Politics UK
"PR is a concept in voting systems used to elect an assembly or council. PR means that the number of seats won by a party or group of candidates is proportionate to the number of votes received."
Do you think the debate on voting reform in the UK needs to continue? Or do you think FPTP works well enough?
H.C.
PR IS THE FUTURE!!
PR IS THE FUTURE!!
Actually, thanks to the Lib dems capitulating to the tory's, the door on the debate for electoral reform has been closed for a generation!
W.H.
Give it at least another parliament before starting up that debate again. And this time give us the choice of PR, not AV!
J.G.
FPTP is the most abysmal voting system EVER CREATED! It has exactly 1 strength (it produces majorities) - and even that is no longer true!! Get rid, I say! AV only lost because of scaremongering and pure LIES by the No campaign amongst an uneducated electorate!!
FPTP is the most abysmal voting system EVER CREATED! It has exactly 1 strength (it produces majorities) - and even that is no longer true!! Get rid, I say! AV only lost because of scaremongering and pure LIES by the No campaign amongst an uneducated electorate!!
Cecilia Fisher
well scotland only uses FPTP in GE so next time round hopefully i wont be voting in this unfair system
Adam Penny
I'm not necessarily against it, but I think there needs to be a massive change in public attitudes to the political process to make it work.
If we went down this road then coalition politics would become the rule rather than the exception. This mentality of 'there's no mandate for a coalition' or 'that wasn't in your manifesto' would have to be straight out of the window since everything would necessarily become a matter of negotiation. With a media that's only too happy to spend it's time trying to exacerbate the differences between coalition partners, I think it could run the risk of being pretty dysfunctional.
That said, the current coalition seems to be handling their differences quite well, in spite of the tensions and pressures, so maybe it could work.
D.C.
FPTP ALWAYS results in a two party system, it needs to be changed. If people simply took a look at the pros and cons for and against PR they would almost certainly come to the conclusion PR is the one to go with.
Adam Penny
J.G. - "AV only lost because of scaremongering and pure LIES by the No campaign amongst an uneducated electorate!!"
J.G. - "AV only lost because of scaremongering and pure LIES by the No campaign amongst an uneducated electorate!!"
Why is it that whenever someone doesn't get their own way then it's evidence that others are uneducated?
Adam Penny
I don't know why the Tories or Labour were that afraid of AV though. Tories would have got UKIP 2nd votes, Labour would have had Lib Dem 2nd votes. I doubt much would have changed in the end.
I don't know why the Tories or Labour were that afraid of AV though. Tories would have got UKIP 2nd votes, Labour would have had Lib Dem 2nd votes. I doubt much would have changed in the end.
G.H.
AV isn't PR, but it would be a lot better than FPTP.
AV isn't PR, but it would be a lot better than FPTP.
P.A.B.
fptp and pr have one wonderful thing in common that av neglects, each person has a vote amd therefore everyones is equal when it comes to choosing their government. something i feel is the cornerstone of all democracy.
fptp and pr have one wonderful thing in common that av neglects, each person has a vote amd therefore everyones is equal when it comes to choosing their government. something i feel is the cornerstone of all democracy.
P.A.B.
@adam i agree with your points, av wouldn't change much and would give too much power to those who are well educated and may have actually hindered the less well off and less intellegent imo.
@adam i agree with your points, av wouldn't change much and would give too much power to those who are well educated and may have actually hindered the less well off and less intellegent imo.
Cecilia Fisher
Electoral systems now used in Scotland are:
Electoral systems now used in Scotland are:
The First Past the Post system is used for UK general elections.
The Additional Member System is used for elections to the Scottish Parliament.
The Single Transferable Vote system is used to elect local councils.
The Party List System is used for European Parliament elections.
B.G.
The UK has recently rejected a change to the voting system by a very wide margin.70-30 is pretty emphatic.It had nothing to do with the Lib Dems supposedly capitulating to the Tories.The AV camp lost the argument,lost the vote but apparently won't take no for an answer.The Lib Dems had to make a referendum on changing the voting system their deal-breaker because they'd been banging on about it for 30 years but given the scale of the defeat at the polls they'd be very unwise to do so again.
The UK has recently rejected a change to the voting system by a very wide margin.70-30 is pretty emphatic.It had nothing to do with the Lib Dems supposedly capitulating to the Tories.The AV camp lost the argument,lost the vote but apparently won't take no for an answer.The Lib Dems had to make a referendum on changing the voting system their deal-breaker because they'd been banging on about it for 30 years but given the scale of the defeat at the polls they'd be very unwise to do so again.
S.S.
Adam, it gives the voters more power, those in power don't like that as it makes their positions less secure.
Adam, it gives the voters more power, those in power don't like that as it makes their positions less secure.
K.J.
STV - single transferable vote offers best accountability to the particular constituents and opportunity for other than the 'professional' politicos in the system
STV - single transferable vote offers best accountability to the particular constituents and opportunity for other than the 'professional' politicos in the system
- PR has the downside of favouring larger ''parties' and centralised politics which bring other problems; and creates difficulties for individual and locally accountable representation.
M.B.
PR raises too many problems surrounding the idea of centralist politics and severely takes away the local accountability of politicians. The whole idea of FPTP is it is both local and national in outlook, but by no means a perfect system.
P.F.
I will never vote for any system that diminishes the ability to vote for for your MP as an individual candidate rather than the the representative of a party...The best PERSON to represent the constituency gets my vote, whatever party they're from...When everybody stops bandying all these crappy number-crunching sytems around and votes according to this simple non-partisan principle, FPTP is really not such a bad system...If you really want an eternity of coalition governments with the Lib Dems holding the balance of power, push for a PR system by all means, but I really don't think that's any fairer than the system we've got and far from what most people in this country want...
I will never vote for any system that diminishes the ability to vote for for your MP as an individual candidate rather than the the representative of a party...The best PERSON to represent the constituency gets my vote, whatever party they're from...When everybody stops bandying all these crappy number-crunching sytems around and votes according to this simple non-partisan principle, FPTP is really not such a bad system...If you really want an eternity of coalition governments with the Lib Dems holding the balance of power, push for a PR system by all means, but I really don't think that's any fairer than the system we've got and far from what most people in this country want...
Robin French
K.J., M.B., P.F. - I assume your criticisms are about list-based systems? That's fair enough, but it's not a factor in all forms of PR - I count STV as a kind of PR actually, because while it's not truly proportional it does keep wasted votes to a minimum and should produce results that are as near as proportional, while also having the advantage of retaining the direct links to constituents.
K.J., M.B., P.F. - I assume your criticisms are about list-based systems? That's fair enough, but it's not a factor in all forms of PR - I count STV as a kind of PR actually, because while it's not truly proportional it does keep wasted votes to a minimum and should produce results that are as near as proportional, while also having the advantage of retaining the direct links to constituents.
P.F.
All the 3 countries in the world that use the AV system are not happy with it and want to change it, whereas it was being presented to us as some kind of big step forward...This to me was utterly laughable!...Some of the die-hard PR campaigners were so desperate they were even trying to pretend it was PR or a step towards it...AV is an appallingly overcomplicated and un-democratic red herring that should have had no place in the debate about whether or not to adopt PR...This is why it was so heavily rejected...Stupidity of the voters had nothing to do with it!
All the 3 countries in the world that use the AV system are not happy with it and want to change it, whereas it was being presented to us as some kind of big step forward...This to me was utterly laughable!...Some of the die-hard PR campaigners were so desperate they were even trying to pretend it was PR or a step towards it...AV is an appallingly overcomplicated and un-democratic red herring that should have had no place in the debate about whether or not to adopt PR...This is why it was so heavily rejected...Stupidity of the voters had nothing to do with it!
P.F.
@Robin I will check out STV...It does sound like an interesting option, but, as I said, I will only back voting systems that favour candidates over parties and, for me, the only effective one that does that at the moment is FPTP...
@Robin I will check out STV...It does sound like an interesting option, but, as I said, I will only back voting systems that favour candidates over parties and, for me, the only effective one that does that at the moment is FPTP...
Robin French
That thing about the three countries was disingenuous. Australia don't want to change away from AV - it's compulsory to vote there, and that's what people want rid of. AV isn't used in many parliamentary and presidential elections directly, but systems that incorporate AV's system of preferential voting are used around the world, for many different things such as the Oscars, and many mayoral elections (including London's).
That thing about the three countries was disingenuous. Australia don't want to change away from AV - it's compulsory to vote there, and that's what people want rid of. AV isn't used in many parliamentary and presidential elections directly, but systems that incorporate AV's system of preferential voting are used around the world, for many different things such as the Oscars, and many mayoral elections (including London's).
P.F.Well, I remember talking to a few Australian friends around the time and none of them were particularly enthusiastic about AV...I read plenty of literature and listened to plenty of arguments from both sides and NOTHING convinced me that this was a better or fairer system tha FPTP...I couldn't care less if elements of it are used in other voting systems, it's not the way I want to elect my MP and I'm absolutely delighted that the vast majority of other UK voters who bothered to express an opinion felt the same...
Robin French
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
Robin French
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE
Robin French
It's important to note that most AV supporters saw it as a gateway to a better system - most wanted some form of PR long before the election, but AV was the only one the Lib Dems could secure a referendum on in the coalition talks, and it's quite obvious now why the Conservatives wanted that. If you don't see any good points in these two videos though - particularly the first - then there's no point in us debating this.
It's important to note that most AV supporters saw it as a gateway to a better system - most wanted some form of PR long before the election, but AV was the only one the Lib Dems could secure a referendum on in the coalition talks, and it's quite obvious now why the Conservatives wanted that. If you don't see any good points in these two videos though - particularly the first - then there's no point in us debating this.
S.L.
No-one who voted no to AV can ever complain about FPTP. You had a chance for change and instead you believed to Tory lies and voted no. AV was a stepping stone to PR but most of you threw that away. "vote no to av but yes to pr" PR wasn't an option, it was a Tory trick to split the vote and you fell for it, nice going, idiots.
No-one who voted no to AV can ever complain about FPTP. You had a chance for change and instead you believed to Tory lies and voted no. AV was a stepping stone to PR but most of you threw that away. "vote no to av but yes to pr" PR wasn't an option, it was a Tory trick to split the vote and you fell for it, nice going, idiots.
P.F.
No to AV, No to PR, No to Parties over individual Candidates, No to eternal coalitions, No to Change for the sake of change, No to the continued arrogance of the Yes campaigners in assuming everybody wanted change...There was no deception...All the facts were presented clearly and the Yes campaign made such a frightful noise, do they really believe nobody was listening?...The motion was defeated fair and square...End of...
No to AV, No to PR, No to Parties over individual Candidates, No to eternal coalitions, No to Change for the sake of change, No to the continued arrogance of the Yes campaigners in assuming everybody wanted change...There was no deception...All the facts were presented clearly and the Yes campaign made such a frightful noise, do they really believe nobody was listening?...The motion was defeated fair and square...End of...
No comments:
Post a Comment