|
|
Post by johnloony on May 29, 2018 23:33:10 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's at one end of the Bell curve (or equivalent thereof). ... 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. No it doesn't; AV does. But why should it anyway? You're begging the question.Of course it's representative. Each MP elected under FPTP is a representative of his/her constituency. If you think that "not proportional" means "therefore not representative", then you have misunderstood the word "representative". In a multi party system FPTP is a lottery and not an election. ... A paragraph which starts with a statement as overtly ludicrous as that does not deserve to be read any further. |
|
Jack
Reform Party
Posts: 8,739 
|
Post by Jack on May 29, 2018 23:36:41 GMT
Just accept that AMS is the best electoral system and be done with it.  All the best people know this to be true. |
|
|
|
Post by mrpastelito on May 30, 2018 9:41:57 GMT
Bollocks. Having finally come to grips with the Swiss PR system I think it's the most fascinating, exciting way to elect MPs. Open list cumulative voting, panachage, apparentment, run-offs, constituency links - you name it. Fantastic. I have no interest in Swiss politics, and coming to grips with a hopelessly complicated election system isn’t my idea of “fantastic”. Yes I accept it's too complicated for most British minds but the Swiss seem to have no problem at all; the Swiss missus got quite exasperated at my initially hopeless attempts to get a grasp. But take Grisons National Council constituency for example: You get to vote for a maximum of five candidates, and you can choose your five favourite candidates, from five different parties if must be. However you could also give two of these candidates two votes in order to get them higher on their list. Bascially you're allowed to do whatever you want bar casting more than five votes in total and more than two for a single candidate. Fantastic. It renders parties pretty much powerless once they've put someone on their list, and it gives each and every voter the chance to vote for his personal favourites. There's also smartvote to check out all the candidates and find those who you agree most with. Great fun if you speak German (the missus does, obviously, even though it's not her first language). The Swiss way to form a national government however - don't get me started. Pervs. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on May 30, 2018 10:21:14 GMT
Somali National Television?? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on May 30, 2018 12:04:56 GMT
FPTP is a partial democracy.
It is somewhat better than the days when women did not have the vote, but so many countries are ahead of us these days that it does make us a bit of a laughing stock, even if not exactly "nutters"
Oh don't talk crap, and don't call carlton "blinkered" when you come out with statements like that minutes later. It's only "partial democracy" if you don't like the result. No voting system is perfect; STV for instance is a horrible system which is near impossible to understand and encourages parties to under nominate even in their strong areas. This is the only reason the Lib Dems did reasonably well in Aberdeenshire for instance in the locals. Re. Carlton: I was just agreeing with his perceptive self-analysis! He had just gone WAY over the top with ad-hominem insults however..
Re. democracy. You just have a self-serving definition of it. I happen to believe that people should get the government they vote for - and for many years no single Party has commanded 50% of the votes. Yet they behave as if they have a "mandate", which clearly they don't. We have made incremental improvements in our democracy over the centuries (getting rid of monarchical rule, rotten boroughs, increasing the franchise to include people without land, and finally votes for women. Further improvements have occurred in N Ireland, Scotland, Wales, EU elections and London, and restricting the power of the House of Lords, but progress in the last 100 years in most parts of England has been shamefully slow, thanks to vested interest in the current system. I am a positive minded person however and always hope for a better future!
Re. STV - people may not understand the minutiae of how it is counted but the concept of preferential voting is hardly complicated and the Irish seem to cope perfectly well with it. In my experience of campaigning for STV by holding mock elections, about 20 seconds is all it takes to explain what to do to the vast majority of people, and indeed the essence of how votes transfer.
re. Aberdeen: The Lib Dems got 13.7% of the votes and 20% of the seats. That is a lot fairer than usual under FPTP, but I agree the STV system in Scottish local elections is not all that proportional owing to the large number of 3 member seats - 5 or 6 is ideal, as in Northern Ireland, if you want reasonable proportionality and good voter choice, since most Parties would put up multiple candidates. However, even now I would oblige all political parties to put up at least two candidates (otherwise you have to stand as an Independent). That would give better voter choice and save the Tories from mistakes like their failed attempt at gaming the system in 2017!
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on May 30, 2018 13:46:07 GMT
Just accept that AMS is the best electoral system and be done with it. AMS/MMS with open lists, and not the bloody Baden-Württemberg variant either. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 30, 2018 14:32:42 GMT
Mixed member systems are an abomination. All of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on May 30, 2018 14:36:53 GMT
I've fixed your post.  |
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,872
Member is Online
|
Post by Crimson King on May 30, 2018 14:45:56 GMT
so, will the 2018 review get through parliament?
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 30, 2018 14:52:30 GMT
Can we stop fucking about with people's posts in quoting them. It's very easy for someone to misunderstand and think it's what was actually originally posted.
|
|
Jack
Reform Party
Posts: 8,739
|
Post by Jack on May 30, 2018 15:11:59 GMT
I've been triggered by a joke. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on May 30, 2018 16:09:42 GMT
I've been triggered by a joke. I'll leave this to AdminSTB but as far as I'm concerned, David has made a relatively reasonable request, and you've then misrepresented what he's said without so much as adding FTFY. |
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on May 30, 2018 16:14:15 GMT
I'll leave this to AdminSTB but as far as I'm concerned, David has made a relatively reasonable request, and you've then misrepresented what he's said without so much as adding FTFY. As I have said before, there is an old tradition of doing this but such things are always clearly labelled as having been done with the FTFY. Sometimes it can be very funny, especially in an environment where people are mainly friends,in a more hostile environment like this one, it is often much less funny that the person thinks it is. Bear in mind that there is at least one person out there who seeks to misrepresent this site to employers and council groups and who might use such quotes in a malicious way. Consider this a warning for misrepresentation without the appropriate tagging. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on May 30, 2018 16:20:50 GMT
I'll leave this to AdminSTB but as far as I'm concerned, David has made a relatively reasonable request, and you've then misrepresented what he's said without so much as adding FTFY. As I have said before, there is an old tradition of doing this but such things are always clearly labelled as having been done with the FTFY. Sometimes it can be very funny, especially in an environment where people are mainly friends,in a more hostile environment like this one, it is often much less funny that the person thinks it is. Bear in mind that there is at least one person out there who seeks to misrepresent this site to employers and council groups and who might use such quotes in a malicious way. Consider this a warning for misrepresentation without the appropriate tagging. It did make me laugh though! Sorry! |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on May 30, 2018 17:06:12 GMT
STV for instance is a horrible system which is near impossible to understand and encourages parties to under nominate even in their strong areas. This is the only reason the Lib Dems did reasonably well in Aberdeenshire for instance in the locals. I explained it before to my 13-year-old nephew as follows. You stick 100 people in a room and they have to choose 4 representatives. They line up behind the candidates they support. Some of them see that their candidate has no chance of success and move to another candidate. Some of them see that their candidate has more support than necessary and move to their second choice. You end with 4 people chosen and far more of the voters influencing the process. He had no difficulty understanding that. |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on May 30, 2018 17:14:02 GMT
It is far easier for the electorate to sack a bad representative at a Westminster level than on the Regional List. Their names don’t even appear on the ballot! Furthermore, in some cases it stifles independent thought and encourages blind party loyalty. Look at how the SNP effectively deselected Margo Macdonald because she didn't toe the party line. You're totally right that it's easier to sack a bad representative at Westminster than with the daft closed list systems. The problem is, if you want to sack them, you can only do so by voting for another party. Thus in many cases, a representative has to be exceptionally bad for people to hold their noses and vote for a rival party. The beauty of STV is you can sack them without hurting your preferred party. That's why I'd disagree with your point on blind party loyalty. In some parts of Britain, as the old saying goes, a donkey with a red (or blue) rosette would get elected. The real "selectorate" in such cases are the handful of party members who choose the candidate. Lastly, I agree with you that systems involving lists (closed/open/AMS) are dull and I'll take FPTP over them any day, but STV with its multiple counts is far more interesting than FPTP. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2018 17:14:34 GMT
I'm with Davıd Boothroyd : you can alter content of quotes for humourous effect but only with very clear indication and nothing malicious. And now, back to the thread. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on May 30, 2018 18:47:19 GMT
STV for instance is a horrible system which is near impossible to understand and encourages parties to under nominate even in their strong areas. This is the only reason the Lib Dems did reasonably well in Aberdeenshire for instance in the locals. I explained it before to my 13-year-old nephew as follows. You stick 100 people in a room and they have to choose 4 representatives. They line up behind the candidates they support. Some of them see that their candidate has no chance of success and move to another candidate. Some of them see that their candidate has more support than necessary and move to their second choice. You end with 4 people chosen and far more of the voters influencing the process. He had no difficulty understanding that. Now explain the surplus mechanisms. On the previous incarnation of this forum I did that and the response from several people was that they'd gone off STV. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on May 30, 2018 19:00:34 GMT
I explained it before to my 13-year-old nephew as follows. You stick 100 people in a room and they have to choose 4 representatives. They line up behind the candidates they support. Some of them see that their candidate has no chance of success and move to another candidate. Some of them see that their candidate has more support than necessary and move to their second choice. You end with 4 people chosen and far more of the voters influencing the process. He had no difficulty understanding that. Now explain the surplus mechanisms. On the previous incarnation of this forum I did that and the response from several people was that they'd gone off STV. It does not matter how the surplus is counted. What matters is that even after you have cast your vote for the runaway winner, it can still influence what happens next. In Scotland it is very obvious that Tories often use their lower preferences to elect Labour rather than SNP. That is using your support for the Union in a way that is impossible under FPTP. In Ireland, people who do not like extremists often cast lower preferences for the Alliance. In fact I think that the threat of preferential voting was one of the things that transformed Paisley Snr and Adams so suddenly into peaceniks. I agree that the small wards in Scotland prevent this, but in my ideal world Tories would be influencing which of two Labour candidates got in, and vice versa. Especially at local level... |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on May 30, 2018 19:02:01 GMT
It does matter in explaining it to voters. They want to know how ballot papers convert into outcomes and understand some of the odd results.
|
|
