mondialito
Labour
Everything is horribly, brutally possible.
Posts: 4,961 
|
Post by mondialito on May 28, 2018 23:12:26 GMT
In my view the perfect electoral system would provide stable government while being proportional to votes cast. Such a system does not exist so really we need an electoral system that does either one or the other or strikes an appropriate balance between the two. In this country FPTP currently does none of those things.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2018 23:15:27 GMT
David has held his view for many years, on and off this forum, for retention of both FPTP and the two-party system.
I have held my view for the complete opposite for just as long.
We shall never meet in the middle for even a sniff of a compromise.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on May 28, 2018 23:55:49 GMT
Those last two elections still show the unfairness of first past the post in general, and on an even worse scale. UKIP finished third nationally in 2015 but only won one seat, which was held by Douglas Carswell who had as a Conservative been the MP for Clacton since 2005. Labour increased their vote share by 1.5% but made a net loss of 30 seats due to the SNP landslide in Scotland which cost Labour 40 seats. In 2017 the Conservatives increased their vote share by 6.5% but made a net loss of 12 seats. The Liberal Democrats' vote share decreased by 0.5% but their seat total increased by 4 to 12. First past the post does not work at all. Your final sentence is a ludicrous non-sequitur to the rest of what you wrote. FPTP does work reasonably well in the UK for parliamentary elections, in that it aggregates opinions and votes to create a reasonably balanced system between two main parties, both of which have a wide geographical spread across the country. The results in 2015 and 2017 were slightly unusual in the way the proportions of votes and seats related to each other, but that is due to the coincidence of the SNP rising in support at the same time as the Lib Dem collapse. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on May 28, 2018 23:59:47 GMT
You're assuming that the job of an electoral system is to deliver a result which is proportional. That's begging the question. The argument for first past the post is not that it delivers proportional results. The argument for a democratic electoral system is that is must deliver proportional results. No it isn't. You merely make a fool of yourself by stating such a vacuous and illogical thing. |
|
|
|
Post by markgoodair on May 29, 2018 6:26:35 GMT
There should be a two party system and third parties forced to choose on pain of electoral death. Another clueless clown from the Labour Party that actually thinks that they are a party of government without the need for PR. Time to wake up and smell the coffee. Labour without winning back significant support in Scotland for which the evidence is at best limited will never be back in number ten on their own. It's time for Labour to realize that accepting the need for PR is The only path forward. |
|
|
|
Post by markgoodair on May 29, 2018 6:29:36 GMT
Those last two elections still show the unfairness of first past the post in general, and on an even worse scale. UKIP finished third nationally in 2015 but only won one seat, which was held by Douglas Carswell who had as a Conservative been the MP for Clacton since 2005. Labour increased their vote share by 1.5% but made a net loss of 30 seats due to the SNP landslide in Scotland which cost Labour 40 seats. In 2017 the Conservatives increased their vote share by 6.5% but made a net loss of 12 seats. The Liberal Democrats' vote share decreased by 0.5% but their seat total increased by 4 to 12. First past the post does not work at all. Your final sentence is a ludicrous non-sequitur to the rest of what you wrote. FPTP does work reasonably well in the UK for parliamentary elections, in that it aggregates opinions and votes to create a reasonably balanced system between two main parties, both of which have a wide geographical spread across the country. The results in 2015 and 2017 were slightly unusual in the way the proportions of votes and seats related to each other, but that is due to the coincidence of the SNP rising in support at the same time as the Lib Dem collapse. How on Earth does Labour winning all 24 seats in West Yorkshire in both 1997 and 2001 demonstrate a geographic spread? |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 29, 2018 6:46:13 GMT
There should be a two party system and third parties forced to choose on pain of electoral death. Another clueless clown from the Labour Party that actually thinks that they are a party of government without the need for PR. Time to wake up and smell the coffee. Labour without winning back significant support in Scotland for which the evidence is at best limited will never be back in number ten on their own. It's time for Labour to realize that accepting the need for PR is The only path forward. In other words it is all about the need to win and to alter the rules so that a win may be achieved? It is about making it possible for a small and insignificant party few have any interest in to be bigged up into significance of a sort....'by other means'. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 29, 2018 6:49:39 GMT
Your final sentence is a ludicrous non-sequitur to the rest of what you wrote. FPTP does work reasonably well in the UK for parliamentary elections, in that it aggregates opinions and votes to create a reasonably balanced system between two main parties, both of which have a wide geographical spread across the country. The results in 2015 and 2017 were slightly unusual in the way the proportions of votes and seats related to each other, but that is due to the coincidence of the SNP rising in support at the same time as the Lib Dem collapse. How on Earth does Labour winning all 24 seats in West Yorkshire in both 1997 and 2001 demonstrate a geographic spread? It clearly demonstrates that Labour have a good democratic spread of votes throughout that county that you cannot begin to imagine achieving because of your crass unpopularity. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 29, 2018 6:51:54 GMT
You're assuming that the job of an electoral system is to deliver a result which is proportional. That's begging the question. The argument for first past the post is not that it delivers proportional results. The argument for a democratic electoral system is that is must deliver proportional results. Utter bollocks spouted by the party that can't make any progress because it is so UNPOPULAR! So you demand we have a less democratic system to make you more popular. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 29, 2018 7:01:27 GMT
In athletics the Liberal 'Democrats' are contending that their ill-trained out of breath runners are only getting third and fourth places in all their races and that it is unfair. They run in all the races all over Britain and consistently get average third places. In fairness that effort should be better rewarded with about 100-First Places???
Stupid or what?
Yes.......STUPID is the correct word.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 8:17:27 GMT
The argument for a democratic electoral system is that is must deliver proportional results. Utter bollocks spouted by the party that can't make any progress because it is so UNPOPULAR! So you demand we have a less democratic system to make you more popular. Well, that's one view. Forms of PR in Scotland have ensured Conservative seats in local councils and the Parliament which would not have otherwise been won. PR has been proven to give wider representation to the electorate's true intentions. If an MP is elected with 31% of the vote, which has happened and continues to do so under FPTP, the majority of voters went for a candidate other than the winner. PR allows for each representative to have a majority of votes and preferences cast. This is an improvement on "winner takes all", which is not proportional or representative. Tories on Glasgow Council could hardly be elected until the advent of PR for local councils. Before PR, they could not make any progress because it was so UNPOPULAR! |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 29, 2018 8:30:29 GMT
Utter bollocks spouted by the party that can't make any progress because it is so UNPOPULAR! So you demand we have a less democratic system to make you more popular. Well, that's one view. Forms of PR in Scotland have ensured Conservative seats in local councils and the Parliament which would not have otherwise been won. PR has been proven to give wider representation to the electorate's true intentions. If an MP is elected with 31% of the vote, which has happened and continues to do so under FPTP, the majority of voters went for a candidate other than the winner. PR allows for each representative to have a majority of votes and preferences cast. This is an improvement on "winner takes all", which is not proportional or representative. Tories on Glasgow Council could hardly be elected until the advent of PR for local councils. Before PR, they could not make any progress because it was so UNPOPULAR! "...The electorate's 'true intention'..."! That says it all for your type of mindset. The electorate does not have any corporate ideas, intents or purposes. We witness a mass of individual choices and nothing else. The electorate does not choose a landslide nor does it demand a coalition, it just severally casts a single vote, often with very little thought at all. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 8:32:51 GMT
Well, that's one view. Forms of PR in Scotland have ensured Conservative seats in local councils and the Parliament which would not have otherwise been won. PR has been proven to give wider representation to the electorate's true intentions. If an MP is elected with 31% of the vote, which has happened and continues to do so under FPTP, the majority of voters went for a candidate other than the winner. PR allows for each representative to have a majority of votes and preferences cast. This is an improvement on "winner takes all", which is not proportional or representative. Tories on Glasgow Council could hardly be elected until the advent of PR for local councils. Before PR, they could not make any progress because it was so UNPOPULAR! "...The electorate's 'true intention'..."! That says it all for your type of mindset. The electorate does not have any corporate ideas, intents or purposes. We witness a mass of individual choices and nothing else. The electorate does not choose a landslide nor does it demand a coalition, it just severally casts a single vote, often with very little thought at all. That's your view. It's not how elections really work. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 29, 2018 8:37:30 GMT
"...The electorate's 'true intention'..."! That says it all for your type of mindset. The electorate does not have any corporate ideas, intents or purposes. We witness a mass of individual choices and nothing else. The electorate does not choose a landslide nor does it demand a coalition, it just severally casts a single vote, often with very little thought at all. That's your view. It's not how elections really work. Oh yes it is. That is why you keep losing so badly. You are in denial of the real truth on the situation as you are on so much else in life. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 8:41:28 GMT
That's your view. It's not how elections really work. Oh yes it is. That is why you keep losing so badly. You are in denial of the real truth on the situation as you are on so much else in life. Thanks for the personal dig. Did that come from you losing the argument? |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 29, 2018 8:50:46 GMT
Oh yes it is. That is why you keep losing so badly. You are in denial of the real truth on the situation as you are on so much else in life. Thanks for the personal dig. Did that come from you losing the argument? Not at all. I don't need to win the argument to be a happy person. I don't think I was losing the argument. We win so many more elections than you that 'the argument' hardly matters. I did not intend that to be 'a dig' at you but a valid observation of your world view which seems so remorselessly narrow, negative and downbeat. We view the world in rather different ways and we are both unlikely to change that stance. Does your view make you happy and fulfilled? Are you making a difference? If not perhaps a re-think is a possibility? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 8:56:31 GMT
Thanks for the personal dig. Did that come from you losing the argument? Not at all. I don't need to win the argument to be a happy person. I don't think I was losing the argument. We win so many more elections than you that 'the argument' hardly matters. I did not intend that to be 'a dig' at you but a valid observation of your world view which seems so remorselessly narrow, negative and downbeat. We view the world in rather different ways and we are both unlikely to change that stance. Does your view make you happy and fulfilled? Are you making a difference? If not perhaps a re-think is a possibility? I don't treat the electorate like idiots, which you seem to do. "Oh they don't even think before voting!". It is only thanks to PR that your party is returning to the local councils of Scotland so please rethink your blinkered "We're winning, you're not" yaa-boo attitude. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 29, 2018 9:01:15 GMT
Not at all. I don't need to win the argument to be a happy person. I don't think I was losing the argument. We win so many more elections than you that 'the argument' hardly matters. I did not intend that to be 'a dig' at you but a valid observation of your world view which seems so remorselessly narrow, negative and downbeat. We view the world in rather different ways and we are both unlikely to change that stance. Does your view make you happy and fulfilled? Are you making a difference? If not perhaps a re-think is a possibility? I don't treat the electorate like idiots, which you seem to do. "Oh they don't even think before voting!". It is only thanks to PR that your party is returning to the local councils of Scotland so please rethink your blinkered "We're winning, you're not" yaa-boo attitude. Let us agree to differ. I prefer FPTP in all circumstances whatever the results because I am blinkered by success. |
|
|
|
Post by markgoodair on May 29, 2018 9:04:49 GMT
How on Earth does Labour winning all 24 seats in West Yorkshire in both 1997 and 2001 demonstrate a geographic spread? It clearly demonstrates that Labour have a good democratic spread of votes throughout that county that you cannot begin to imagine achieving because of your crass unpopularity. So you are saying to the hundreds of thousands of people in West Yorkshire who voted for any other party other than Labour don't bother turning out to vote as the whole exercise is a farce . Labour deserve to win 100% of everything. And people won't why voter turnout is falling. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 9:17:33 GMT
I don't treat the electorate like idiots, which you seem to do. "Oh they don't even think before voting!". It is only thanks to PR that your party is returning to the local councils of Scotland so please rethink your blinkered "We're winning, you're not" yaa-boo attitude. Let us agree to differ. I prefer FPTP in all circumstances whatever the results because I am blinkered by success. Only now do you have "success", where in Scotland the Conservatives were all but wiped out on local councils until the advent of STV elections. |
|
