|
Post by swanarcadian on Aug 18, 2023 23:09:50 GMT
Outdated, you could argue that. But corrupt, I wouldn’t say so. I could understand the argument that FPTP is outdated and born from the days where only two candidates typically stood in elections. But corrupt is the wrong word.
|
|
|
Post by edgbaston on Aug 18, 2023 23:16:46 GMT
It was over complicated and very rarely ever changed a result Oh boy. Should we abolish HMRC self-assessments too? They are overly complicated too. If you’re asking should the tax system be simplified absolutely
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Aug 18, 2023 23:17:23 GMT
That's a point of view, and my gradually increasing acceptance of PR tends to be set back by such comments. Corrupt? Come off it. The candidate with the most votes wins under FPTP. when the candidate with the most votes has 21% like in the Doncaster mayoralty you know that's not indicative of who people want to be mayor
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,687
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 19, 2023 1:59:41 GMT
It was over complicated and very rarely ever changed a result Oh boy. Should we abolish HMRC self-assessments too? They are overly complicated too. Piffle! I get mine done in the time between putting the kettle on and the cup of tea being ready for drinking. And that's with typically three different contracts each year, and a half share of rental income from a shop and a flat.
|
|
batman
Labour
Posts: 9,019
Member is Online
|
Post by batman on Aug 19, 2023 8:26:54 GMT
That's a point of view, and my gradually increasing acceptance of PR tends to be set back by such comments. Corrupt? Come off it. The candidate with the most votes wins under FPTP. when the candidate with the most votes has 21% like in the Doncaster mayoralty you know that's not indicative of who people want to be mayor that's a better argument altogether, and is one of the reasons why my once implacable opposition to PR has softened.
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Aug 19, 2023 10:09:14 GMT
That's a point of view, and my gradually increasing acceptance of PR tends to be set back by such comments. Corrupt? Come off it. The candidate with the most votes wins under FPTP. when the candidate with the most votes has 21% like in the Doncaster mayoralty you know that's not indicative of who people want to be mayor Although I think it would be fair to say that pluralities that low are pretty rare
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Aug 19, 2023 10:09:53 GMT
when the candidate with the most votes has 21% like in the Doncaster mayoralty you know that's not indicative of who people want to be mayor that's a better argument altogether, and is one of the reasons why my once implacable opposition to PR has softened. I think it can be described as flawed or phrases along similar lines, corrupt is taking it a bit far though
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Aug 19, 2023 10:16:58 GMT
That's a point of view, and my gradually increasing acceptance of PR tends to be set back by such comments. Corrupt? Come off it. The candidate with the most votes wins under FPTP. when the candidate with the most votes has 21% like in the Doncaster mayoralty you know that's not indicative of who people want to be mayor If you have a situation in which a winner under SV or AV gets 21% or 29% or 36% of the votes or a winner under FPTP gets 38% or 45% or 52% of the votes then that disguises the fact that those winning candidates got the votes from only 5% or 7% or 10% or 15% or 20% or 30% of the electorate. If a FPTP election has a result which is (turnout 70%) A 45% B 40% C 15% then that is used as an argument that we should have AV, in which the votes for C can be transferred to A or B, so that the result can be A 45% + 3% = 48% B 40% + 9% = 49% non-transferable = 3% but that disguises the fact that the result of the original FPTP election was actually A 53% of the votes from the people who were choosing a potential winner B 47% of the votes from the people who were choosing a potential winner C 26% of the people who didn’t want either of the two potential winners, but indicated a reason why DIDN’T VOTE 74% of the people who didn’t want either of the two potential winners, but didn’t give a specific reason. The fact that some people bothered to vote for candidate C (as a way of indicating that they didn’t want either A or B) should not be used as a reason to invalidate, or lessen, the fact that A got more than B. In other words, it shouldn’t be necessary to have an AV election just because A got slightly less than 50% of the votes rather than slightly more than 50%, because the reality is that in both cases they got far less than 50% of the electorate.
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Aug 19, 2023 10:23:00 GMT
]If you have a situation in which a winner under SV or AV gets 21% or 29% or 36% of the votes or a winner under FPTP gets 38% or 45% or 52% of the votes then that disguises the fact that those winning candidates got the votes from only 5% or 7% or 10% or 15% or 20% or 30% of the electorate. If a FPTP election has a result which is (turnout 70%) A 45% B 40% C 15% then that is used as an argument that we should have AV, in which the votes for C can be transferred to A or B, so that the result can be A 45% + 3% = 48% B 40% + 9% = 49% non-transferable = 3% but that disguises the fact that the result of the original FPTP election was actually A 53% of the votes from the people who were choosing a potential winner B 47% of the votes from the people who were choosing a potential winner C 26% of the people who didn’t want either of the two potential winners, but indicated a reason why DIDN’T VOTE 74% of the people who didn’t want either of the two potential winners, but didn’t give a specific reason. The fact that some people bothered to vote for candidate C (as a way of indicating that they didn’t want either A or B) should not be used as a reason to invalidate, or lessen, the fact that A got more than B. In other words, it shouldn’t be necessary to have an AV election just because A got slightly less than 50% of the votes rather than slightly more than 50%, because the reality is that in both cases they got far less than 50% of the electorate. The problem with all the above is that the votes for C are NOT simply indications that those people don't want either A or B. They are on the whole indications that those people want C. I guess in the end it comes down to whether or not you think it is reasonable for the largest minority to be able to dominate decision-making in perpetuity or whether you want a system that enables smaller minorities to have their voice heard / have some influence on the outcome.
|
|
European Lefty
Labour
Can be bribed with salted liquorice
Posts: 5,629
|
Post by European Lefty on Aug 19, 2023 12:08:39 GMT
But that only holds true if the share of seats in parliament is proportionate to the share of power in parliament which is demonstrably not the case
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Aug 19, 2023 14:54:20 GMT
It was over complicated and very rarely ever changed a result Oh boy. Should we abolish HMRC self-assessments too? They are overly complicated too. They are, as those of us who have to do them will attest. Definitely time for simplicity. This is a terrible example for you to use as literally everyone who does one wants to abolish the current process.
|
|
|
Post by markgoodair on Aug 19, 2023 16:30:51 GMT
that's a better argument altogether, and is one of the reasons why my once implacable opposition to PR has softened. I think it can be described as flawed or phrases along similar lines, corrupt is taking it a bit far though A system where the vast majority of those that actually vote counts for absolutely nothing is by definition corrupt to the core .
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Aug 19, 2023 17:12:39 GMT
I think it can be described as flawed or phrases along similar lines, corrupt is taking it a bit far though A system where the vast majority of those that actually vote counts for absolutely nothing is by definition corrupt to the core . I just personally think that’s hyperbole, the candidate with the most votes winning is a fairly basic concept. That’s not to say there isn’t some questions over fairness and that another system may better etc
|
|
weld
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,367
|
Post by weld on Aug 20, 2023 23:42:59 GMT
West Yorks is the UK’s answer to Michigan, IMO - Lab hold.
Under the bonnet, it’ll be interesting to see how well Labour do in the ‘rust belt’ or former coal country here: Normanton, Pontefract, Castleford, Hemsworth, Wakefield etc next May.
FPTP gives the Tories their best chance at taking this one day. Even in 2019, the Conservatives and the Brexit Party only got 43.9% between them, compared to Labour’s 46%.
|
|
davidh
Forum Regular
Posts: 31
|
Post by davidh on Aug 29, 2023 9:15:33 GMT
I think it can be described as flawed or phrases along similar lines, corrupt is taking it a bit far though A system where the vast majority of those that actually vote counts for absolutely nothing is by definition corrupt to the core . And yet the Lib Dems enthusiastically engage with FPTP and game it to death, even more so than the two largest parties who do, at least, have* to put forward moderately coherent and deliverable manifesto platforms because they know they might be landed with implementing them. Which says a lot about their hypocrisy on the question. * Not the Tories in 2019, obviously - but look at where that's got them.
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Aug 29, 2023 9:39:06 GMT
A system where the vast majority of those that actually vote counts for absolutely nothing is by definition corrupt to the core . And yet the Lib Dems enthusiastically engage with FPTP and game it to death, even more so than the two largest parties who do, at least, have* to put forward moderately coherent and deliverable manifesto platforms because they know they might be landed with implementing them. Which says a lot about their hypocrisy on the question. * Not the Tories in 2019, obviously - but look at where that's got them. "You oppose FPTP yet still participate in it. How curious. I'm very intelligent."
|
|
davidh
Forum Regular
Posts: 31
|
Post by davidh on Aug 29, 2023 9:52:52 GMT
And yet the Lib Dems enthusiastically engage with FPTP and game it to death, even more so than the two largest parties who do, at least, have* to put forward moderately coherent and deliverable manifesto platforms because they know they might be landed with implementing them. Which says a lot about their hypocrisy on the question. * Not the Tories in 2019, obviously - but look at where that's got them. "You oppose FPTP yet still participate in it. How curious. I'm very intelligent." It's not about that they participate in it; it's about how they participate in it. They take to an extreme - and delight in taking to an extreme - the very campaigning tactics they claim to abhor in FPTP. Not that they're even any good at it, claiming sugar-rush wins while going nowhere over the longer term. Maybe in the coming election they'll finally hold one of their by-election gains at the following GE (I expect they will, FWIW). If they do, it'll be the first time since 2005. And on the bigger picture, they've got fewer MPs now than 40 years ago. Why? Because they built their previous base on weakly-aligned tactical voting and local activism rather than ideological support, campaigned on contradictory policies, and then it all unravelled when faced with the realities of power that undercut their previous tactical claims and overrode any good work they were doing in their constituencies. It was inevitable that sooner or later they'd end up in power and be faced with that dilemma and yet they never confronted it or prepared for the consequences of not doing so because the short-term gain was always seen as more important. And they're doing exactly the same again now. Learned nothing; forgotten nothing.
|
|
|
Post by markgoodair on Aug 30, 2023 2:38:15 GMT
West Yorks is the UK’s answer to Michigan, IMO - Lab hold. Under the bonnet, it’ll be interesting to see how well Labour do in the ‘rust belt’ or former coal country here: Normanton, Pontefract, Castleford, Hemsworth, Wakefield etc next May. FPTP gives the Tories their best chance at taking this one day. Even in 2019, the Conservatives and the Brexit Party only got 43.9% between them, compared to Labour’s 46%. You clearly don’t understand or know the area if you think Ponty & Cas are going to end up being represented by a Tory.
|
|
weld
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,367
|
Post by weld on Aug 30, 2023 5:48:58 GMT
You clearly don’t understand my post if you think I believe the Conservatives can win this mayoralty in 2024.
Ponty and Cas were highly marginal in 2019, along with Hemmy and Normy. 1200 votes in each seat iirc.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,729
|
Post by The Bishop on Aug 30, 2023 10:58:33 GMT
Indeed, but the question is whether those were unrepeatable one off "Brexit bonuses" or signifying some deeper realignment.
As with many similar areas, we likely won't know the answer there for a while.
|
|