UK Election Night

7

798686

Guest
Thanks for the explanation, Dandy. :) Sounds pretty complicated! Also, still seems like you run the risk of seats being allocated to parties who didn't win in that area.

Would it be possible to have 2 choices on the ballot paper..one for gov, and one for local candidate? Altho, I guess you could end up with a government being voted in, yet having hardly any seats.

Your last suggestion sounds the best, tbh...Rating the candidates, etc.
 

mitchymo

Expert Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Posts
4,131
Media
0
Likes
100
Points
133
Location
England (United Kingdom)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
How is it strictly untrue? That most elections held under PR would result in a 'hung' parliament (or as happened on Thursday under FPP) was somewhat my point - that no single party would have an outright Parliamentary majority either by virtue of seats or votes.

On the back of this, that 36% of the vote can almost do so is indicative of the point many are making, the FPP system is manifestly undemocratic. Or did I misunderstand what you wrote?



Ideally, perhaps. Or would it more likely lead to endless paralysis, corruption and such like. I'm not picking on Italy but something like 60 coalitions/governments since WW2 suggests something isn't working!



You're surely not under the illusion that politics is about working for the people ... despite them is as much charity as I can summon right now.:biggrin1:

Hey Dong, i'd just ignore me completely actually on this topic. I re read what i wrote, confused myself a little bit and then realised that PR was'nt as clear cut as i first thought. I hate being ignorant :wink:
 

swordfishME

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2006
Posts
960
Media
0
Likes
135
Points
263
Location
DFW Texas
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
A OT question:

How long can Brown stay at 10 Downing once he resigns? I am sure that all the outgoing PM's stuff is not packed and moved in the hour or so they spend at BP submitting their resignation?
 

mitchymo

Expert Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Posts
4,131
Media
0
Likes
100
Points
133
Location
England (United Kingdom)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Thanks for the explanation, Dandy. :) Sounds pretty complicated! Also, still seems like you run the risk of seats being allocated to parties who didn't win in that area.

Would it be possible to have 2 choices on the ballot paper..one for gov, and one for local candidate? Altho, I guess you could end up with a government being voted in, yet having hardly any seats.

Your last suggestion sounds the best, tbh...Rating the candidates, etc.

Joll, i tried researching PR and found a site using google (no link sorry) which explained 3 different forms of PR one of which could be managed two ways giving 4 in total. I got confused a hell of a lot but i liked one that suggested a compromise where half the seats are elected the way we do now with the other half being based solely on share of the vote but whichever is fine by me as long as it happens. It would bring us in line with the current 20 of 28 western european nations which have PR already including Ireland.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
And I was pointing out that if 90% voted this time much the same as last time, theres not much hating going on, if any. You are presuming people changed heir vote out of hate without any evidence.

OK, then let's substitute 'hate' for dissatisfaction, general dislike ... vague antipathy ... whatever since you seem entirely too focussed on that one word.

I doubt anyone has judged who to vote for on the basis of how they intend to make 100 billion in cuts, because none has said a word about it. im not a half wit, have spent hours reading about this and Im not sure whether we face a disaster or not. Its very unclear. Anyone who has only listened to the debate highlights may have seen politicians queried about this, and every time they say we will make some efficiency savings and it will be fine. They all say this, none argue. They have all put forward their view that this isnt an issue.

You almost entirely missed my point, I'm not saying there's an imminent disaster, or indeed that there isn't - but I do believe action, and real action at that is needed to help ensure the latter outcome. I didn't say you were a half wit. It was a genralised observation.

I'm not so much of a 'panic merchant/multiple convoluted scenario merchant' as Jason, for example - but then I'm sure much of what he writes is as much regurgitated hand Tory rhetoric/blame Labour and the EU (the new evil empire, please!) for everything as it is a genuine belief.

...So 3 million voted to engineer a hung parliament. Worked quite well.

If you say so ...

Thats true. But nowadays people are more interested and more rebellious. So once they would have voted lab or con depending if they were dustmen or lords.Now hardly anyone is either and it is blatantly obvious they are not being represented. A bunch of professional politicians has totally run away with the ball and we want it back. Carry on that way and suddenly you get abreakthrough of 200 BNP when they get to the critical mass.

More rebellious, probably - more interested, I'm not so sure. Certainly turnout was higher this election than for a while.

The reasons for this are undoubtably varied but I rather doubt a sudden surge of 'interest' in the political process and a fervent desire for democracy is a major one. Voter apathy is endemic, has been for years. I think simple frustration is nearer the mark. Also, this time there was an opportunity for clear and visible payback.

well since you ask, a years delay is sufficiently long to be annoying, and then very annoying if every bill keeps being rejected by the lords. Whats more, if the lords was clearly representative and keeps disagreeing with the commons, people will start to notice that their will is being blatantly flouted by the commons. Then come next election... The accusation levelled against the lords evry single time it challenges the commons is that it is undemocratic and should stop interfering. Being elected proportionately it would truly represent the conscience of the nation nagging at the government.

I'm not convinced that a politicised Lords (by which I mean politicised in the popularly elected sense) is by definition a step toward being better. The Lords fulfils a purpose and I think that it should have far sharper teeth, only then would I entertain the notion that a fully elected house could realise any potential benefits of increased democratisation.

There is absolutley no justification for any kind of elected government in a democracy which isnt democratic. What did you say was the justification for the commons? That it gives a clear result? Why is this good?

I agree, but then I made no such assertion. A clear result is an outcome, I do think that's better than a blurred one. That doesn't mean the result itself, or the process by which is it acheived are necessarily so.

You're putting words in my mouth - and that's my birthright.

Goodness! Theres hardly a politician on the telly just now who isnt arguing that because they got 1% more than the other chap then the united will of the people means they must have their way. It seems to be news to them: someone needs to explain it to them quite pointedly.

That's TV, don't be disengenuous.

But if you reckon the population doesnt want any of the fring parties and I reckon they do, then give me single transferrable vote and we will see. If your right nothing will change. If im right, we will get a lot more libs and greens

Again, I didn't say that people didn't want fringe parties. I said that they would always exist - and that the relative importance issues/policies whatever they espouse may wax and wane, disappear or become mainstream.

I have no idea where you're getting some of your observations, perhaps you could actually go back and read what I wrote instead replying to what you'd like me to have written. Otherwise, it makes any rational discussion almost impossible.

When was the electorate ever asked to vote on an issue? er? staying in the EU about 1975? Never since?

Whoosh ...

What do you mean? At present to get into power you have to have the support of 40% of the population. Thats not very granular. To get an MP you probably need about 40% in any one constituency. Now, on PR you might need 1/650 of the total votes cast nationally to get 1MP, maybe 100 votes per constituency. The alternative under the present system is for the 60,000 trainspotters all round the country to all move to Crew, put up someone for parliament and vote for him. That would work, but is it fair to require them to do this?

I see what Jason means, you're making almost no sense.

Im an informed chap, but whats the point of voting for who i want. They cant win....Why would a sensible person waste their time going to vote when they know it will have no effect? You presume people dont care, rather than they have made a sensible decison it is a waste of time.

If that's the case it's primarily because people make it so. Assuming a candidate stood in each seat, if 80% of people who cast a vote did so for for the Monster raving looney party then that party would form the next government.

If people vote for who they want, instead of out of some sense of resigned fatalism that to do so is futile (or, because they're too spineless to own their choices should it come to pass) do you really believe it wouldn't make a difference?

If not then your statement makes little sense, or one must conclude that voters did in fact vote for who they wanted. If they didn't, they'll simply get what they deserve.

Personally, I think it's largely that too many fell into the traditional trap of believing a vote for any other than the red or blue team was a vote wasted. That's as sad an indictment of contemporary politics as it is of the victorian electoral system that perpetuates it.

On that, I think we might agree but even the current system does allow for real choice, and real substantive change - but people seem unwilling to act to bring it about. The reasons are myriad, but nonetheless the mechanism does exist.

Thats true, but since it would have to be accompanied by a rule that if you get 6% you get 6% of members, it would be much more fair than now. Were you seriously suggesting that because plaid cymru got 0.6% of the vote their three members should be barred from parliament?

Votes need to be considered in context. Regional votes such as that are hardly the same in nature or weight as the 'Land is power' party. You chose a rather poor example.

No I wasn't suggesting that such a narrow view be taken, I was illustrating my argument that parties that garner 100 votes out of 50,000 in a general election seat are preety much 'background noise', generally underserving of formal representation - at least not beyond the parish hall.

Of course these candidates know this, but surely some threshold is needed otherwise Parliament would need to increase in size by an order of magnitude.

Yes. Why do you presume people are incapable of making an informed choice between more than 2 parties? The actual attempts by any party to explain themselves to voters are truly pathetic...because under our system it doesnt matter.

I said no such thing. I said true democracy requires active (and informed) participation and that I see precious little evidence that such a requirement would be met by sufficient people to render it viable.

I don't presume, it's based on experience and not just in the UK - much of the rest of this forum should provide some empirical evidence of that. :smile:

A great many people tend to live by the headlines and the soundbites, and even worse take them as gospel. Not all, of course but enough to ensure that the political status quo is maintained.

Meanwhile editorial colums meet (vicariously) their desire to while about the greed and incompetence of the very people they elect and a backdrop of red top headlines fill much of the rest of the gap between peoples aspirations and they desire to take action to realise them by appealing to the lowest common denominatator.

Yes, that's a somewhat cynical view. Do you have credible evidence to the contrary?
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,639
Media
62
Likes
5,013
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
We need reform of our parliamentary system. This is a bigger question than simply PR.

* The West Lothian question has to be answered. The system where Scottish MPs can vote on laws which will affect England, Wales and NI but not Scotland is beyond defense.
* Reduce number of MPs. 650 is too many. Coonservatives propose 500.
* Sort out constituency boundaries - the present size variation is way too great.
* start thinking about House of Lords reform (but it has to be got right, but don't do anything too quickly and get it wrong).
* start thinking about reform of the voting system - but note that there are many systems other than PR, that PR does have severe problems (as does FPTP), and a fair number of democracies in Europe and around the world are on first past the post for very good reasons.
 

mitchymo

Expert Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Posts
4,131
Media
0
Likes
100
Points
133
Location
England (United Kingdom)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
We need reform of our parliamentary system. This is a bigger question than simply PR.

* The West Lothian question has to be answered. The system where Scottish MPs can vote on laws which will affect England, Wales and NI but not Scotland is beyond defense.
* Reduce number of MPs. 650 is too many. Coonservatives propose 500.
* Sort out constituency boundaries - the present size variation is way too great.
* start thinking about House of Lords reform (but it has to be got right, but don't do anything too quickly and get it wrong).
* start thinking about reform of the voting system - but note that there are many systems other than PR, that PR does have severe problems (as does FPTP), and a fair number of democracies in Europe and around the world are on first past the post for very good reasons.

I agree with most of this but not the bolded part. The majority of major european nations are on PR systems, south american nations are starting to adopt PR. South Africa has it, as does Australia and even the Scottish government uses it already to determine their government. There is no getting round the 'fairness' that PR brings to democracy, FPTP just does'nt have a place in brit politics anymore. This will be the real change that all parties were speaking of during the campaign albeit unknowingly)
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,678
Media
0
Likes
2,813
Points
333
Location
Greece
We need reform of our parliamentary system. This is a bigger question than simply PR.

* Sort out constituency boundaries - the present size variation is way too great.

I think that this is the central issue and I would love to see everyone's opinion.

In Ye Olden days, I am presuming that the seats represented communities to some degree that needed representing at the national level.

Is this still the case?

I'll offer myself as an example. I don't adhere to the policies of a single party. I like stuff from the Greens to the Tories. I live in a rural community, and to have a rural community with the average number of voters as an urban community, it would have to be massive. But what happens, is that you get swallowed up by a town that may have very different issues to the countryside. And then many of the provincial towns aren't big enough without swallowing up some of the surrounding countryside. Rural communities won't be represented, hence organisations such as the Countryside Alliance, that represents (they say) the countryside nationally. Do we have communities or national interest groups?

On the other hand, is it fair to maintain communities, but to effectively make their vote twice as much as someone in an urban area? If you look at the seats, you will see an electorate as low as 20,000 voters. I don't know the constituency with the highest turn out, but I imagine that it is over double the lowest.

Logically, if every constituency had the same number of voters then a first past the post system would be fair. However, if you have straight PR then very large parts of the country will not have their interests represented, because they don't really make a difference to who has power.

What you see in England and Wales and Scotland is an almost total division between Town and Country, hence my comment earlier regarding a divided Nation. Labour attracts the Urban perceived poor on handouts, the Tories the well off shires and wealthy suburbs.

As an aside, given that every Party's policy was to have the majority of savings coming from cuts, you can see that it will be labour supporters who are going to be hit hardest. What will Cleggy make of this and being held responsible, because the fact remains that his support comes from similar places to that of the Tories, not really the traditional Labour areas?
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,678
Media
0
Likes
2,813
Points
333
Location
Greece
How about this for an idea?

You have MP's for communities and distinct areas, but their votes in the House are proportional to the number of the electorate they represent. You could have more MPs, but less votes. That would be interesting.
 
7

798686

Guest
^ Would be interesting, Drifter! (if I understand it correctly, lol).

Seems like the result would've been the same if PR had been used in this election. Tories ahead with 10m votes, Labour on 8m+, and Libs on about 6m? Altho the Libs would've had far more seats. Would it still have lead to a hung Parliament?
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,678
Media
0
Likes
2,813
Points
333
Location
Greece
^ Would be interesting, Drifter! (if I understand it correctly, lol).

Seems like the result would've been the same if PR had been used in this election. Tories ahead with 10m votes, Labour on 8m+, and Libs on about 6m? Altho the Libs would've had far more seats. Would it still have lead to a hung Parliament?

Someone must have an electoral model that shows how it would have worked out under different systems. Afraid I am working and don't have the time to find it.

On my suggestion, if you had a constituency with 20,000 voters, then you would have 1 vote in the House and if your constituency had 40,000 then your MP vote in the house would be double.

You start with the smallest constituency and work up pro rata from there.
 
7

798686

Guest
Sounds ok! Kinda like lower voting weights for smaller states in the EU?

On a separate (and random) issue. Would the Tories be better with a more centrist (almost left-leaning) leader at some point, who understood social issues but also realised the sums had to add up, and the economy needed sorting? Same as Labour was better (sort of) with the right-leaning Blair. Or...are the traditional left/right stances more effective?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
7

798686

Guest
Well, I always liked Ken Clarke. William Hague strikes me as a leader but he is fairly right of centre isn't he?
Yeh, Hague's pretty good...seems pretty right-leaning tho, yep. Never trusted Ken Clarke I'm afraid. :frown1: His comment about wanting Westminster to be no more than a Regional Council Office in the EU, doesn't sit too well. Nor his admission to signing Maastrict before actually reading it. :( Knowledgeable guy tho. I think Boris could be quite good...but only as a war-time leader, probably (again, right-leaning). Maybe there aren't any leftie-centrists in the Conservative Party?
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
A OT question:

How long can Brown stay at 10 Downing once he resigns? I am sure that all the outgoing PM's stuff is not packed and moved in the hour or so they spend at BP submitting their resignation?

An easy one! They have a lot of staff there so if need be, by the time he comes back from the palace his stuff will already be on its way. I think I remember Blair said very graciously the conservatives could take a day or so to get out, but strictly its an instant thing.

We need reform of our parliamentary system. This is a bigger question than simply PR.

* The West Lothian question has to be answered. The system where Scottish MPs can vote on laws which will affect England, Wales and NI but not Scotland is beyond defense.
* Reduce number of MPs. 650 is too many. Coonservatives propose 500.
* Sort out constituency boundaries - the present size variation is way too great.
* start thinking about House of Lords reform (but it has to be got right, but don't do anything too quickly and get it wrong).
* start thinking about reform of the voting system - but note that there are many systems other than PR, that PR does have severe problems (as does FPTP), and a fair number of democracies in Europe and around the world are on first past the post for very good reasons.

The conservatives opening gambit in electoral reform negotiations is to suggest those elements of reform which would benefit them, while dismissing those which would disadvantage them. As things stand one unfairness has a tendency to cancel another.

If we were one united country, then obviously constituencies should contain the same number of people. The west lothian question, as you already know, is a long standing deal made with Scotland when it joined the UK that it was guaranteed a minimum number of seats, more than it would fairly get on a population basis, to make sure it remained able to influence the westminster parliament. That is fair, and you cant deny that either. In return for giving up their own parliament, they were given extra influence in ours, though still a big minority.

Some powers have been given back to scotland, so there is an argument that scottish MPs could lose powers to vote in those areas. But even if you did this, the reason for having extra seats in Scotland remains. There is also the difficulty of disentangling bills which touch on more than one area. If education is devolved to Scotland, how do you deal with the problem that english education is paid for from the national budget, not the english budget. Scottish MPs must be able to vote on matters affecting the national budget. The only real way out would be to devolve english powers in the same way. Maybe to county councils? Break up the english NHS into counties? The last government attempted to get people interested in regional assemblies and it was a dismal failure.

We probably have too many MPs. But if Scotland is guaranteed its 100, that means cutting english ones...

The last government thought about reform of the house of lords for 13 years. (unlucky for some). They flunked it because...the solution is obvious. Elections. Elections which proportionally reflect the balance of support for parties throughout the country. The reason this did not happen was because Blair (and the commons) was unwilling to give up the power of patronage which appointing peers gives them. They tried to have some stupid suggestions that it should be appointed to reflect the numbers of MPs in the commons. Such a display of self interest of MPs against national interest is staggering. 'Start thinking about' =do nothing. Always has been.

figures being quoted suggest the majority of effective democracies use some form of proportional voting. It works. The british are not so stupid they cant make it work too. You cannot object to it on the grounds it doesnt work or works less well as a way of ruling a country. It is always chosen for any new situation where fairness is considerd particularly important or where the result will be controversial. For example in Ireland (where they kill you if the result is seen as unfair), Scotland, Wales, London Mayor. The only justification for FPP is that its what we are used to. Switching to single transferrable vote for the commons is fine by me and makes virtually no difference to how difficult it is for a voter to vote. If they just do what they did before (pick one), that works fine, or they can rate candidates in preference 1,2,3. I first met this idea at university elections and thought, fuck, why the hell dont they do that nationally?
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Jason said:
* Sort out constituency boundaries - the present size variation is way too great.
I think that this is the central issue and I would love to see everyone's opinion.

In Ye Olden days, I am presuming that the seats represented communities to some degree that needed representing at the national level.

Is this still the case?
I dont think size of constituencies is a central issue. The electoral commission is supposed to redistribute seats to even this out more or less. The regional difference (eg scotland) is more complicated (see last post), but this has become a question of different parties picking on the particular aspect which disadvantages them. I saw some hope in Cameron's post election speech where he particulalry mentioned constituency size, as I thought maybe he was proposing a trade. You deal with this aspect for us, and Ill deal with the bit you dont like.



I'll offer myself as an example. I don't adhere to the policies of a single party. I like stuff from the Greens to the Tories. I live in a rural community, and to have a rural community with the average number of voters as an urban community, it would have to be massive. But what happens, is that you get swallowed up by a town that may have very different issues to the countryside. And then many of the provincial towns aren't big enough without swallowing up some of the surrounding countryside. Rural communities won't be represented, hence organisations such as the Countryside Alliance, that represents (they say) the countryside nationally.
You seem to be arguing for proportional representation! Those rural voters who are being outnumbered by nearby towns would find their votes still counted when added up from all over the country.

My local constituency, working class Hastings, has just gone blue like most of the rest of Sussex...not because of a swing to conservative (there wasnt one), but because of a boundary change adding some true blue outskirts. Is this fair?


Do we have communities or national interest groups?
At the moment, neither, we have a two party monopoly.

Logically, if every constituency had the same number of voters then a first past the post system would be fair.
No, it isnt. If everyone could ask everyone else beforehand who they intende to vote for and negotiate which candidates had consensus, then it might. The way to do this is a run off election. Vote, and the last candidate is eliminated. Then everyone gets to think again about who they like best, and another one goes out. Like they do on the telly. Trouble is, takes too long, but do you agree its fair? So what you do is ask everyone to rate the candidates 1,2,3.... Ehoever gets fewest votes gets thrown out, and votes from those who voted for them get redistributed to their second choice. The effect is exactly the same as having multiple run offs. The important thing is that people get to express a true first preference rather than having to guess who everyone else thinks is popular and choosing one of them.

However, if you have straight PR then very large parts of the country will not have their interests represented, because they don't really make a difference to who has power.
but how could it be otherwise? The best you can hope for is that a minority gets a few mps who can stand up and complain. Under the present system the only sort of minority which gets even a chance at this is a geographical one. If you take my example of the trainspotters party (manifesto bring back steam trains) , they have 100 members in every constiuency throughout the country. 65,000 votes. Ought to get 1 mp for that on a proportional basis. That would be fair.

What you see in England and Wales and Scotland is an almost total division between Town and Country, hence my comment earlier regarding a divided Nation. Labour attracts the Urban perceived poor on handouts, the Tories the well off shires and wealthy suburbs.
Well not precisely, speaking as member of the rural poor. As a member of the rural poor I want some opposite policies to my rich neighbours. They dont want me to build a house which might spoil their view. On the other hand, Im perfectly happy for them to fox hunting up and down all day long. They may hire me to help. The countryside in south east england is blue because many rich people live there, not because its country, and the rural poor may vote differently. (not that theres many left, because its very expensive countryside)

As an aside, given that every Party's policy was to have the majority of savings coming from cuts, you can see that it will be labour supporters who are going to be hit hardest.
the reality is that no party has discussed how it wil fund the real defecit. Obviously there will be cuts. However ther will also be tax rises, witness the manic attempts to stick to th line of 'no current plans to...' Tax rises could mean tory voters being hit hardest, but naturally they are trying hard to avoid this.


What will Cleggy make of this and being held responsible, because the fact remains that his support comes from similar places to that of the Tories, not really the traditional Labour areas?[/QUOTE]
 

Sergeant_Torpedo

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2006
Posts
1,348
Media
0
Likes
23
Points
183
Location
UK
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Tribal voting on an almost primitave scale was witnessed last Thursday. We get the government we deserve, if you are a greedy bastard likely you will vote for another one whatever their politics are. And what is it with the BBC trying to be trendy by interviewing coke sniffing, sexually incontinent, scoffing celebs on the night? Even the usually sensible Maureen Lipman came across as a Labour groupie.