El Cid Posted April 27, 2015 Author Share Posted April 27, 2015 Red is the seat each party got, orange is the number of seats they would have got under a fair system if everyone voted the same which is unlikely, people will have a bigger incentive to vote and they will very likley vote for the party they want and not vote tactically. The Liberal Democrats would have got even more votes, they may even have got more than the two main parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loraward Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 The Liberal Democrats would have got even more votes, they may even have got more than the two main parties. I would consider that to be an adverse side effect but at least it would be fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 No because the two parties represent the majority and the majority don't want democracy to be fair. In 2010 the Tories won an English majority with 298 seats, Labour came second with 191 seats and Libdems third with 43 seats, if you don't want Tories in power you should be thanking the Scottish and welsh. The alternative vote referendum 2011 was the first step in bringing in PR and it was turned down by a large majority of the population (67.9%). ---------- Post added 27-04-2015 at 12:22 ---------- I would consider that to be an adverse side effect but at least it would be fair. The averse effect is the BNP MP's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loraward Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 The alternative vote referendum 2011 was the first step in bringing in PR and it was turned down by a large majority of the population (67.9%). ---------- Post added 27-04-2015 at 12:22 ---------- The averse effect is the BNP MP's I don't think it can be compared to PR, but I can understand why some voters don't want a fair system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Boomer- Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 In my opinion a fair system is one in which every vote counts. One in which the number of MP's per party is proportionally represented by the total number of votes each party receives. ---------- Post added 27-04-2015 at 07:40 ---------- Conservative ...............................307 -- 10,726,614 ............ 234 Labour .......................................258 -- 8,609,527 ..............188 Liberal Democrat ..........................57 -- 6,836,824 ................149 Democratic Unionist Party............. 8 -- 168,216 ....................4 Scottish National Party .................6 -- 491,386 ....................11 Sinn Fein ....................................5 -- 171,942 ....................4 Plaid Cymru ...............................3 -- 165,394 ....................4 Social Democratic & Labour Party ..3 -- 110,970 ....................3 Green ........................................1 -- 285,616 ....................6 Alliance Party ..............................1 -- 42,762 ....................1 UK Independence Party ..............0 -- 919,546 ....................20 British National Party ...................0 -- 564,331 ....................12 Turnout 29,691,380 After 650 of 650 seats declared. Red is the seat each party got, orange is the number of seats they would have got under a fair system if everyone voted the same which is unlikely, people will have a bigger incentive to vote and they will very likley vote for the party they want and not vote tactically. I see, so stuff is only fair if it's balanced in your favour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loraward Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 I see, so stuff is only fair if it's balanced in your favour? No, a PR system wouldn't be balanced in anyone's favour, but it would remove the unfairness that balances it in favour of Labour and Concervatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted April 27, 2015 Author Share Posted April 27, 2015 The alternative vote referendum 2011 was the first step in bringing in PR and it was turned down by a large majority of the population (67.9%). Most of the electorate need help in putting their x in the correct box, Cameron and his mates want to keep power, so they did not help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 Most of the electorate need help in putting their x in the correct box, Cameron and his mates want to keep power, so they did not help. You can't call the electorate stupid just because they don't vote the way you want them too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 The alternative vote referendum 2011 was the first step in bringing in PR and it was turned down by a large majority of the population (67.9%). ---------- Post added 27-04-2015 at 12:22 ---------- The averse effect is the BNP MP's I would like to see a more proportional method of putting MPs into parliament than the one we have, but all methods have limitations. However, I think the one offered then was particularly poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted April 27, 2015 Author Share Posted April 27, 2015 You can't call the electorate stupid just because they don't vote the way you want them too. I was referring to help from the media Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now