Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2014 18:03:00 GMT
Do we really believe that voters actually care ? I do ask because do we need a vote to decide the way we are voting ? If the party or parties in power decide to change the system then dont they have the mandate if it is in their manifesto ? I do think in 2015 you will get the situation where UKIP get more votes than the LD's but get no MP's like at the time of the sDP and alliance it will make a mockery of the system especially as this time no chance the Tories or Labour will get over 40% to justify some kind of legitimacy. I presume on that basis Ian, and I don't remember what your position on it was, but I suspect the word gerrymandering was used, that you must have been in favour of the redrawing of the constituency boundaries? I you weren't then how will you feel if GE2015 goes: Con 35% 283 seats Lab 34% 313 " L/D 12% 26 " Oth 19% 10 " That is probably a pretty decent prediction with regards to Con and Lab. I think the LD will do a little better in vote (14 ish) and a long way better in seats (c.40). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2014 18:36:05 GMT
this argument about the boundaries is boring because Tories can never accept how the labour vote is distributed. The last review was awful with fixed % and some awful boundaries drawn. As I said many times we need a review but with more generous allowances, you can not have seats like mine would have been spread over three councils.
But those calling for 'fair votes' note do not want the fairest of them all - a PR system where each vote is reflected fairly in the seat distribution.
|
|
mrtoad
Labour
He is a toad. Who knows what a toad thinks?
Posts: 424
|
Post by mrtoad on May 14, 2014 19:28:22 GMT
I have tried, many times, to explain to Tories that (1) electoral system bias is mostly to do with differential turnout/ distribution of vote, not much to do with boundaries; and (2) that if you support First Past the Post you can't whinge that seats aren't proportional to votes. It's always been a complete waste of time. It's either stupid ignorance, wilful ignorance, or a smokescreen for manipulating the system in their own interest.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2014 19:43:55 GMT
I have tried, many times, to explain to Tories that (1) electoral system bias is mostly to do with differential turnout/ distribution of vote, not much to do with boundaries; and (2) that if you support First Past the Post you can't whinge that seats aren't proportional to votes. It's always been a complete waste of time. It's either stupid ignorance, wilful ignorance, or a smokescreen for manipulating the system in their own interest. Mostly true, however, the situation in Wales is very unfair. I totally agree regarding PR. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 14, 2014 19:45:06 GMT
I have tried, many times, to explain to Tories that (1) electoral system bias is mostly to do with differential turnout/ distribution of vote, not much to do with boundaries; and (2) that if you support First Past the Post you can't whinge that seats aren't proportional to votes. It's always been a complete waste of time. It's either stupid ignorance, wilful ignorance, or a smokescreen for manipulating the system in their own interest. Never overlook the obvious, that the Tory brass may be a deeply stupid as you suspect! Look at the evidence;- 1) They seem to deliberately downgrade, diminish and turn off their own grass roots organization. 2) They propound policies not in their manifesto that really piss off a lot of their core vote. 3) They are bitterly opposed to a change away from FPTP despite being at a disadvatage to Labour whilst under it. 4) They are bitterly opposed to Scottish Independence even though it would be a huge electoral and economic advantage to ditch Scotland (and Wales and N.I.). 5) The will not address the West Lothian Question as regards votes on English bills despite inevitability of a much easier vote hurdle were they to do so. 6) They maintain and increase spending on Foreign Aid and Green policies. 7) They downgrade, diminish and underfund Defence. 8) They fail to even start the pretence of renegotiations on EU membership. 9) They pretend to a desire to hold a Referendum on EU Membership, but never do so and time the promises for 'after' the next election! |
|
mrtoad
Labour
He is a toad. Who knows what a toad thinks?
Posts: 424
|
Post by mrtoad on May 14, 2014 20:16:32 GMT
Joe - I agree. I think that without the unfairness in Wales, it would be a lot better. Wales has 40 seats (42 if one took the old rules seriously) but really should have 33 by arithmetic, and 35 allowing for difficult geography. Since the 2011 referendum I see no decent argument against reducing Welsh representation.
Carlton43 - The Tory Party is a strange creature. They fought a hundred years ago to preserve the Union with Ireland, despite all the damage that did to their own interests.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 14, 2014 22:34:10 GMT
I have tried, many times, to explain to Tories that (1) electoral system bias is mostly to do with differential turnout/ distribution of vote, not much to do with boundaries; and (2) that if you support First Past the Post you can't whinge that seats aren't proportional to votes. It's always been a complete waste of time. It's either stupid ignorance, wilful ignorance, or a smokescreen for manipulating the system in their own interest. Mostly true, however, the situation in Wales is very unfair. I totally agree regarding PR. The situation with Wales is unfair, but it's a minor contributor. What's more, you can overestimate how much in benefits Labour - because the boundary commission made essentially no effort to equalise electorates, there are some unnecessarily small north Welsh seats that benefit the Tories and some of the other existing Tory seats would rapidly become extremely vulnerable if they had to expand. Though that doesn't entirely cancel out the overall Labour advantage, obviously. |
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,598 
|
Post by cibwr on May 15, 2014 7:20:03 GMT
I have tried, many times, to explain to Tories that (1) electoral system bias is mostly to do with differential turnout/ distribution of vote, not much to do with boundaries; and (2) that if you support First Past the Post you can't whinge that seats aren't proportional to votes. It's always been a complete waste of time. It's either stupid ignorance, wilful ignorance, or a smokescreen for manipulating the system in their own interest. Mostly true, however, the situation in Wales is very unfair. I totally agree regarding PR. The situation in Wales has at least helped the conservatives, if it wasn't for the National Assembly and the Leadership of Nick Bourne I think they would have continued to slide... so PR has helped them here. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2014 7:35:23 GMT
I guess we will have to wait until the end of June, when the 'euro-effect' is over, to see where the polls settle down. My starter for 10 is a 1-3% Labour lead, with 11 months to go. Unless we get an 'events dear boy' (or girl  ) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2014 8:22:12 GMT
this argument about the boundaries is bseats because Tories can never accept how the labour vote is distributed. The last review was awful with fixed % and some awful boundaries drawn. As I said many times we need a review but with more generous allowances, you can not have seats like mine would have been spread over three councils. But those calling for 'fair votes' note do not want the fairest of them all - a PR system where each vote is reflected fairly in the seat distribution. The post from ArmchairCritic you've sidestepped (oh sweet nostalgia, how the fleeting return of one singal act brings to mind countless others in reverie) dealt with the flip side to your UKIP/LD scenario. If Labour, at the next election, gets less votes but more seats than the Conservatives (side bar - I apologise to grammarians if I have the less/fewer/more/greater thing wrong, but I've never understood it; it's like lie/lay/laid, thanks Comprehensive GCSEs), what be your reaction then? If the polls stay as they are, Labour could have the advantage of all the tiny urban seats building them a ladder even if the total number of votes trundles on being the Tories. To ask ACs question again; I presume on that basis Ian, and I don't remember what your position on it was, but I suspect the word gerrymandering was used, that you must have been in favour of the redrawing of the constituency boundaries? If you weren't then how will you feel if GE2015 goes: Con 35% 283 seats Lab 34% 313 " L/D 12% 26 " Oth 19% 10 " Read more: vote-2012.proboards.com/post/159145/quote/3716?page=5#ixzz31lps1ees |
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,598
|
Post by cibwr on May 15, 2014 8:53:41 GMT
Joe - I agree. I think that without the unfairness in Wales, it would be a lot better. Wales has 40 seats (42 if one took the old rules seriously) but really should have 33 by arithmetic, and 35 allowing for difficult geography. Since the 2011 referendum I see no decent argument against reducing Welsh representation. Carlton43 - The Tory Party is a strange creature. They fought a hundred years ago to preserve the Union with Ireland, despite all the damage that did to their own interests. I have no objection to reducing the representation of Wales in the UK parliament in line with its population, however the over representation is a minor advantage - far less than the "bonus" gained by Labour by its vote distribution elsewhere. Of course ideally I'd like Welsh representation to be zero :-) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2014 8:55:19 GMT
no Dok I am in favour of PR which means you get close to the exact number of seats your votes gets.
so for example UKIP could get 15% in a GE and you get 10% and yet have 35 seats and they have none, that is nothing to do with boundaries is it ?
That is because you are still able to pack your votes in certain areas.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2014 8:56:36 GMT
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,015
|
Post by The Bishop on May 15, 2014 9:12:47 GMT
How would I feel at that? That those who live by FPTP should also die by it??
As for the proposed boundary changes, behave. As you know better than anybody, many of them were utterly monstrous and ridiculous.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2014 9:15:44 GMT
How would I feel at that? That those who live by FPTP should also die by it?? As for the proposed boundary changes, behave. As you know better than anybody, many of them were utterly monstrous and ridiculous. So? That had a lot to do with geography, not malice. The true conservative party is your lot. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,015
|
Post by The Bishop on May 15, 2014 9:19:51 GMT
No - it was due to stupidly rigid rules, because of Tory delusion about why FPTP is presently "biased" against them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2014 9:22:33 GMT
No - it was due to stupidly rigid rules, because of Tory delusion about why FPTP is presently "biased" against them. Thats not entirely fair (on the seats rather than the tories). They were better and more democratic than the current ones. The fact that the tories are stupid is by-the-by. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on May 15, 2014 9:23:36 GMT
I don't see why Labour can object to equalised electorates but let's not have this discussion again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 15, 2014 9:25:42 GMT
We had essentially equalised electorates under the previous system (with the slight over-representation of Wales as the only caveat). The change was to a rigid mathematical system which disregarded natural communities and that was why it was bad.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on May 15, 2014 9:29:10 GMT
I disagree- my views on the role of MPs is perhaps colouring my view here.
|
|
)
