Build a fairer electoral system.

[Anonymous]

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/uk_electoral_reform_locb/?tCozxcb

[cee-dee]

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/elections-and-referendums/past-ele...

[bookhunter2007]

Signed, but it's urinating in the wind. No way are a Tory majority going to pass through legislation which causes their bottoms to get itchy on their safe seats. Nor are many Labour for that matter. Now Lib Dems are out of govt & seats, the Tories now also have a free reign to get to work on their Gerrymandering project they originally planned in 2010.

Besides, went though all this 5 years ago. We had a referendum.  The Daily Afraid say no - the majority agreed with them.

Only realistic hope of getting electoral reform through is by Lib Dems retaking Cons seats in 2020, and playing kingmakers in a Lab/Lib coalition. I doubt the Greens or UKIP will gain enough seats to have an influence.

[fallen-archie]

Democracy will not be preserved if a large proportion of the electorate feel that their views are not valued. All this rubbish about strong government just does not wash. The link provided in post two shows the referendum held in 2011, 32% wanted change or felt disenfranchised, the balance were largely ingrained labour or Tory supporters. The comfy club, frightened to have to accommodate others, well it is just plain wrong.
Somehow we must find a way to get issues addressed, not at the risk of constant elections but by insisting that these well paid people's representatives start earning their corn and acting in an adult way. Coalitions work when countries face serious situations why not let them work regardless?

[jd.linklater]

Also signed. If we'd had a PR system before this election the SNP would only have half of the seats they gained, the Green Party would have 20 or more and UKIP over 80 so the political landscape would look very different today. The current system is only workable for two party politics, we are not a two party electorate any more. PR will at last give a voice to the millions of voters who never get represented.

[cee-dee]

Only 19 million bothered to vote.

Try clicking on your region and see the figures for the total electorate then see how many turned up to vote. See also how many ballot papers were spoiled!

If people can't be bothered to vote they shouldn't complain afterwards if things don't go their way.

You can't please all the people all the time so why should losers or the no-shows have any further say when a majority indicate, by voting, which way they think things should be?

[jd.linklater]

Perhaps if we had a fairer system a lot more people would turn out to vote. You sound as if you don't want to give minorities a voice in how their country is run. I thought this country was in favour of looking after the interests of minorities of all persuasions. That's what we are constantly being told by whoever happens to be pulling the strings at the time.

[robbie_001]

Exactly the point I made to my parents this afternoon. Even if you feel that the party you favour has no hope of being elected into government, or that your local councellor is unlikely to be elected to represent your own constituency, you should get off your backside and vote for what you believe in, otherwise you have absolutely no right to whinge about how the country is being run afterwards.

[cee-dee]

Minority points of view are quite entitled to voice their opinion but I and most others don't see why a minority should attempt to dictate their terms to the rest of us.

When it comes down to it, there are only two "sides" to an argument otherwise you end up arguing on several fronts and agreement becomes either "watered down" or impossible.

What happens is that the disaffected get the hump and shuffle off muttering to the likewise disaffected and disagreeable who then all go off and form their own little group of agitators.

In the end, the different factions continue to argue 'till the cows come home and nothing gets done.

If the proponents of PR got their way, there'd be some weird coalitions getting together all "fighting" for "their way" and like many committees, the only positive thing agreed in the end is when to hold the next meeting.

[upthecreekyetagain]

Proportional representation merely supports the real scourge of democracy, the party system.

Why should votes placed in one constituency be used as an argument to support the view that more, (or fewer), members of a particular party should have a voice in Parliament? The basis of our democracy is that I vote for an individual to represent me - the person I vote for may belong to a particular party but that doesn't give other members of that party any right to my vote.

So what if 4 million votes were cast for individuals who were UKIP members - that is irrelevant - the important and deciding factor is that apart from in one constituency those who stood for election and were members of UKIP were judged by those entitled to vote for them as inferior in their ability to represent them than the candidate who was elected. All that proportional representation achieves is to ensure that candidates who aren't supported by the majority of voters get the same right to vote in Parliament as those who are - that is NOT democracy!

We've had this same argument over the number of women MPs, the number of MPs who are from the ethnic minorities, disabled, from the gay community etc. The answer to 'fairer representation is not to change the voting system but for those groups that cannot get their candidates elected is to put forward better candidates.

I live in an area, as do the majority of us in this country, where candidates from a particular party will invariably get elected no matter how good or bad they may be. The only democratic solution to this is to separate party affiliations from the campaign process - the first step in my opinion should be to remove their party membership details from ballot slips - there is no more reason for a candidates party to appear on these slips than there is for their gender, sexuality or race.

[jd.linklater]

Nobody is suggesting that minorities should be able to dictate to the mainstream, but they have as much right to be heard as the rest of the populace. As you pointed out 19 million people voted, but at least a quarter of them will have no representation whatsoever in the Commons, that is a disgrace.  

I think referring to anyone who doesn't support the main two parties as losers is at best disingenuous, at worst despicable.

[cee-dee]

They ARE losers, they lost, therefore they're losers. A loser is someone who lost, isn't that plain enough?

The only thing worse than than being a loser is being a BAD loser. A good loser is someone who accepts that they lost and should be given credit (and a handshake) for admitting they lost.

The bad losers cry "foul" and whinge about it "not being fair" then attempt to agitate to change the rules.

What UTCYA said is very true and people would do well to read what he says and understand it!

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@jd.linklater wrote:

Nobody is suggesting that minorities should be able to dictate to the mainstream, but they have as much right to be heard as the rest of the populace. As you pointed out 19 million people voted, but at least a quarter of them will have no representation whatsoever in the Commons, that is a disgrace.  

I think referring to anyone who doesn't support the main two parties as losers is at best disingenuous, at worst despicable.

---

Everybody has equal representation in Parliament.

The candidate I voted for didn't get elected but the one that did represents me just as much as they do for those who voted for them.

There were four candidates standing in my constituency and the one who received the most votes was elected - how much fairer than that can you get?  Where are you suggesting that any additional MPs should come from and who would they represent? 

Just because I voted for a candidate who I thought best matched my personal standpoint doesn't mean that I support the views of the party they belong to.  There is absolutely no justification for anyone to hijack my vote and use it to claim that a particular party is under represented in Parliament.

[dark_castle1]

Just a question from a dumbo as far as the subject goes !

If you were wanting proportional representation and it had to be seen to be fair, would you not need a candidate from every party standing in each constituency throughout the country ?

I.E. SNP do not have candidates in constituencies in England, therefore they could not be voted for in England but got the vast majority of votes in Scotland.

[al**bear]

50% of the people who actually voted in Scotland,

DID NOT vote for the SNP,

but they won

96% of the seats

[dark_castle1]

Sorry Al, meant in each constituency.

[al**bear]

Hi RC, my post was a general point, not an answer to your query

Proportional Representation, would have to have some kind of Federal system in place, to account for the Welsh, Scottish & NI parties

The Conservatives destroyed the last referendum we had on PR, by intentionally making the choices  very convoluted and complicated

A single transferable vote system, would be perfect and very easy to implement and understand

[margaret*e]

A question from another Dumbo.

Can someone explain this to me.

As far as I understood, Conservatives were the runaway winners, well ahead of the other parties, so why have I heard several times since, that they are a minority government.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@al**bear wrote:

50% of the people who actually voted in Scotland,

DID NOT vote for the SNP,

but they won

96% of the seats

---

100% of the candidates that received the most votes in each constituency were elected.

About 95% of those elected happened to be SNP members.

About 70% of those elected happened to be male.

About 99% of those elected are white.

About 5% of those elected are ginger - alright I made that figure up but, even if correct, is just as irrelevant as all the above.  Votes are cast for individuals in a representative democracy - NOT for POLITICAL PARTIES, gender, race, religion or sexuality.

[robbie_001]

I don't know Margaret. As far as I understood a minority government is when they don't have more than half the seats in parliament and therefore can’t pass laws without the help of votes in favour from other parties that are not in government.

326 was the 'majority' required (over 50% of the total of 650 seats in the house) and the conservatives secured 331, though in reality the speaker of the house (who is technically conservative) does not generally vote and neither does their deputy. Sinn Fein I think secured 4 MP's but don't take up their seats because of refusal to swear allegiance to the queen, so in reality slightly less than 326 seats are actually required to form a majority in the house.