Labour but only if they return to Labour principles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted July 7, 2010 Report Share Posted July 7, 2010 but if they return to Labour principles, they won't win either!! why do you think Maggie did get so long in power???? Because the people don't want the likes of Kinnock and Foots ideology Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted July 7, 2010 Report Share Posted July 7, 2010 Don't forget more people voted against Maggie than for her, atleast a better voting system will hopefully stop that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 7, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 7, 2010 Generally, folk don't vote FOR a Party, but for the least worst and AGAINST the one they definately don't want. Thus, most will vote Tory or Labour as first preference, then LibDem as a back up - the AV system is designed to keep the LibDems in existence as a Party - a good reason for not supporting it. As for Baz's comment, after 18 years of Thatcher, folk would have voted for Labour, regardless of their policies - it was about getting the incumbents out - such is the nature of democracy and the fickle nature of the electorate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted July 8, 2010 Report Share Posted July 8, 2010 Obs, I agree with your comment. It was about getting the tories out back in '97. They were corrupt, inept and ineffectual and had no respect from the public............ just like what has happened now. I would still argue though that in a pure two horse race, more would vote tory than labour Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted July 8, 2010 Report Share Posted July 8, 2010 Don't forget more people voted against Maggie than for her, atleast a better voting system will hopefully stop that The last time I looked at a ballot paper there were only boxes for putting your cross in to vote FOR a candidate, none for voting AGAINST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 8, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2010 The part of the proposals that ARE relevent is the equalisation of Constituencies; currently, the Tories tend to represent large rural areas, whilst Labour monopolise small but densely populated urgan constituencies - most now with smaller populations than the Tory ones (especially in Scotland). But instead of pruning by 50 MPs, this was a golden opprtunity to get rid of half of 'em, down to 300 - we still have more politicians per capita than most other countries - and it costs us money. As I've suggested ad nauseum, there's simply no need for PR where you have a constituency base - PR can be covered by scrapping the House of Lords, and having a second chamber of 100, directly proportional to the votes for ALL parties at an Election - sorted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wahl Posted July 8, 2010 Report Share Posted July 8, 2010 this referendum is pointless as most decisions are made by belgians and just implemented by our useless civil servants. We should have a referendum to pull out of europe. If not then we should just ignore all the stupid rules and guidelines that come from this cost ineffective body of uselessness called the european union. However this would mean paying the mep crooks' expences so let's get out.e Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted July 8, 2010 Report Share Posted July 8, 2010 I'm sorry Asp I forgot it needs to be spelled out for you, The point being, A new voting system will HOPEFULLY put an end to minority governments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 8, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2010 Erm no, it will mean a reliance on two or more minority parties forming a coalition! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted July 8, 2010 Report Share Posted July 8, 2010 Obs, where have you been since the election, "Coalition" is the new buzz word, meaning love and happily ever after, people will no longer get married they will enter a "Coalition" and live happily ever after, Think of it no divorce no single parents, I see you have not got the warm and cosy love message from Dave and Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 8, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2010 Well, my monies on them not getting past Xmas! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egbert Posted July 9, 2010 Report Share Posted July 9, 2010 I would oppose a change in the voting system. First passed the post is simple, easy and can be understood by most people, even if they don't like it. All the other systems will be over the heads of a lot of people. However, if they introduce single transferable vote, I would simply vote for my preference and not give a second preference. I have already done that on numerous occasions in ballots in various organisations to which I belong. I am afraid second best is not good enough for me so I don't have a second preference. Of course there are also the arguments about PR being more likely to produce an indecisive result. I am not sure if I like this Coalition yet, but generally speaking I have always opposed the idea of a coalition. I will reserve judgement now that we've got one. I can't stick you people (and that seems to be most of you) who find it impossible to stand back and try to judge politicians on what they have achieved rather on what they did for you personally. If you look at post war Prime Ministers dispassionately, Maggie is right up there with Churchill. So is Blair. Wilson and MacMillan were not bad, but not in the same class. The rest were not much at all, in fact I have trouble remembering who they were! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 9, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2010 How you can put Bliar with Thatcher, never mind Churchill is beyond me! Personalities don't make good governance, policies do - and the best "team" we ever had, who left a legacy worthy of the name, was the '45 Atlee Government who rescued this Country from the aftermath of WW2 and put us on the road to recovery, with fairness a fact not a slogan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted July 9, 2010 Report Share Posted July 9, 2010 Iwouldn't disagree with your last post Obs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 Two wrongs don't make a right................ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 How you can put Bliar with Thatcher, Well they were both out and out bar stewards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 That was Prezzer! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.