Jump to content


Should We Replace The First Past The Post Election System ?

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, BadgerBodge said:

Interesting example.

Perhaps a more telling figure is the 2005 election.

61.4% turn out

 

Labour got 35.2% of the vote. ( the lowest winning percentage to date )

Still got at least 57.7% of the seats.

That is because Charles Kennedy was a good candidate/leader for the Liberals and he split the vote. Three parties running for votes, in a two party electoral system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, El Cid said:

That is because Charles Kennedy was a good candidate/leader for the Liberals and he split the vote. Three parties running for votes, in a two party electoral system.

Voters vote for party policies not leaders ( at least the normal ones do ). perhaps more to do with tactical voting ?

Interesting that some people have suggested the German or French electoral systems are more democratic.

 

Despite their 2 vote system, only 2 parties CDU/CSU and SPD ( with at least 50% of the vote between them ) have had a chance of winning an election outright in Germany since the 1950s. The other parties are miles behind.

 

In France the 2 winning parties last time to move to the 2nd round had only 45% of the vote between them. It was then a toss up between Macron and the French National Front ! 33% still preferred the NF  to Macron !

With 4 parties having around 20% of the vote each, it appears France's system isn't a perfect example of democracy either.

 

 

Edited by BadgerBodge
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, El Cid said:

Why should home owners be the only ones to pay a local tax, why should a person living alone pay a local tax, yet four adults sharing pay much less?

Person living alone = £750, where as for adults would pay £250 each if sharing the council tax.

I thought you stated "local income tax or something similar" so which is it? You seem a bit confused about what you mean by a local tax so perhaps it would help if you could answer my question as to why we should have a local income tax dependant on where people live. If you are actually talking about the Council Tax being more equal then we could always go back to Thatchers Community Charge as that is what that was about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, El Cid said:

That is because Charles Kennedy was a good candidate/leader for the Liberals and he split the vote. Three parties running for votes, in a two party electoral system.

It's not a two party electoral system though is it? It's just a case of the strongest party wins whatever colour and the losers don't like it! In fact the more I think about PR and FPTP I'm getting more convinced that FPTP is the better of the two.

Edited by apelike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, apelike said:

I thought you stated "local income tax or something similar" so which is it? You seem a bit confused about what you mean by a local tax so perhaps it would help if you could answer my question as to why we should have a local income tax dependant on where people live. If you are actually talking about the Council Tax being more equal then we could always go back to Thatchers Community Charge as that is what that was about.

The council tax could be made fairer, that may well be what happens, if anything at all.

7 hours ago, apelike said:

It's not a two party electoral system though is it? It's just a case of the strongest party wins whatever colour and the losers don't like it! In fact the more I think about PR and FPTP I'm getting more convinced that FPTP is the better of the two.

How many times have you voted for neither of the main partys? I would guess that people that like the Conservatives getting elected would be happy with FPTP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, El Cid said:

The council tax could be made fairer, that may well be what happens, if anything at all.

How many times have you voted for neither of the main partys? I would guess that people that like the Conservatives getting elected would be happy with FPTP.

The Conservatives love the FPTP system which gets them returned regularly. Which is why, when we  were supposed to be having the referendum on it back in 2010 (brought about by the Lib Dems in exchange for dropping the student fees promise,) sneaky David Cameron changed it for a vote not for the preferred PR, but for AV (Alternative Vote) which nobody understood or wanted.

 

Hence, we still have FPTP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anna B said:

The Conservatives love the FPTP system which gets them returned regularly. Which is why, when we  were supposed to be having the referendum on it back in 2010 (brought about by the Lib Dems in exchange for dropping the student fees promise,) sneaky David Cameron changed it for a vote not for the preferred PR, but for AV (Alternative Vote) which nobody understood or wanted.

 

Hence, we still have FPTP.

I wasnt keen on AV, but it was a step in the right direction and I voted in favour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think the FPTP system is total bobbins.

 

Especially when you have the hardcore right wing Daily Fail and Torygraph readers who'd willingly vote for a 3 legged Sheep if it wore the colours of the Tories! :loopy: 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they are still better than those rabid left-wing, pie in the sky thinking, communist loving, immigrant hugging, union worshiping, benefit scroungers who would vote for a donkey with a red rosette just waiting to come along I'm bankrupt the country again :loopy::loopy:

 

See, I can do lazy generic stereotyping as well.

 

Until the losing side gets a grip and realises that their massive defeat in the last election was not totally at the door of hardcore immigrant hating right wing brexiteers  they are never ever going to find a solution to their obvious problems.   Their defeat was not black and white. They need to actually listen to people and take interest into why they lost their electorate support.

 

Instead they choose to bury their heads in the sand, preach to the already converted and sit there playing the blame game on everyone else for their own failures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there isn't a (singular) losing side.

 

there are at least 3* other parties, which would (do) receive over half the votes.

 

most people don't want a conservative government - what have we got? a conservative government with a massive majority - how does that make sense?

 

(*i know, it's more like 4, or 5, or 6, etc.)

 

Labour need to start working with the other parties, if they ever want to move on from eternal opposition.

Edited by ads36

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Anna B said:

The Conservatives love the FPTP system which gets them returned regularly. Which is why, when we  were supposed to be having the referendum on it back in 2010 (brought about by the Lib Dems in exchange for dropping the student fees promise,) sneaky David Cameron changed it for a vote not for the preferred PR, but for AV (Alternative Vote) which nobody understood or wanted.

 

Hence, we still have FPTP.

IIRC Labour were first as in 1997 in their manifesto Labour also promised to hold a referendum on electoral reform as the majority of the Labour party wanted one. The enquiry they commissioned beforehand recommended the supplementary vote system and yet when the came into power they unsurprisingly dropped any idea of a referendum on reform. It seems like Labour also love FPTP when in power as it suits them but are yet again calling for electoral reform now they are once again on the sideline. 

 

If it wasn't for Labour going back on a manifesto promise we could already have had a PR or a similar system in place replacing FPTP.

 

14 minutes ago, ads36 said:

..... most people don't want a conservative government - what have we got? a conservative government with a massive majority - how does that make sense?

I think you will find that most people do and that's why they were voted in and got that majority. If Labour had got the same amount of votes and seats then they would have been the ones in power so it works both ways.

 

Edited by apelike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.