FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

Electoral reform

Jump to newest
 

By *melie LAL OP   Woman
22 weeks ago

Peterborough

From the electoral reform website:

"... if we had used the same electoral system they use for the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments instead? With the Additional Member System (AMS) you choose a constituency candidate and have a second vote for your preferred party to represent you regionally. You can cast both votes for the same party or vote for different parties in your constituency and regional ballots. Regional seats are then allocated to parties on a proportional basis, taking into account the constituency MPs each party won.

It is important to note from the outset that it is impossible to predict with certainty what electoral results under different voting systems would be. This projection is merely an indication of what the results of this general election – conducted under FPTP – could have looked like using a different electoral system. 

It is of course impossible to account for the other changes that would accompany a switch to an alternative electoral system, such as changes in voter behaviour, party campaigning, or the number of parties standing candidates".

The site lists figures. Labour (on current results) would still have won but would need a coalition with say Lib dem and greens to get a majority of 326.

If PR was brought in, would or should we still have 50+% as a criterion bearing in mind the number of parties?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *melie LAL OP   Woman
22 weeks ago

Peterborough

Sorry but other thread was too brain spinning to take relevant info in.

One poster did point out there are different forms of proportional rep. How would we go about deciding the best?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ornyone30Man
21 weeks ago

ABERDEEN

Some form of PR has to be the way forward. The FPTP does not reflect or represent how folk voted at all.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uietbloke67Man
21 weeks ago

outside your bedroom window ;-)

If the FPTP system was ever to be proven right it was Thursdays election.

Imagine the carnage of a reform power base

No NHS, and more thieving public school boys lining their pockets on the backs of the working person for a start.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ane DTV/TS
21 weeks ago

Glasgow (for now)

From my point of view, watching the "list" system up here, it encourages long term non elected politicians.

You have people sitting for multiple terms having been appointed by some party committee based on vote share.

Eg

Murdo Fraser (Con) 2001

Patrick Harvey (Grn) 2003

Mark Ruskell (Grn) 2003

Now I am happy to have plurality in politics, however I find the multiple term "list" MSP's to be a weird thing.

I would have them set to a maximum 2 term limit.

Is having someone who can sit in political office for decades without being personally voted in via a constituency, really democratic?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *melie LAL OP   Woman
21 weeks ago

Peterborough


"From my point of view, watching the "list" system up here, it encourages long term non elected politicians.

You have people sitting for multiple terms having been appointed by some party committee based on vote share.

Eg

Murdo Fraser (Con) 2001

Patrick Harvey (Grn) 2003

Mark Ruskell (Grn) 2003

Now I am happy to have plurality in politics, however I find the multiple term "list" MSP's to be a weird thing.

I would have them set to a maximum 2 term limit.

Is having someone who can sit in political office for decades without being personally voted in via a constituency, really democratic?

"

But the parties were elected then chose their rep for the seat?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
21 weeks ago


"If the FPTP system was ever to be proven right it was Thursdays election.

Imagine the carnage of a reform power base

No NHS, and more thieving public school boys lining their pockets on the backs of the working person for a start."
reform wouldn't have that much of a power base. If also suspect that libs and greens would get a greater vote share under PR. But that's hard to tell with "anyone but Tory" voting.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eroy1000Man
21 weeks ago

milton keynes


"If the FPTP system was ever to be proven right it was Thursdays election.

Imagine the carnage of a reform power base

No NHS, and more thieving public school boys lining their pockets on the backs of the working person for a start. reform wouldn't have that much of a power base. If also suspect that libs and greens would get a greater vote share under PR. But that's hard to tell with "anyone but Tory" voting. "

The lib dems got very close to parity between vote share and seats won but often in the past they have not had true representation. I agree neither Reform or the greens would have enough of a power base but at least they would get representation to reflect the amount of votes they won.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
21 weeks ago


"If the FPTP system was ever to be proven right it was Thursdays election.

Imagine the carnage of a reform power base

No NHS, and more thieving public school boys lining their pockets on the backs of the working person for a start. reform wouldn't have that much of a power base. If also suspect that libs and greens would get a greater vote share under PR. But that's hard to tell with "anyone but Tory" voting.

The lib dems got very close to parity between vote share and seats won but often in the past they have not had true representation. I agree neither Reform or the greens would have enough of a power base but at least they would get representation to reflect the amount of votes they won."
I'm not against PR far from it. I just don't believe 20pc is enough for a power base, especially whit views away from consensus. And that under PR the other smaller parties may have had a greater percentage.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *ane DTV/TS
21 weeks ago

Glasgow (for now)


"From my point of view, watching the "list" system up here, it encourages long term non elected politicians.

You have people sitting for multiple terms having been appointed by some party committee based on vote share.

Eg

Murdo Fraser (Con) 2001

Patrick Harvey (Grn) 2003

Mark Ruskell (Grn) 2003

Now I am happy to have plurality in politics, however I find the multiple term "list" MSP's to be a weird thing.

I would have them set to a maximum 2 term limit.

Is having someone who can sit in political office for decades without being personally voted in via a constituency, really democratic?

But the parties were elected then chose their rep for the seat?"

Yes.

Selected by the party. Based on % vote share for the party.

A bastardised D'hont system.

It allows completely unelectables to sit for decades in decision making processes.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top