I'z a bit tick me? (voting)

The constituency layouts mean that the Conservatives can get many more votes than Labour and Labour will still have a parliamentary majority.
Some people think that the number of MPs associated with a particular party should be related to the proportion of the votes received by the party.

If the latter could be fixed without reinforcing the power of the party machines then I'd be for it. I think most current proposals would finally squeeze out the mavericks and independents.

Paul

Ke?

I did mention I was thick didn't I?

I also think it is odd that a party in power may change leader without going back to the country. This may just happen in the (almost inevitable) next Labour term. If my local candidate steps down then we have a bi-election.

Bruce

That's because you vote for your local MP Bruce. The party membership elects it's leader - as they should. If you are a Labour Party member you will be involved - should Tony The Boy God stand down.

quote:

Originally posted by garyi:
Why is this unfair?

Here's some examples from Scotland where, in the 2001 general election, there were 72 seats up for grabs:

Labour 43% of the vote, 56 seats
SNP 20% of the vote, 5 seats
Liberal Democrat 16% of the vote, 10 seats
Conservative 16% of the vote, 1 seat

1. Despite getting a bigger share of the vote than the Liberals the SNP got half as many seats.

2. The Tories got nearly the same same percentage of the vote as the Liberals but have only 1 seat compared to the Liberals 10.

3. Labour only got 43% of the vote but won nearly 80% of the available seats.

4. Labour got slightly more than double the vote of the SNP but won more than 11 times as many seats.

Not difficult to see why many parties are interested in proportional representation is it...

should Tony The Boy God stand down.[/QUOTE]
"" BOY""
Shouldn't that just read God????
oldie.

No voting system is ideal for everyone. If there was one, we would all have it.
I believe we have a reasonable system, and the result is respected by all.
Think Bush & Mugabe and count our blessings.

Isn't voter apathy enough to make elections not unlike cricket? Both are equally boring. You get the impression something is happening when really it isn't. Then there are the long periods when nothing is actually happening at all except for a few posers showing off centre screen. There is another similarity: You have to pay dearly for this "entertainment".

The only real difference as far as I can judge is the absence of streakers in elections. But one may hope.

Nime

It's also sad that those voters not too apathetic to vote are more than likely voting for "not the rest". I'd like nothing more than to see Mr Blair's smarmy arse slung out on the street but what's the viable alternative? Michael Howard? I think not.

It's certainly time for a new "gang of four", but who would we have?
Claire Short
Menzies Campbell
Ken Clarke
Gordon Brown.

Now that would be interesting!

How did it go? Last one out switch off the lights.

quote:

Originally posted by garyi:
I have been reading a lot recently about the grossly unfair election system in the UK, but no specific reason why it is unfair.

Some few attachments left in my brain not attacked by Badgers Champion Beer tells me its all rather straight forward, vote for who you want, those with the most votes wins.

You know, kind of like voting?

Why is this unfair?

Gazza,

You ain't as thick as me but then again I know marginally less than f**k all, but nevertheless let me see if I can try to answer your question.

Why is our voting system unfair? Well, depends what you mean by 'unfair' really dunnit, IMHO. With our current electoral system, 'first past the post', you don't vote directly for a prime minister - or the party you want to form the next government. Instead you vote to elect your local MP to represent you in Parliament, and of course the party with the most MPs gets to form the government.

Now why is this unfair? Essentially it isn't - at least if you support or are a member of one of the two main parties (Labour or Tory) who benefit the most under this system. It's smaller 'third' parties like the Lib Dems that tend to push for proportional representation, because under the current system, the proportion of the total parliamentary seats gained by a particular party hardly ever accurately reflects the proportion of the votes cast.

Now, why should just Labour and Conservative parties benefit, and therefore preserve their status as the two 'main' political parties in Westminster? Well, as I understand it, it's all to do with how national support for the parties breaks down. By which I mean that historically speaking, Labour can usually rely on support from industrial or 'poorer' areas of the country, for example whole swathes of the North of England, most of South Wales and inner London, whereas the Tories can traditionally rely on support from the Home Counties, the Shires, the so-called stockbroker belt, farming and rural areas, etc.

Basically large regional areas where one of the two parties dominate.

Now, the Lib Dems on the other hand cannot rely on such large traditional areas of support, so whilst they main gain a similar proportion of the popular vote nationally in a general election, it is spread relatively thinly across the country, so the result is that the popular vote rarely translates into parliamentary seats.

That's my take - it's all off the top of my head so I'm sure there are glaring errors; if anyone wants to correct me please feel free

Cheers,

Jon

quote:

That's because you vote for your local MP Bruce. The party membership elects it's leader - as they should.

Maybe this is where the principal problem lies. Personally I'm quite happy with my local MP (Vince Cable) as a local MP, but I don't want to vote Lib-dem for the National Government. Perhaps a general elction should allow the voter to vote directly for the government of his choice and election of the local MP should be a separate issue or tied in with local government elections.

quote:

Originally posted by JonR:

Now, the Lib Dems on the other hand cannot rely on such large traditional areas of support, so whilst they main gain a similar proportion of the popular vote nationally in a general election, it is spread relatively thinly across the country, so the result is that the popular vote rarely translates into parliamentary seats.

In Scotland the Lib-Dems are about the only ones that got close to their "correct" number of seats based on their percentage of the votes.

The scored a little over 16% of the vote which translates to 12 seats - they actually got 10.

The Tories scored just under 16% so would be due 11 seats - they actually got 1.

The SNP scored just over 20% of the vote which would translate to 14 seats - they got 5.

Labour scored 43% of the poll which equates to 31 seats - they got a whopping 56.

What happens in Scotland is that the Lib-Dems do well in a few (mostly farming) areas and very poorly elsewhere. The SNP and Tories are more consistent in their support accross the board and therefore they do a lot worse in first past the post.

Between them the Tories and SNP took about 36% of the vote but only share a total of 6 MP's. The liberals with less than half that share of the vote got almost twice as many MP's. Labour, with a few percent more, have nearly 10 times as many MP's!

The Scottish parliament uses a mix of PR and first past the post and the number of MSP's for each party matches the percentage vote a lot more closely. There are also a significant number of MSP's from other parties (Greens & SSP) and independents.