Electoral Reform is a must

[poidy]

We are now in a situation where Labour can form a coalition government with the Lib Dems despite the Tories having won the highest number of seats.
Admittedly Clegg has stated that he will speak to Cameron first but then you are in a position where the Lib Dems (who took less constituencys then Labour) are potentially in government in conjunction with the Conservatives.

It seems incomprehendable to me that this is the best solution. The Tories have recieved the highest number of votes and seats and Labour have lost god knows how many since the last election in 2005. Im fully aware that Cameron fell short of the 326 majority needed to be instantly instated however the shift has been clear for all to see.

This to me is where the problem lies. Overturning a government with a 326 majority is easier said then done. This is why we saw years and years of Torie control. Granted Labour eventually stopped the rot however they have now been in power for 13 years. Even now with the horrendous 2 years we've had to endure under Gordon Brown, this majority still couldnt be reached by another party and were consequently left contemplating a hung parliment.

For me the leading party at the end of the General Election should be handed the keys to 10 Downing Street irrespective of whether this 326 landmark is reached.

I genuinely believe that are electoral system is very victorian and dated and its time to move with the times. What exactly that entales im not too sure. I have no idea how the other big nations of our world go through this process, however id be gob smacked if they are still living as much in the past as what we are.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

What's the point in handing the keys of Downing Street to Cameron if the party can be outvoted on every piece of legislation it introduces?

But yes, electoral reform is a must.

It is, however, crazy for the Tories to protest about the vagaries of the current electoral system when they are the biggest roadblock to its reform.

 

[poidy]

What's the point in handing the keys of Downing Street to Cameron if the party can be outvoted on every piece of legislation it introduces?

Whats the solution? Lets say hypothetically Cameron and Clegg form this Coalition parliment. Doesnt mean the pair of them are going to agree on everything that gets pushed through parliment. If anything a hung parliment is going to make any reform even more difficult

 

[poidy]

I say let Brown get on with it for now and call a snap election for October.

 

[ali jenkins]

Why cant we all just vote again but only for Labour and Conservitives?

 

[withdeanwombat]

I say there were more anti-Tory votes than Tory votes.

I was one of them,and I've a bit of time on my hands so I'll be Prime Minister if you like.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

Surely the simple solution is that Cameron agrees to the Liberal Democrats' desire for a system of the Single Transferable Vote and a written constitution, and ensures that the written constitution states that the party with the greater number of seats is entitled to form at least a minority government?

That way the Parliament of the next five years will have a stable Con-Lib coalition government, the Conservative Party get to carry out their economic policies and Britain gets an electoral system that better reflects the votes cast without being sucked into adopting a PR list system.

 

[poidy]

Can you explain in a bit more depth for me what the single transferable vote system will mean and how It works? I'm a politics rookie to be honest although you wouldn't think it Reading my first post. Way beyond my Years of experience. Seriously tho what's this policy about that clegg is keen to push through?

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Surely the simple solution is that Cameron agrees to the Liberal Democrats' desire for a system of the Single Transferable Vote and a written constitution, and ensures that the written constitution states that the party with the greater number of seats is entitled to form at least a minority government?

That way the Parliament of the next five years will have a stable Con-Lib coalition government, the Conservative Party get to carry out their economic policies and Britain gets an electoral system that better reflects the votes cast without being sucked into adopting a PR list system.

Thats fine providing the other party (in this case the Lib Dems) were willing to work with the party that polled the most votes and won the most seats without an overall majority, or you could still end up with the largest party in opposition.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Why cant we all just vote again but only for Labour and Conservitives?

The problem with that is we already have the maximum number of MPs, but no one has a majority, without electing extra MPs you will still have a minority party in power that can be outvoted by the others

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

Can you explain in a bit more depth for me what the single transferable vote system will mean and how It works? I'm a politics rookie to be honest although you wouldn't think it Reading my first post. Way beyond my Years of experience. Seriously tho what's this policy about that clegg is keen to push through?

It's a bit American for my tastes, but this video is quite clear in explaining visually how STV may work...

[yt]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/y-4_yuK-K-k&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/y-4_yuK-K-k&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/yt]

Personally, what comes across to me is how empowering STV is. You can vote for candidates of more than one party, you can vote for different candidates of the same party, it eliminates the need for tactical voting, you are not wasting a vote if you are voting for someone with a huge majority or with no chance of winning. In short, it better reflects the factors involved in making a choice. While it doesn't deliver proportionality as the video claims (and the lack of proportionality is, in my mind, a good thing) it will almost certainly strengthen the Liberal Democrats compared to First Past The Post. If the Tories backed it on the condition that the Liberals give them a free hand over the economy, it would also help them compared to where they currently are post-election.

 

[BensGrandad]

One thing that should happen is the fee to stand should be set at a reasonably high rate and the deposit lost if they didnt get 10% of the votes. This would stop crackpot stupid people standing for election who poll less than 1000 votes.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

One thing that should happen is the fee to stand should be set at a reasonably high rate and the deposit lost if they didnt get 10% of the votes. This would stop crackpot stupid people standing for election who poll less than 1000 votes.

But that could stop candidates with worthwhile causes seeking to bring attention to their cause and the possible benefits it could bring to their cause just by taking part - Such as the Seagull party in the 2005 election - who knows how much impact that had on (finally) being granted permission to build our stadium.

 

[BensGrandad]

But that could stop candidates with worthwhile causes seeking to bring attention to their cause and the possible benefits it could bring to their cause just by taking part - Such as the Seagull party in the 2005 election - who knows how much impact that had on (finally) being granted permission to build our stadium.

That is a consideration but it would stop some of the ridiculous 'independants' who have helped to confuse the actual voting for the major parties.

 

[Djmiles]

Why cant we all just vote again but only for Labour and Conservitives?

I would rather shoot myself.

 

[Gwylan]

One thing that should happen is the fee to stand should be set at a reasonably high rate and the deposit lost if they didnt get 10% of the votes. This would stop crackpot stupid people standing for election who poll less than 1000 votes.

Thinking of anyone in particular...

Another thing if we do go again in 6 months. I am Standing

 

[Spearritt of the Albion]

The problem, as I see it, with PR or STV is that it will nearly always result in a hung Parliament.

In yesterday's election the Tories got 10.7m votes, Lab 8.6m, LibDem 6.8m and the rest almost 3.5m.

The Tory vote was around 35% of the total. It would take a massive turnaround (another 4m votes for the tories for example) for anyone to get a majority of over 50%.

As most people probably vote for the same party all their lives, to get so many more votes would be nigh on impossible and we would end up with coalition governments every time with the party with the least votes holding the balance of power. Does that seem fair? Even in our present system if the Tories form a coalition with the LibDem's the LibDem's will be ableto hold the Tories to ransom and if they don't get things their own way they will vote against the Tories (so the MPs representing less than 25% of the voters will effectively have more power than those representing around 35%).

I seem to remember that in both Italy and Ireland they went through a period in the seventies and eighties where they seemed to be having a general election every year! What a way to turn off the voters that would be! I believe they both had some form of PR although Italy has now changed their system.

Our system may be old and the LibDem's may moan about it but the Liberals benefitted from the system for many years until the Labour Party was formed and they eventually started to lose out. For a relatively small country we have done ok over the years and a lot of that has to be because we have been able to get steady governments into power, governments that are not thrown into turmoil every time their coalition partners throw their toys out of the pram!

 

[sjamesb3466]

Personally I would go for the 'Additional Member System' electoral system as in my opinion it gives the best compromise between FPTP and PR (or party list).

Basically 50% of MP would be granted through the current system and 50% through PR. At an election you would vote for both a representative in parliament and a party which would give greater PR without losing the constituency representative in parliament as you do with full PR. Its explained better on here! http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=53