25 Years since Maggie

[Dandyman]

1997 Labour 43.2% of votes cast - 419 seats (63%) Turnout: 71%

2001 Labour 40.7% of votes cast - 412 seats (62%) Turnout: 59%

So in 2001 Labour got a massive 167 seat majority in the House of Commons, with the backing of 24% of the voting electorate!

Very true, which is why I think the Scottish "top up" system is worth looking at.

 

[Titanic]

Very true, which is why I think the Scottish "top up" system is worth looking at.

The 'top up' list system is one of the most corrupt and undemocratic ways of selecting representatives! It allows the party machine to put its favourite toadies and cronies at the top of the list - guaranteeing them a place on the gravy train without anyone directly voting for them.

 

[Dandyman]

The 'top up' list system is one of the most corrupt and undemocratic ways of selecting representatives! It allows the party machine to put its favourite toadies and cronies at the top of the list - guaranteeing them a place on the gravy train without anyone directly voting for them.

I'm not saying it is the only or perfect system but the Scottish version does allow candidates from parties such as the SSP who have significant national support to be elected rather than being drowned under the first past the post system on a purely constituency basis. In England it would mean you could vote Tory in a safe Labour seat or Labour in a safe Tory seat and your vote would still count (Fat Badger, Skint1983, etc ,tell me if I am talking bollocks here)

 

[Titanic]

Many forms of PR would achieve that - my problem with the 'top up list' is the fact that you can't stop the people at the top of the list from getting in - unless their party vote collapses completely, or conversely, they win a massive majority of the seats in the area outright, they are pretty certain to get in.

 

[Dandyman]

Many forms of PR would achieve that - my problem with the 'top up list' is the fact that you can't stop the people at the top of the list from getting in - unless their party vote collapses completely, or conversely, they win a massive majority of the seats in the area outright, they are pretty certain to get in.

Fair point - how about electors marking names on a party list ?

 

[Titanic]

Yes - that is the system I am most in favour of - 'The Open Party List'.

The slight problem with this is that it breaks the constituency respresentation, and makes it more regional - say in groups of 20 current constituencies. Introduction of such a system would cause chaos to the local party organisations!

But I would rather see that, than the current shambles - or the cronies and toadies 'closed list' system.

 

[Titanic]

A bit of research dug up Charter88's web site, with a good article on the 'Jenkin's Report'.

http://www.charter88.org.uk/pubs/brief/vote_guide.html

They resolved the issue of local representation by suggesting an system of local MP's voted for as at present (except using the 'Alternative Vote' system, where you can vote for all the candidates in order, and then they transfer the second choices of the candidate with the lowest number of first choices to the candidate they voted second etc... until someone gets >50% of the votes.)

Then you have 'regional' open lists to ensure 'proportionality' - say at City or County level.

Seems pretty good to me - shame Blair has ignored it!

Then again, he did get a 167 seat majority with only 24% of the voting electorate supporting him in 2001!

 

[On the Left Wing]

Big confession time .... I voted and worked for her in 1979 (and 1983) and even celebrated the election victory..... I had therapy and look upon that part of my life as my lost weekend

 

[Yorkie]

so its still actually less than 1/3rd of the voting populus . . . . .not very good really.

I really dont care for politics any more, It used to interest me, but everything is so corrupt and everyone has an alterior motive, I just try and ignore it, unfortunately it seems so does everyone else, which is why no one bothers voting and the countries run by halfwits !

compulsory voting anyone ?

It is compulsory in Australia to vote.

The percentages mean nothing. I could vote anything I wanted in Huddersfield and the vote would mean nothing because it is such a safe Labour seat that Labour would get in every time.
Seats won is what makes up a Goverment.

The Lib Dems support proportional representation and then you may find you have a coalition Government.