Two party system

[Berberis]

I don't think it can be compared to PR, but I can understand why some voters don't want a fair system.

 

"I don't think" does not cut it I'm afraid. AV was sold to the public as "PR lite" with a view to moving to full PR at some point in the future if the country wanted it. The people voted very decisively against it.

 

---------- Post added 27-04-2015 at 13:15 ----------

 

I was referring to help from the media

 

The media is very important in all things political in the UK as it is across the world, but I think people are more savvy than you give them credit for.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Berberis

[mjw47]

You can't call the electorate stupid just because they don't vote the way you want them too.

 

You can however call them stupid if they choose not to vote for a fairer more democratic system when given the opportunity to do so.

 

Three possibilities occur as to why anyone would choose to retain an obviously inadequate non representative system, firstly they don't understand why the existing system is unfair, secondly they don't understand the way the alternative works and are confused or thirdly they are reactionary and hate change.

 

All three does tend toward a certain amount of stupidity being involved.

 

The other reason of course could be that the present system favours their party of choice so they wish to retain it as an unfair advantage.

 

So not stupid, but not democratic either.

 

AV is not without flaws either, so why was it offered as the alternative to FPTP rather than PR, which is accepted as the most democratic method yet devised?

 

If I was a cynic I would think that perhaps the reason was precisely because AV has those flaws and therefore could be argued against whereas it isn't possible to argue against PR on democratic terms.

 

Come to think of it I am a cynic where politics is concerned.

[esme]

"I don't think" does not cut it I'm afraid. AV was sold to the public as "PR lite" with a view to moving to full PR at some point in the future if the country wanted it. The people voted very decisively against it...

PR was removed as an option from the referendum because the Conservative back bench threatened a revolt if it remained.

 

They didn't want the AV system either, despite it still being effectively a FPTP system, and started a mud slinging campaign telling the electorate that under AV it's possible to elect someone no one wants, and confusing the issue.

 

FPTP suits the old guard of the two party system down to the ground as a party can be elected with a minority of the electorate voting for them.

 

I worked out once that a party achieved a majority in the house with 21.4% of the electorate voting for them which implies 78.6% of the electorate wanted someone else, however majority of seats rules and roughly 20% of the country told the rest what to do for five years.

 

We need a change.

[evil woman]

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.

 

But then to get more seats you simply put up candidates in more constituencies. So under PR the BNP would probably have got far more than the 12 as would the SNP and the small parties that in 2010 didn't contest all 650. Which of course would mean the large parties getting far less than your table quotes.

[Eater Sundae]

But then to get more seats you simply put up candidates in more constituencies. So under PR the BNP would probably have got far more than the 12 as would the SNP and the small parties that in 2010 didn't contest all 650. Which of course would mean the large parties getting far less than your table quotes.

 

I presume (without checking) that the SNP stood in every Scottish seat. But would they choose to stand in English seats under PR? Is that what you mean?

[Berberis]

PR was removed as an option from the referendum because the Conservative back bench threatened a revolt if it remained.

 

Yes because it was too fast for some to accept, but it was sold as the first step to PR.

 

I worked out once that a party achieved a majority in the house with 21.4% of the electorate voting for them[/url] which implies 78.6% of the electorate wanted someone else, however majority of seats rules and roughly 20% of the country told the rest what to do for five years.

 

I'm interested in how you have worked this out as the current cons (2010 results) received 23% of the votes from the eligible population. This takes into account the none voters which is wrong anyway, but still this number that resulted in no overall majority is higher than your calculation.

 

At the 2010 election, the Cons received 36% of the votes cast. Combine that with the Lib Dems share and you have a government that represents 59.1% of the votes cast by the eligible population. Total turnout being 29,691,380.

[mjw47]

But then to get more seats you simply put up candidates in more constituencies. So under PR the BNP would probably have got far more than the 12 as would the SNP and the small parties that in 2010 didn't contest all 650. Which of course would mean the large parties getting far less than your table quotes.

 

In order for smaller parties to gain more seats people have to vote for them.

 

If people choose to vote for them then that is the nature of true democracy.

 

The statistics produced by loraward showed two parties that I have no time for, Ukip and the BNP, gaining seats under PR which they failed to do under FPTP.

 

Despite the fact that I detest them both democracy isn't about what I or any other individual wants, it's about what the entire voting electorate want.

 

The three main parties would still have a comfortable majority between them in the House and therefore none of the minority parties would be able to exert too much influence.

 

It is always better to hear what these people have to say for themselves out in the public domain. Let them show themselves up for what they are and let us see if they subsequently gain or lose votes.

[evil woman]

I presume (without checking) that the SNP stood in every Scottish seat. But would they choose to stand in English seats under PR? Is that what you mean?

 

The SNP only currently contest Scottish seats. But of course if there was PR they could stand in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. They might pick up rather a lot of votes. I'd vote for them. It would certainly give them the leverage to split the UK. The BNP only stood in half the seats in 2010. So they would certainly gain a load of votes/seats by standing in all 650. UKIP would pick up around 100 seats under PR. Together with the SNP & BNP they could start to dictate policy.

[esme]

...I'm interested in how you have worked this out as the current cons (2010 results) received 23% of the votes from the eligible population. This takes into account the none voters which is wrong anyway, but still this number that resulted in no overall majority is higher than your calculation...

I did provide a link to the calculation.

 

It was the 2005 general election and not the 2010.

 

There's also http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

 

Looks like I made a mistake too I had the figure for the total electorate wrong

 

Labour won with 9,566,183 votes which is 35.2% of the total votes cast, turnout was 61.4%.

 

However out of the total electorate of 44,180,243 (I had 44,796,950 for some reason) this changes to 21.65% (100*9566183/44180243), better but not by a lot.

 

This netted 355 seats and a majority

 

Doing the same at 2010

 

Conservative got 10,703,744 votes which is 36.1% of the votes cast, the turnout was 65.1%

 

Factoring this to the total electorate of 45,597,461 gives 23.47% of the total electorate.

 

This got them 306 seats and no majority

 

So we add the lib dems

 

Votes = 6,836,198, 23% of votes cast or 14.9% of the total electorate, netting 57 seats

 

Adding the two together for the coalition gives us

 

Combined votes = 17,539,942, combined % of votes cast 59.1%, combined % of total electorate = 38.47%, total seats 363 & majority.

 

I think I have the figure right, please feel free to correct me.

[loraward]

"I don't think" does not cut it I'm afraid. AV was sold to the public as "PR lite" with a view to moving to full PR at some point in the future if the country wanted it. The people voted very decisively against it.

 

There was never any intention to offer PR, AV was only offered to keep the LIbdems in check.

 

---------- Post added 27-04-2015 at 18:26 ----------

 

But then to get more seats you simply put up candidates in more constituencies. So under PR the BNP would probably have got far more than the 12 as would the SNP and the small parties that in 2010 didn't contest all 650. Which of course would mean the large parties getting far less than your table quotes.

 

That would be a good thing, wouldn't it?

 

---------- Post added 27-04-2015 at 18:29 ----------

 

The SNP only currently contest Scottish seats. But of course if there was PR they could stand in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. They might pick up rather a lot of votes. I'd vote for them. It would certainly give them the leverage to split the UK. The BNP only stood in half the seats in 2010. So they would certainly gain a load of votes/seats by standing in all 650. UKIP would pick up around 100 seats under PR. Together with the SNP & BNP they could start to dictate policy.

 

You appear to believe it is wrong for everyone to have representation in parliament.