What about PR then?
Discussion
It gets me thinking every time.
Labour have 36% of the vote, and 353 seats.
Tories get 33% of the vote, and 195 seats.
Lib-Dems get 25% of the vote, and 59 seats.
So a tiny difference of 3% between Labour and the Tories results in a difference of 158 seats?
The Tories had an increase of the vote of only 0.6%, yet this got them another 33 seats?
Labour had a decrease of the vote of 3% and this loses them 47 seats?
There sure are some weird demographics in term of constituency sizes and population density.
And how does someone have a mandate to govern when 64% dont want them, and they are only 3% ahead of the next man?
It is pretty silly isnt it?
>> Edited by Balmoral Green on Friday 6th May 08:28
Labour have 36% of the vote, and 353 seats.
Tories get 33% of the vote, and 195 seats.
Lib-Dems get 25% of the vote, and 59 seats.
So a tiny difference of 3% between Labour and the Tories results in a difference of 158 seats?
The Tories had an increase of the vote of only 0.6%, yet this got them another 33 seats?
Labour had a decrease of the vote of 3% and this loses them 47 seats?
There sure are some weird demographics in term of constituency sizes and population density.
And how does someone have a mandate to govern when 64% dont want them, and they are only 3% ahead of the next man?
It is pretty silly isnt it?
>> Edited by Balmoral Green on Friday 6th May 08:28
Balmoral Green said:
It gets me thinking every time.
Labour have 36% of the vote, and 353 seats.
Tories get 33% of the vote, and 195 seats.
Lib-Dems get 25% of the vote, and 59 seats.
So a tiny difference of 3% between Labour and the Tories results in a difference of 158 seats?
The Tories had an increase of the vote of only 0.6%, yet this got them another 33 seats?
Labour had a decrease of the vote of 3% and this loses them 47 seats?
There sure are some weird demographics in term of constituency sizes and population density.
And how does someone have a mandate to govern when 64% dont want them, and they are only 3% ahead of the next man?
It is pretty silly isnt it?
>> Edited by Balmoral Green on Friday 6th May 08:28
PR is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. What we really need is a fundamental rethink of the constituency map. The electoral commission should be junking the current map completely and starting again from scratch.
Mon Ami Mate said:
PR is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. What we really need is a fundamental rethink of the constituency map. The electoral commission should be junking the current map completely and starting again from scratch.
I agree completely FPTP works-but every constituency should be of an identical size( in terms of the number of voters) and the boundaries should be changed every four years to reflect demographic change.
As a side note elections should be held at the same time every 4 years-governments should not be able to choose when to to to the polls.
Balmoral Green said:
And how does someone have a mandate to govern when 64% dont want them, and they are only 3% ahead of the next man?
I've been thinking the same thing. And these figures don't include those who couldn't be ar$ed to vote for anyone.
IMO PR will only benefit the smaller parties though, and on the results from yesterday would probably have resulted in a Labour/Lib Dem coalition
mechsympathy said:
And how does someone have a mandate to govern when 64% dont want them, and they are only 3% ahead of the next man?
I've been thinking the same thing. And these figures don't include those who couldn't be ar$ed to vote for anyone.
IMO PR will only benefit the smaller parties though, and on the results from yesterday would probably have resulted in a Labour/Lib Dem coalition
I've just had a look at the figures for my constituency. Turnout was 35000 on a pop of 68000.
The MP elected got 57% of the vote - the next two nearly equal with <20% each.
Everyone knows this is a safe seat so only the interested turn out. But if it was close I'm sure the troops would turn out.
However if we used PR then every vote would count.
The stupid thing about yesterday is that your vote was probably pointless - it was all decided in those constituencies that were borderline. Is that democracy?
A combined type would probably be best.......double the size of the constituencies and use FPTP for those but the other 50% of seats allocated on a PR basis so that even small parties get a seat. It means that the BNP would get a seat or two (and the Monster Raving types too) but would reflect the intentions of the voting public better. I would also have voted differently if this system was in place
You could work it so that you either have one vote for everything (which would not be good for charismatic or local interest candidates) or one for the constituency and one for PR
planetdave said:
A combined type would probably be best.......double the size of the constituencies and use FPTP for those but the other 50% of seats allocated on a PR basis so that even small parties get a seat. It means that the BNP would get a seat or two (and the Monster Raving types too) but would reflect the intentions of the voting public better. I would also have voted differently if this system was in place
You could work it so that you either have one vote for everything (which would not be good for charismatic or local interest candidates) or one for the constituency and one for PR
It is a better system than STV-and would also eliminate tactical voting-so people would have to vote according to their principles-it is worth considering.
Balmoral Green said:
There sure are some weird demographics in term of constituency sizes and population density.
Looking at some of the voting constituencies and turnouts (although not representive of the total possible voters) there are some only returning 20,000 votes whilst others return over 40,000. This inlcuded some of the smaller urban constituencies in which could easily be amalgamated.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff