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

P R ?

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Has the time come for P R ?

To me it's a no brainier

The more votes you get the more seats , regardless of where they are !

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

Absolutely!

But we also need to make voting compulsory.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

why?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *entaur_UKMan
over a year ago

Cannock


"Absolutely!

But we also need to make voting compulsory.

"

You often rage against authoritarianism on here yet you want to make voting compulsory and you want to fine people who don't vote (saw your post on the other thread where you said that the other day). So you only like authoritarianism when it suits what you want then?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *entaur_UKMan
over a year ago

Cannock


"Has the time come for P R ?

To me it's a no brainier

The more votes you get the more seats , regardless of where they are ! "

Yeah I'm in favour of it being introduced. People are disillusioned with politics in general and the system needs shaking up. Voting system needs radical reform so first past the post should be abolished and a more modern Proportional representation system should take its place.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *xplicitlyricsMan
over a year ago

south dublin

The only people that wont benefit from PR are the people who want to keep power for the few. I dont know why more countries dont have it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West


"Has the time come for P R ?

To me it's a no brainier

The more votes you get the more seats , regardless of where they are ! "

Did you vote in the referendum about AV?

It is probably off the agenda now for at least another decade or so.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"You often rage against authoritarianism on here yet you want to make voting compulsory and you want to fine people who don't vote (saw your post on the other thread where you said that the other day). So you only like authoritarianism when it suits what you want then? "

That's not quite correct tho is it?

Because whenever this subject comes up I always say that all ballots should have a final box labelled 'None of The Above'.

The fact is our present system is deeply flawed. It favours the established parties and allows them to take turns running the country for the benefit of very small special interest groups at the expense of the majority. This leads to the effective nullification of millions of votes at every general election, which in turn causes those who see their votes count for nothing to eventually stop voting, which further reinforces the established parties unrepresentative hold on power, and is only of benefit to those parties and leads to the the outrageous position where only 14% of the population of stoke and 22% of Copeland voted for their new MPs, and those results are being tarted around as victories.

I would change this. I would force our representatives to represent us by forcing all to vote but giving us the option not to elect any of the candidates. I would also make empty seats automatic no votes on all issues and force committees to have the same proportion of empty seats as the commons.

There would I believe be a number of immediate effects. Firstly we would no longer hear of people being turned away from polling stations because there were not enough ballots to go round because the turnout was higher than expected and not enough papers had been printed. Then any government taking office knowing that they were starting from a position where they were down by between 30 and 40% of the votes before they attempted to pass any legislation would be forced to govern by consensus. This would force politicians to compromise and in turn reduce extremism and force MPs and governments to rule for the benefit of the majority rather than whoever can pay them the biggest bribe!

Now Centaur, here is my question for you:

Which would you rather, keep the status quo or have a system where all have to vote and all votes count equally?

Remember if we had a system where all eligible to vote have to vote and all votes counted equally then we would have a truly representative system that would negate most of the abuses of power that we continually see from MP's and governments of all sides.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Has the time come for P R ?

To me it's a no brainier

The more votes you get the more seats , regardless of where they are !

Did you vote in the referendum about AV?

It is probably off the agenda now for at least another decade or so."
no because I think AV is daft !

If you get 10 per cent of the vote , you should get 10 per cent of the seats in Parliament ??

This wasn't on offer in that referendum !

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lik and PaulCouple
over a year ago

cahoots

PR is great in principle but in practice would mean nothing would get done as everyone would be blocking everyone else. If I could believe that everyone would suddenly start working together then great, but if that was the case they would be doing that now.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Absolutely!

But we also need to make voting compulsory.

"

Bullshit;

To make voting compulsory you need first of all to have a party worth voting for!!!

.

Take Scotland;

SNP;

the only party in Scotland to fight for the rights and needs of the Scottish people, putting Scotland first.

.

Kezia Dugdale; who single handily, although perhaps a little help from Jim Murphy, has killed of any chance o Scottish Labour ever being taken seriously.

.

Ruth Davidson; Who wants to ensure Scotland's decisions will always be made by Westminster Tories.

.

Willie Rennie; indecisive and does not know what he wants, one minute shouting for something, next minute totally changed his mind, hand in hand along with the traitor to Scotland - Danny Alexander (Scotland will not forget).

.

Patrick Harvie; hand in hand with SNP

.

I have voted SNP for many years but recent actions from the SNP have ensured I will no longer be voting for them

As there is no other genuine party in Scotland who will fight for the needs of Scotland, I will refrain from voting, No one will get my vote

.

This means SNP will lose one vote

but no other party will also gain a vote

.

If, so called voting was made compulsory, my paper would be "spoiled"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Well the "2" major parties of yesteryear the system favours them - or it has done!

What we should have is a citizens charter. A good citizen is required to vote - as is the case in many other countries, and then the whole nation has voted. If you don't exercise this right then you lose some of your rights/benefits. Let's be honest you vote in council elections, general elections (5yrs) & once in a blue moon a referendum! Not a lot to ask from a good citizen?

This then could give the opportunity to PR and a fairer system of electing MP's. But do we need that many - austerity etc maybe we cut them by 30%?

To conclude the current system has been in force a long time - it doesn't mean it's is right?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Absolutely!

But we also need to make voting compulsory.

You often rage against authoritarianism on here yet you want to make voting compulsory and you want to fine people who don't vote (saw your post on the other thread where you said that the other day). So you only like authoritarianism when it suits what you want then? "

Nah, I think compulsary voting is a good idea. People can spoil their vote. They dont have to csst a vote. Perhaps it'd force our political parties look at the reletively large amount of people who would inevitably spoil their vote.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"PR is great in principle but in practice would mean nothing would get done as everyone would be blocking everyone else. If I could believe that everyone would suddenly start working together then great, but if that was the case they would be doing that now."

Indeed. Im in favour of the dutch style system whereby you rank your second and third preferences. That way the consituancy can be represented by 3 people. Not perfect but it gives a better local representation.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"PR is great in principle but in practice would mean nothing would get done as everyone would be blocking everyone else. If I could believe that everyone would suddenly start working together then great, but if that was the case they would be doing that now.

Indeed. Im in favour of the dutch style system whereby you rank your second and third preferences. That way the consituancy can be represented by 3 people. Not perfect but it gives a better local representation."

Scotland already has this

AMS / proportional representation

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"Indeed. Im in favour of the dutch style system whereby you rank your second and third preferences. That way the consituancy can be represented by 3 people. Not perfect but it gives a better local representation."

The single transferable vote system you describe does have the advantage of giving areas their own MPs and allows for independents to stand, but it is not true PR. True requires a party list system, but precludes independents and removes local accountability. I think I favour a system that combines both local candidates and national party list candidates. I think I would also favour a system where votes cast for none of the above would remove seats from the party lists first rather than local seats.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

we've got enough laws, we don't need any more especially ones that force people to do stuff .... and in anycase, it'll just be out of the frying pan and into the fire

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I am not infavour of forceing people to vote.Why should you force people to be complicit in the illusion of democracy.Give people more options to vote .Like doing it online.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *xplicitlyricsMan
over a year ago

south dublin


"PR is great in principle but in practice would mean nothing would get done as everyone would be blocking everyone else. If I could believe that everyone would suddenly start working together then great, but if that was the case they would be doing that now."

PR is already being used in some countries like Ireland for example. Theres been no issue with it and it keeps people in check better than the other systems would.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oodvibrations68Couple
over a year ago

Lake Constance


"PR is great in principle but in practice would mean nothing would get done as everyone would be blocking everyone else. If I could believe that everyone would suddenly start working together then great, but if that was the case they would be doing that now."

It usually results in a coalition...which works quite well if the minor partner does actually have some negotiation power ...

AV seemed by far too complicated...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago

upton wirral


"Has the time come for P R ?

To me it's a no brainier

The more votes you get the more seats , regardless of where they are ! "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rbane PlayerMan
over a year ago

London


"Has the time come for P R ?

To me it's a no brainier

The more votes you get the more seats , regardless of where they are ! "

Yes please !

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago

upton wirral


"Absolutely!

But we also need to make voting compulsory.

"
Some people do not have the desire to vote but also they do not want to vote,it is a basic right to choose wheather you vote.

Before you feel I am being flippant here,my best friend does not vote because they do not feel they know enough to vote correctly and as she is not interested enough to find out,that is her choice,she is very clever in many ways but no interest on politics.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"Some people do not have the desire to vote but also they do not want to vote,it is a basic right to choose wheather you vote.

Before you feel I am being flippant here,my best friend does not vote because they do not feel they know enough to vote correctly and as she is not interested enough to find out,that is her choice,she is very clever in many ways but no interest on politics."

I understand this, that is why I keep saying there should be a none of the above option at the bottom of every ballot paper.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge


"Absolutely!

But we also need to make voting compulsory.

You often rage against authoritarianism on here yet you want to make voting compulsory and you want to fine people who don't vote (saw your post on the other thread where you said that the other day). So you only like authoritarianism when it suits what you want then? "

Australia has compulsory voting.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge

In Thailand you are not allowed to drink alcohol on election day or the day before. Its too important a civic duty to do whilst intoxicated.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ercuryMan
over a year ago

Grantham

Wouldn't it be better if the polls were on a Sunday? I know that some work on a sunday, but it would encourage more to get out.

Lots of European votes are on Sunday.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge


"Has the time come for P R ?

To me it's a no brainier

The more votes you get the more seats , regardless of where they are ! "

OP I presume you are talking about for Westminster elections? We already have a hanful of different voting methods around the UK, FPTP isn't used in all of them.

Personally I like FPTP, every system has its positives and negatives. I like the constituency tie and the strong governments produced by FPTP.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ercuryMan
over a year ago

Grantham


"In Thailand you are not allowed to drink alcohol on election day or the day before. Its too important a civic duty to do whilst intoxicated. "

Can't see that ever catching on here!

Why not use branches of Weatherspoons as polling stations; every town will soon have one!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge


"In Thailand you are not allowed to drink alcohol on election day or the day before. Its too important a civic duty to do whilst intoxicated.

Can't see that ever catching on here!

Why not use branches of Weatherspoons as polling stations; every town will soon have one!"

You don't think that would be popular in this country then?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"In Thailand you are not allowed to drink alcohol on election day or the day before. Its too important a civic duty to do whilst intoxicated. "

we are not allowed to drink alcohol the night before we fly offshore & random drink / drugs testing

(another piece of pointless information)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Has the time come for P R ?

To me it's a no brainier

The more votes you get the more seats , regardless of where they are !

OP I presume you are talking about for Westminster elections? We already have a hanful of different voting methods around the UK, FPTP isn't used in all of them.

Personally I like FPTP, every system has its positives and negatives. I like the constituency tie and the strong governments produced by FPTP."
yes I do mean for Westminster

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge


"Has the time come for P R ?

To me it's a no brainier

The more votes you get the more seats , regardless of where they are !

OP I presume you are talking about for Westminster elections? We already have a hanful of different voting methods around the UK, FPTP isn't used in all of them.

Personally I like FPTP, every system has its positives and negatives. I like the constituency tie and the strong governments produced by FPTP. yes I do mean for Westminster "

So what do you think of the system used for MEPs? Or for the NI & Welsh Assemblies and the Scottish Parliament? How about for mayoral elections? What do you see as the pro's and con's of those systems?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge

Or perhaps we should move to an elected bicameral system with different voting systems for each to mitigate the limitations of either?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Just keep it simple 500 seats , 10 per cent of the vote means 50 seats

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge


"Just keep it simple 500 seats , 10 per cent of the vote means 50 seats "

If I have a problem, who do I raise it with? Who is going to champion the needs of Cambridge? You've just taken away my local MP.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Just keep it simple 500 seats , 10 per cent of the vote means 50 seats

If I have a problem, who do I raise it with? Who is going to champion the needs of Cambridge? You've just taken away my local MP. "

That's what councillors should be for

Also each party could allocate representives for each area , that way people can be represented by whichever party they want to be as well

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