Proportional representation.

Wasn't there a referendum and the people said no?

That's right. 5th May 2011.

But we only had three parties then. Now we have four.

I am in favour of PR on general principles, not just for trendy expediency and I had hoped that the referendum on AV would be a good first step. The voting population spoke emphatically on the subject. Turn out wasn't great, the no vote was much larger than I was expecting and personally hoping for but that's how our democracy works. I don't see another referendum on the distant horizon, let alone nearer.

How about adopting a Two Elections system?

A Primary Election for all party candidates to stand,

and people cast three votes - 1^st, 2^nd, and 3^rd, for whoever they like.

1^st vote is worth 10 points

2^nd vote is worth 6 points

3^rd vote is worth 3 points

Only the two candidates with the most points stand at the secondary election which is held a month later.

Far less need for tactful voting, no hung parliaments, and better PR.

Does proportional representation mean that fat people have a bigger say - if so I'm in

An advocate of tactless voting - Farage's wet dream 

The doors of the ballot office are not as wide as the doors at McDonalds so fat people won’t get in to vote.

Oh dear - that is so sizeist 

Replace the second house with a PR system.

Chaps

If you want a permanently weak government where major decisions never reflect the manifesto of the main party and are done in secret with one trade off after another, then go ahead and vote for PR.

Regards

Mick

I don't normally discuss politics because nothing good comes of it but I have to agree with Mick 100%.

I lived in Australia for 13 years and they have a form of PR and (if registered) you must vote or face a fine. You not only vote for your main choice but there was also the option of a secondary preference if your main choice didn't secure enough to be voted in. I can remember the QLD state election in 1998 taking about 3 weeks to be finally decided after recounts - and this for a state of approx 5 million people.

Be careful what you wish for - one of the most enlightening things for me about living overseas was the realisation that people are pretty much the same wherever you go. So you get good and bad of everything including politicians.

That's all from me on the P subject.

Scott

A bit (only a bit) off-topic, but I thought it was interesting that in the part of the UK with the most foreigners, immigrants, and the most intense pressures on space and housing - London - UKIP did abysmally, winning only three council seats, all of them in the outlying borough of Bexley.

One UKIP London candidate, the Tory turncoat Suzanne Evans, blamed the capital's "more media-savvy" and ""educated, cultured and young" population for their failure to make an impact. Another blamed the "metropolitan elite" in London for UKIP's flopping. A capital city full of metropolitan types. Whatever next!?

Redrawing the map of constituencies with similar number of voters would be a fairer start so that we all got a similar share of an MP.

Currently I share my MP with twice as many people as the voters do with their MP in the Inner city constituencies.

Char

The only thing that is odious and unpalatable is making foolish comments that lack any form of credibility and that is something you seem to have an amazing ability to do.

And just to answer your stupid question, yes it does matter and anyone who wants a particular type of society votes for the party that best reflects their views.  I agree that today there is an element of similarity between the main parties but their policies on taxation, expenditure are wide enough apart to make exercising a vote a worthwhile exercise.

Mick

Dear Char,

Would you prefer that the government was of the unelected variety?

I know that some people would prefer this, but I would have thought that it is the responsibility of every freedom defending individual to at least vote for the least awful candidate. Or if really motivated, to actually get out there and stand for election instead!

ATB from George

Being educated enables one to see UKIP as the racist bigots that they are, so she's quite right, even though that's quite unusual for a Tory, ex or not.

And with what would you replace the current UK system?

I agree that there are some areas that cry out for reform, such as constancy boundaries, but I'd rather have what we have than have anarchy or unelected dictatorship. Be careful what you wish for is my view or your position!

ATB from George

Tihe current Administration is "unelected" in that no party had a majority.

Or you could say that it was elected by a wider selection of society than tends to a elect a one party administration!

I personally welcome the moderating influence of the Lib-Dems on the Tories.

In fact I would be happy to never see a single party administration elected ever again.

Tony Blair would never have got away with what he did if he had had a coalition  to deal with!

ATB from George

Being part of a coalition hasn't stopped Cameron's destruction of swathes of the State.

No - you vote for a local representative in your MP - the administration is formed from whichever grouping of said representatives can form a government able to pass legislation - it does not have to be a majority you can have a minority government.

To say the coalition is unelected is incorrect.

Tog

Dear Nigel,

I think you will find that the Coalition has done quite nicely in both economic and employment terms for the UK.

Where is the destruction you speak of?

A straight and steady path has be steered out of the Blair-Brown economic un-miracle, and hence that the Tories at least have not [as you would expect at this point in the General Election Cycle] been decimated by Labour in the local elections this week, because though people prefer the apparently more humane face of the Labour Party they know that "Lab" cannot be trusted to run the economy with prudence. This im-prudence hurts the working man every bit as much as big business.

ATB from George

This is absolutely correct, no one elected a stinking Con-Dem Party, the Tory Toffs were handed the right to govern because the present system is diabolically flawed in allowing such an undemocratic procedure. It was also caused by those nasty double crossing

Liberal Dumbocrats who ripped up their manifesto, broke all their promises, and jumped into bed with the Tories just so they could get some power, how utterly disgraceful!

However, this totally unfair and farcically undemocratic situation could be completely avoided if the Two Election System was employed.

A Primary Election for all party candidates to stand,

and people cast three votes - 1^st, 2^nd, and 3^rd, for their best choice of any three.

1^st vote is worth 10 points

2^nd vote is worth 6 points

3^rd vote is worth 3 points

Only two candidates with the most points stand at the secondary election which is held a month later [as a two horse race].

Debs

Dear Debs,

I call that a real plan!

It would lead to a firm stability for the government eventually elected for sure, and in difficult times would secure the authority to make tough decisions that might otherwise be fudged.

ATB from George