Referendum

[Neil]

The Lib-Dems have been for Proportional Representation since I studied politics back in the early 80's. The AV system is a watered down compromise.

As said earlier if people don't understand the new system they shouldn't be allowed to vote. It's common sense FFS. The current FPTP system can elect a government that the minority of voters support.

I will try again:

40% of the votes go to party A
30% of the votes go to party B
30% of the votes go to party C

Party A wins the election but 60% of the voters did not vote for them.

Isn't this conflating two things, though - constituency sizes (for which PR was often touted) and, effectively, where the other votes went - AV (I get that some of this can be caused by the artefact of the former, but all the same...)

The latter part comes down to whether you consider that 40% of the vote to one political party is sufficient majority, to dispel 60% of votes spread elsewhere - ie whether it's fairer for a party with 40% of the vote to govern, or whether a coalition of two parties sharing more than that, to govern.

Personally, I've never really fully bought into party politics (by that I mean, buying into one political party as my sole preference) - so, as a generalism, the concept of the government being a compromise between two (or more, perhaps) parties who can form a commanding majority, in theory, doesn't sound that wrong to me. The reality, though, makes me wonder how much is a partnership with both compromising, and how much is more the "senior partner" largely dominating.

 

[MikeD]

The larger partner in a coalition is clearly always going to dominate. But also it's the smaller partner keeping them in power, so concessions have to be made -- if the smaller partner pulled out (and if it wasn't getting its way in areas that it deemed important, why wouldn't it?) the larger partner would be in the doodoo.

 

[Easy_Rider]

The Lib-Dems have been for Proportional Representation since I studied politics back in the early 80's. The AV system is a watered down compromise.

As said earlier if people don't understand the new system they shouldn't be allowed to vote. It's common sense FFS. The current FPTP system can elect a government that the minority of voters support.

I will try again:

40% of the votes go to party A
30% of the votes go to party B
30% of the votes go to party C

Party A wins the election but 60% of the voters did not vote for
them.

But party A has received more votes than parties B or C so should they not win? Is this not how BoTM works?
How can you lump B & C togtether, they may hate each other and actually prefer A to each other!
Do you advocate a 2 party system?

I agree with your comments gaz, why should someones second choice candidate carry the same weight as smothers first choice.

 

[cyfa2809]

I agree with your comments gaz, why should someones second choice candidate carry the same weight as smothers first choice.

thsi may be a decider for me
but i have no ide of the big words on here

i voted labour last time :?

 

[highlandsflyer]

I don't see the obsession with throwing votes cast for second place back in the ring.

Where you have a major party that satisfies most of the needs of its supporters, they will tend to get their votes.

Is it really preferable to someone to have a party that actually achieved less of the initial vote ending up in 'power' rather than have the party that got the largest share making a pact with another party in order to rule?

Would it not be better to force them to compromise some of the policies that the majority of voters were not strongly enough in favour of to vote for them as their first preference?

As for the 40 30 30 thing.

It is often a mistake to try and simplify something that is already simple.

So basically that means one party got 40%?

Clearly the 'winners' then.

Are we to believe it may be preferable to go back to the count to add it up again so that party B or C end up in power after only getting 30% of the vote?

Crazy.

Much better to have another vote.

I am not suggesting the system is perfect, far from it.

After all, any system where a party receiving about 29% of the vote ends up with no power when another party that received only 23% has some power.

It would be better to impose coalition according to the overall percentage of votes.

Never mind seats.

 

[MikeD]

So basically that means one party got 40%?

Clearly the 'winners' then.

Even though there are more people that would rather they didn't run the country? Especially since that's 40% of people who can be bothered to vote, which was 65% at the last election. So that party "wins" based on the active support of 26% of the population.

I'm not sure that AV has all that much going for it, but the current system is clearly a bit rubbish. It's not like BOTM, either, really, because the whole constituency system gets in the way. In BOTM it's one member, one vote and they all count. In a general election, they don't all count. In my consituency, a vote for any party other than Conservative is basically wasted, for example -- that party has a massive majority, no one else has any chance. My ability to affect which party gets into power is miniscule. Obviously everyone's individual effect is small, but in constituencies with unassailable majorities it's essentially zero. Which doesn't seem all that fair to me. It doesn't get much better under AV, either.

A play with http://www.voterpower.org.uk/ is quite interesting

 

[JohnH]

As said earlier if people don't understand the new system they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

If those "people" are good enough to pay taxes into this country, then as far as I'm concerned, they're good enough to get a vote. Denying the vote to some poor sod simply because they don't understand the complex electoral contrivances of the political classes is a ridiculous suggestion. If the average man-in-the-street can't understand WTF is going on in British politics, then the onus is on the political classes to pull their heads out of their own arses and try harder at communicating with the ordinary people who provide them with power, privilege and a big, fat pension.

 

[highlandsflyer]

You cannot assume the voting preference of the 35% who do not vote would not follow the same pattern, (of course we all know it would not), so you have to assume 40% from those who do vote.

Yes, I am suggesting it is fair based on the question being asked.

Now, what if the question was, "Who do you not want in power?".

Then perhaps your point would have a point.

I am suggesting coalition is better than a false win.

 

[cyfa2809]

As said earlier if people don't understand the new system they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

If those "people" are good enough to pay taxes into this country, then as far as I'm concerned, they're good enough to get a vote. Denying the vote to some poor sod simply because they don't understand the complex electoral contrivances of the political classes is a ridiculous suggestion. If the average man-in-the-street can't understand WTF is going on in British politics, then the onus is on the political classes to pull their heads out of their own arses and try harder at communicating with the ordinary people who provide them with power, privilege and a big, fat pension.

this is correct
very good way of explaining

 

[JohnH]

Would it not be better to force them to compromise some of the policies that the majority of voters were not strongly enough in favour of to vote for them as their first preference?

HF, that is a spectacularly good argument.

It took a string of election failures from 1979 to 1992 to force the Labour party to re-think its policies and re-write its manifesto to be more in line with what the people of the country actually wanted.

If we had had proportional representation in 1979, we could have had a Lib-Lab coalition throughout the 1980s whose policies would have been agreeable to Lenin.... *shudders*