Sorry, I meant that 326 was required to give a majority of 2 (obviously with 650 seats 2 is the smallest majority it's possible to have).

---

@al**bear wrote:

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

---

Not sure how much less convuleted the choices in the referendum could have been - "Yes" or "No"

 

The one thing that can be said definitively about the single transferable vote system, (STV), is that it is NOT easy to understand!!!

 

You try explaining it.

 

As for being simple to implement that is debateable.  All the existing constituencies would disappear and boundaries for much larger ones drawn up.

 

 

I don't understand it or see how the STV can work with the present constituencies so is this what would happen?:-

 

Several constituencies would be amalgamated, let's say seven so there would be seven seats available but there are 25 people standing for election.

 

You vote for number 3 as your preferred member and the others in order of preference.

 

Someone (??????) has determined what the "quota" neded for election would be (depending on the size of the electorate?).

 

When your vote is counted, number 3 has already reached his quota and is already elected so your vote gets transferred to your next preferred candidate and so on?

 

That seems crazy?

To develop a system of voting which gives people a voice. Can be as easy or as difficult as you wish. Some make out it will be too difficult because it suits their agenda. People who are unable to move on, evolve and build on past experience should have their own party, Let's christen it The British Imperialist pink mapping Magna Carta hugging unconstitutional Old Pharts.
I suggest pink rosettes and a logo featuring a workhouse, set of gallows, and a person being flogged for killing a Rabbit.
Unlimited immigration will be encouraged, the minimum wage scrapped, euthanasia legalised and compulsory upon retirement unles you are one of means.

In Ancient Greece the city state of Athens, (often claimed to be the birth place of democracy), had an interesting system.  In simple terms they had two assemblies, the first making decisions, the second authorising those decisions.

 

They didn't have elections, anyone who could be bothered to turn up could attend the 'lower' assembly, speak and vote on proposals put forward.

 

The members of the 'upper' assembly were selected for a fixed term by a random ballot, (much like juries are today).  The upper assembly approved or rejected proposals from the 'lower' assembly.

 

Essentially by not having elections they actually had a real democracy - the problem with our system is that it is been hijacked by political parties which deprives the individual, no matter what their political leaning, from having their voice heard.  Whilst the party political system is in force no manner of tinkering with the voting system will solve this basic problem.

 

Devolution of powers was a step forward by making local issues affected by national policies a priority for those elected but this has failed because "we the people" have allowed the assemblies that have been set up to be dominated by political parties.

 

In the recent local elections there were 8,861 councillors to be elected - of those elected 8,332 were party candidates - just 529 were not representing political parties they belonged to but for the electorate.  That is not to say that those who were elected as party candidates are 'bad' candidates but the bottom line is they know that if they decide to go against the party line in the best interests of those in their ward then they are unlikely to be selected by the party to stand at the next election.

 

That is NOT democracy.

Many years back, a large number of candidates were Independent and only loosly allied to one party or another.

 

Also, their political allegience was only referred to in passing rather than being at the forefront as it is today.

 

Those candidates, if elected, voted in the H of C for either things which were important to their constituents or matters of their own conscience, they didn't blindly follow the party line.

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/heres-how-the-election-results-would-look-under-a-proportional...

...UKIP could have won 82 seats..

---

@tommy.irene wrote:

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/heres-how-the-election-results-would-look-under-a-proportional...

...UKIP could have won 82 seats..

---

All the tables in that link show is that 81 candidates would have been elected despite getting fewer votes than those they were standing against and that 81 candidates despite receiving the most votes wouldn't have been!

 

Maybe someone could explain how such a situation is more democratic than the current one!!!!

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

---

@tommy.irene wrote:

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/heres-how-the-election-results-would-look-under-a-proportional...

...UKIP could have won 82 seats..

---

All the tables in that link show is that 81 candidates would have been elected despite getting fewer votes than those they were standing against and that 81 candidates despite receiving the most votes wouldn't have been!

 

Maybe someone could explain how such a situation is more democratic than the current one!!!!

---

.............what would parliament look like under Proportional ... - Blogs blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/...proportional-representation/20893 3 days ago - Seats under current system vs proportional representation .... the Single Transferable Vote (as used to elect the Northern Ireland parliament). ..... this was a) because it wasn't explained very well and people didn't understand it ...............

---

@tommy.irene wrote:

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

---

@tommy.irene wrote:

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/heres-how-the-election-results-would-look-under-a-proportional...

...UKIP could have won 82 seats..

---

All the tables in that link show is that 81 candidates would have been elected despite getting fewer votes than those they were standing against and that 81 candidates despite receiving the most votes wouldn't have been!

 

Maybe someone could explain how such a situation is more democratic than the current one!!!!

---

.............what would parliament look like under Proportional ... - Blogs blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/...proportional-representation/20893 3 days ago - Seats under current system vs proportional representation .... the Single Transferable Vote (as used to elect the Northern Ireland parliament). ..... this was a) because it wasn't explained very well and people didn't understand it ...............

---

That blog gives no justification of the argument that proportional representation is more democratic than the FPTP system.

 

None of the arguments I've seen for a proportional voting system address the fact that our democracy is based on the principle that we vote for individuals and not political parties.  The introduction of PR totally undermines that - how long befor ballot papers would just have the political party name to place a cross against then we could leave those parties to decide who our MPs are. 

 

We are already very close to that situation with party selected candidates and nobody seems to recognise the danger - quite the reverse so many are now clamouring for a system that reinforces party politics.

I guess people just have not grasped that a Member of Parliament is there to represent his/her constituents and that the idea of voting is to vote for someone who will truly represent the wishes of those constituents. Mostly, they've been voted for because they've shown they work and care for their constituents.

 

If PR were "in use", a person who has demonstrated that they have, over time, worked in the local community to help the constituents could see all their work going for nothing and the wishes of the constituents being thrust aside by the PR system parachuting in someone who has only party interests.

 

I wonder how a proponent of PR would feel if they found themself victim to a PR system which had booted them out when really, they'd worked their socks off in the constituency?

 

An individual voter doesn't vote for a "Government", they vote for person to represent them in Parliament. That the elected member leans to a particular party is of secondary consideration (or should be).

Should be

But how often do we hear people say things like, I have voted Labour all my life, or, I hate Tories,

I reckon that if they had stuck SNP badges on a troop of monkeys, they would have got the votes. There were candidates who had worked hard for their constituents for many years being replaced by for example, a 20 year old who had never done anything. Many SNP candidates had never even been party members a few months before the election, but they wore the right rosette on the day. Elections for most people are for the party, not the individual.

That means they've lost sight of what they're supposed to be voting for?

Aye, but it is the party manifesto or left/ right/ middle stance that they follow...they vote for the representative of that ...or the party that promises what they want for themselves....doesn't even matter what is best for the country. Most could not even tell you the name of their MP. At least in past years. Bit more awareness up here now...more engagement than I have ever seen.

The SNP offered Scots a Shangri-la, A chance to turn their backs on austerity, improve their lives without having to do anything in return. The new Greek government was elected on a similar ticket, the strongly argued tale that debt is nothing to do with the majority.
Some will argue that we need the first past the post voting system to give us stable government, others may argue that it denies individuals an opportunity for their views to be represented. Both views have merit. The difficulty we face is knowing how to get people to engage in politics and the democratic process and what role the media should play for they remain a powerful influence.
Perhaps voting should be compulsory for a general election, Parties in the current system ought to be obliged to state clearly how they will fund their programmes. We need more realistic information on. The NHS, where does the money go? Defence, social security. What is their plan for population growth, how much green belt will we lose per annum and for how long. Can growth be accommodated by the existing infrastructure. So many questions critical to our futures remain unanswered. If you sent this list of questions to the 20yr old student Lynda mentions she would have no idea in fact at one of her pre election events with other candidates she was incapable of understanding some basic questions yet she over turned a massive Labour majority, well the SNP did.
If our MPs are unaware to the degree that young lady is and the media so manipulative what chance the average voter of reaching a considered view on who to vote for.
What we need is a thorough overhaul of our system commons,Lords and voting. A cap on party funding and compulsory voting.
Oh and if possible can we identify a party willing to fill in some pot holes on our third world road network.