|
|
Post by Gods on Jul 8, 2024 10:53:44 GMT
The moral case for it seems pretty indisputable to me but how would it work in practice?
The beauty of our current system is that wherever you live in the country your local MP is from the party which won the most votes in your locality. You may not like it much but it makes some sense.
If you have PR then do you not have to plonk some 90 Reform MP's somewhere and that somewhere would need to be somewhere where they were not the most popular party. Ditto the Green party etc.
Or is somehow the idea of your 'local MP' no longer a thing?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2024 10:57:39 GMT
Abolish the House of Lords as it stands. Create a second, electable house of parliament. Use PR there.
|
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jul 8, 2024 11:13:41 GMT
MMP would be my preference....
|
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jul 8, 2024 11:21:29 GMT
Whilst first past the post isn’t a fair or fully representative method
The couple of Things it’s got going for it
Is each seat has its named mp
And we had a election on Thursday by midday Friday the next government was in place no weeks and weeks of horse trading
Where no one ends up with what they actually voted for
|
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 8, 2024 11:26:07 GMT
Whilst first past the post isn’t a fair or fully representative method The couple of Things it’s got going for it Is each seat has its named mp And we had a election on Thursday by midday Friday the next government was in place no weeks and weeks of horse trading Where no one ends up with what they actually voted for Jeez, I've already told you there are PR systems where you still get to vote for a named MP in your own area  And PR is much more likely to produce a parliament where more people get more what they voted for than do so under our archaic FPTP system. Purely because it's more representative. |
|
|
|
Post by foghornsgleghorn on Jul 8, 2024 11:28:52 GMT
If, say, 55% voted for PR, would it be contradictory to move to 100% PR based on that, and so 45% should still be FPTP ?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jul 8, 2024 11:33:13 GMT
Abolish the House of Lords as it stands. Create a second, electable house of parliament. Use PR there. I disagree. Yes amend it and improve it, but don't make government worse, make it better. The vast majority of c.800 eligible people who are entitled to sit in the Lords are appointed by the political parties. Most don't turn up. They are there because of who they are, what they have done, and what they can contribute. Many are "the brains" of our society. OK there are 91/2 hereditary peers there by birth right and should be removed for that reason, but equally could be re-appointed as life members if they are a major contributor to society. The House of Lords has no real power. It is an amending chamber to improve the law or delay what they think is seriously wrong. They cannot stop legislation by the Commons and they do not vote on financial matters. Are you proposing a second chamber, based on PR that can stop a government making laws? Are you proposing the HoL can introduce their own legislation, only to be stopped by a government in the Commons based on a minority vote? We have enough elected clowns representatives, do we want another chamber full of them? How many politicians does this country need with all the useless Councillors we have? Thank goodness we got rid of the waste on MEPs. I am in favour of streamlining and improving government. There is a major need to devolve government, so it is closer to the people. There have been advocates on this MB saying that some people should not be allowed to vote, but we have all sorts of idiots standing for parliament and local Councillors making a mockery of politics. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jul 8, 2024 11:36:58 GMT
The moral case for it seems pretty undeniable to me but how would it work in practice? The beauty of our current system is that wherever you live in the country your local MP is from the party which won the most votes in your locality. You may not like it much but it makes some sense. If you have PR then do you not have to plonk some 90 Reform MP's somewhere and that somewhere would need to be somewhere where they were not the most popular party. Ditto the Green party etc. Or is somehow the idea of your 'local MP' no longer a thing? Everyone picks first and second choice. If you get 50% of first choices, you win. If not, add the second choice of those who voted for the person who came last to the tallies. Is there anyone over 50%? If not, add the second choice of those who voted for the person who came second last to the tallies etc etc until someone gets to 50%. That way you keep a local constituency MP. |
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 8, 2024 11:42:29 GMT
If, say, 55% voted for PR, would it be contradictory to move to 100% PR based on that, and so 45% should still be FPTP ? |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jul 8, 2024 11:48:11 GMT
MMP would be my preference.... Would you have a " second chamber" Prestwich?Do we really need one? What would its purpose be? How would it be constituted? |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jul 8, 2024 11:51:14 GMT
Ii would be nice if we could have a national debate on the electoral system and possibly tie it in with a discussion about a Constitution?
I think since Brexit many people have been more motivated to express themselves politically
|
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jul 8, 2024 11:54:31 GMT
Whilst first past the post isn’t a fair or fully representative method The couple of Things it’s got going for it Is each seat has its named mp And we had a election on Thursday by midday Friday the next government was in place no weeks and weeks of horse trading Where no one ends up with what they actually voted for Jeez, I've already told you there are PR systems where you still get to vote for a named MP in your own area And PR is much more likely to produce a parliament where more people get more what they voted for than do so under our archaic FPTP system. Purely because it's more representative. The only form of truly representative pr would be party lists And this would be unacceptable to many The transfer of second and third choice votes in many cases would still lead to discrepancy between vote share and seat numbers For example I would imagine most reform voters second choice would be Tory in many seats the Lib Dem’s won the combined Tory reform vote would of exceeded fifty percent thus more Tory and less lib seats compared to the original voting percentage |
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 8, 2024 11:57:22 GMT
Open list PR or STV is the way.
Closed list just further centralises power and should be opposed at all costs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Jul 8, 2024 12:19:14 GMT
Abolish the House of Lords as it stands. Create a second, electable house of parliament. Use PR there. I disagree. Yes amend it and improve it, but don't make government worse, make it better. The vast majority of c.800 eligible people who are entitled to sit in the Lords are appointed by the political parties. Most don't turn up. They are there because of who they are, what they have done, and what they can contribute. Many are "the brains" of our society. OK there are 91/2 hereditary peers there by birth right and should be removed for that reason, but equally could be re-appointed as life members if they are a major contributor to society. The House of Lords has no real power. It is an amending chamber to improve the law or delay what they think is seriously wrong. They cannot stop legislation by the Commons and they do not vote on financial matters. Are you proposing a second chamber, based on PR that can stop a government making laws? Are you proposing the HoL can introduce their own legislation, only to be stopped by a government in the Commons based on a minority vote? We have enough elected clowns representatives, do we want another chamber full of them? How many politicians does this country need with all the useless Councillors we have? Thank goodness we got rid of the waste on MEPs. I am in favour of streamlining and improving government. There is a major need to devolve government, so it is closer to the people. There have been advocates on this MB saying that some people should not be allowed to vote, but we have all sorts of idiots standing for parliament and local Councillors making a mockery of politics. You say we have too many politicians but want to keep the 800 or so in the Lords. I think an upper house of say 200 elected on pure PR with exactly the same role and powers as now would be a major improvement. To address the unfairness of FPTP I would keep constituency MP's but change to the system where you rank the candidates and then if one doesn't get 50% the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and their votes are reallocated to their second preference. You continue to eliminate and reallocate until someone does get 50%. |
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jul 8, 2024 12:24:23 GMT
The moral case for it seems pretty undeniable to me but how would it work in practice? The beauty of our current system is that wherever you live in the country your local MP is from the party which won the most votes in your locality. You may not like it much but it makes some sense. If you have PR then do you not have to plonk some 90 Reform MP's somewhere and that somewhere would need to be somewhere where they were not the most popular party. Ditto the Green party etc. Or is somehow the idea of your 'local MP' no longer a thing? Everyone picks first and second choice. If you get 50% of first choices, you win. If not, add the second choice of those who voted for the person who came last to the tallies. Is there anyone over 50%? If not, add the second choice of those who voted for the person who came second last to the tallies etc etc until someone gets to 50%. That way you keep a local constituency MP. I think that's important, forms of PR that have top up lists doesn't sit right with me I would vote differently under STV I think many (most?) people would too |
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 8, 2024 12:24:45 GMT
Jeez, I've already told you there are PR systems where you still get to vote for a named MP in your own area And PR is much more likely to produce a parliament where more people get more what they voted for than do so under our archaic FPTP system. Purely because it's more representative. The only form of truly representative pr would be party lists And this would be unacceptable to many The transfer of second and third choice votes in many cases would still lead to discrepancy between vote share and seat numbers For example I would imagine most reform voters second choice would be Tory in many seats the Lib Dem’s won the combined Tory reform vote would of exceeded fifty percent thus more Tory and less lib seats compared to the original voting percentage You're unlikely to get a system that is 100% representative of what votes have been cast. However, every psephologist (oooh) will tell you that FPTP is the worst option and that some form of PR is the best. Your arguments against PR on the basis of discrepancies between votes and seats are magnified when applied to FPTP! More importantly though, waga, what did you make of this: www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/06/king-charles-ruffles-feathers-as-he-drops-royal-patronage-for-pigeon-racing  |
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jul 8, 2024 12:27:16 GMT
Ii would be nice if we could have a national debate on the electoral system and possibly tie it in with a discussion about a Constitution? I think since Brexit many people have been more motivated to express themselves politically We did have the referendum on AV which was a non event Be interesting to see if Liberal Democrats bring up electoral reform as they have in the past or if they prefer not to talk so much about it as they may end up bracketed in with Reform which they probably want to avoid |
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jul 8, 2024 12:33:59 GMT
Having read all of the above I think we should stick with what we have!
|
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jul 8, 2024 12:35:54 GMT
Ii would be nice if we could have a national debate on the electoral system and possibly tie it in with a discussion about a Constitution? I think since Brexit many people have been more motivated to express themselves politically We did have the referendum on AV which was a non event Be interesting to see if Liberal Democrats bring up electoral reform as they have in the past or if they prefer not to talk so much about it as they may end up bracketed in with Reform which they probably want to avoid Davey on Laura Kuenssberg’s Sunday show confirmed that Lib Dems have for decades campaigned for electoral reform and that continues now. It is one of their main policies. He said it would lead to parties they didn’t agree with getting more seats, but that happens under FPTP and is politics. Remember, they did well this time but are still under represented in Parliament compared with their percentage share of the vote. |
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 8, 2024 12:37:25 GMT
Having read all of the above I think we should stick with what we have! I'm sure we will. The only reason it's gaining any attention currently is because the right has been shafted by it! They didn't give a shit when there was only one right-wing option in town and FPTP worked very nicely in their favour, thank you very much! Karma is a bitch... |
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jul 8, 2024 12:37:47 GMT
We did have the referendum on AV which was a non event Be interesting to see if Liberal Democrats bring up electoral reform as they have in the past or if they prefer not to talk so much about it as they may end up bracketed in with Reform which they probably want to avoid Davey on Laura Kuenssberg’s Sunday show confirmed that Lib Dems have for decades campaigned for electoral reform and that continues now. It is one of their main policies. He said it would lead to parties they didn’t agree with getting more seats, but that happens under FPTP and is politics. Remember, they did well this time but are still under represented in Parliament compared with their percentage share of the vote. Not forgotten just wonder if tactically they might be better served in the short term not being seen on the same side as Reform even on just this issue |
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 8, 2024 12:40:17 GMT
Davey on Laura Kuenssberg’s Sunday show confirmed that Lib Dems have for decades campaigned for electoral reform and that continues now. It is one of their main policies. He said it would lead to parties they didn’t agree with getting more seats, but that happens under FPTP and is politics. Remember, they did well this time but are still under represented in Parliament compared with their percentage share of the vote. Not forgotten just wonder if tactically they might be better served in the short term not being seen on the same side as Reform even on just this issue On a single ticket issue I wouldn't see it as a problem. You'd have Greens and other smaller parties joining in too so it'd be a broad spectrum of all the parties screwed by the undemocratic FPTP. Not going to happen though. |
|
|
|
Post by LL Cool Dave on Jul 8, 2024 12:44:01 GMT
Admin, please merge this with the GE thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 8, 2024 12:46:27 GMT
Admin, please merge this with the GE thread. Nah, the GE thread can be deleted or archived or whatever, it's time has been and gone. This is a separate topic. |
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jul 8, 2024 12:48:28 GMT
That elect a 'local MP' thing really is important to me.
I try to vote more on the individual than party lines. I voted for the Green bloke this time, I happen to think some of their policies are a bit crackers but he was the only person who could be arsed to come out to take a look at a local traffic/parking issue we have.
I thought about the new Labour chap but the only reason he seemed to be able to come up with to vote for him was that 'a vote for him was the only way to beat the Tories around here'. I just thought ne needed to come up with something a bit better than that. And then when I saw on the ballot paper that he was the only candidate who did not live in the Borough I thought to myself basically Labour Head Office have just parachuted him in from nowhere and he won't have to live with any of his decisions!
|
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jul 8, 2024 12:56:21 GMT
I think Independents would do better under STV too
|
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jul 8, 2024 13:09:56 GMT
MMP would be my preference.... Would you have a " second chamber" Prestwich?Do we really need one? What would its purpose be? How would it be constituted? I think I'd get rid. But you're asking the wrong person as if it were up to me I'd be putting the Royal Family out to pasture, and form a Republic with a written constitution........ |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jul 8, 2024 13:12:04 GMT
Davey on Laura Kuenssberg’s Sunday show confirmed that Lib Dems have for decades campaigned for electoral reform and that continues now. It is one of their main policies. He said it would lead to parties they didn’t agree with getting more seats, but that happens under FPTP and is politics. Remember, they did well this time but are still under represented in Parliament compared with their percentage share of the vote. Not forgotten just wonder if tactically they might be better served in the short term not being seen on the same side as Reform even on just this issue If the tories want to pick up some reform and lib dem voters at the next election, perhaps they too should back electoral reform. |
|
|
|
Post by LL Cool Dave on Jul 8, 2024 13:12:20 GMT
Admin, please merge this with the GE thread. Nah, the GE thread can be deleted or archived or whatever, it's time has been and gone. This is a separate topic. Should be archiving or deleting the Brexit thread, based on that Rationale. |
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jul 8, 2024 13:15:20 GMT
The only form of truly representative pr would be party lists And this would be unacceptable to many The transfer of second and third choice votes in many cases would still lead to discrepancy between vote share and seat numbers For example I would imagine most reform voters second choice would be Tory in many seats the Lib Dem’s won the combined Tory reform vote would of exceeded fifty percent thus more Tory and less lib seats compared to the original voting percentage You're unlikely to get a system that is 100% representative of what votes have been cast. However, every psephologist (oooh) will tell you that FPTP is the worst option and that some form of PR is the best. Your arguments against PR on the basis of discrepancies between votes and seats are magnified when applied to FPTP! More importantly though, waga, what did you make of this: www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/06/king-charles-ruffles-feathers-as-he-drops-royal-patronage-for-pigeon-racing Thats what you get with a change of monarch Pigeon racing will survive Maybe without a woke monarch more republicans would be tempted to partake in a working man’s sport |
|
