Electoral reform needed now

[El Presidente]

Because people don't think there's any point in voting for minor parties as they can't get a foothold under FPTP. I'm convinced far more people would've voted green if they thought it would convert to MPs.

My system would be sub-regional proportional representation. i.e. Sussex would have proportional representation for its 18 (?) constituencies.

I understand where you are coming from. But the danger of such an approach is we end up with something similar to Italy or Israel, where minority parties are able to leverage their power in a coalition to extract policies and concessions that are extreme, and don't represent the views of the vast majority.

 

[Man of Harveys]

Why not? That's democracy.

But this result is also democracy. It's not democracy/not democracy, black/white; but just different versions of it. Under this particular system it's just not about how many votes you get nationally; never has been.

Personally, I really don't mind having vile lowlife scumbags like UKIP kept out by an electoral system whose criteria they, lest we forget, have NOT met - just because a significant number of twisted f**kers spread thinly throughout the country are mad enough to favour them. It's also not without precedent for an electoral system to have restrictions in place to keep the extremists out: Germany has exactly that spelled out in its Basic Law, for instance.

I think they may actually now fade a bit, especially if Farage is really a goner. Some individuals seem simply to have liked him, in a way that they simply haven't likedMiliband. Takes all sorts I guess.

 

[Half Time Pies]

My View has always been that you need a structural as well as electoral process reform, with a fully devolved federal type of system the UK government could be elected by PR and then at the more regional level you would vote for 'a person' who could take in to consideration more local issues and individual concerns.

 

[Stat Brother]

Couldn't the House of Lords be utilised more 'democratically'.

 

[Simster]

But this result is also democracy. It's not democracy/not democracy, black/white; but just different versions of it. Under this particular system it's just not about how many votes you get nationally; never has been.

Personally, I really don't mind having vile lowlife scumbags like UKIP kept out by an electoral system whose criteria they, lest we forget, have NOT met - just because a significant number of twisted f**kers spread thinly throughout the country are mad enough to favour them. It's also not without precedent for an electoral system to have restrictions in place to keep the extremists out: Germany has exactly that spelled out in its Basic Law, for instance.

I think they may actually now fade a bit, especially if Farage is really a goner. Some individuals seem simply to have liked him, in a way that they simply haven't likedMiliband. Takes all sorts I guess.

I accept that. I just don't like this notion that extremists shouldn't be allowed a voice because they are extremists. The people should be able to decide that.

You don't like UKIP? Good for you. Millions do though, and they deserve a voice.

The main issue with FPTP is that real change can never happen. It's little more than a cosy duopoly, and when it isn't, you really do need someone with a bit more political nous than a naive VI-Former like Nick Clegg in order to effect change.

 

[Spadge]

I'm no UKIP fan but for them to get 3 million votes, and the lib dems 2 million votes, and get 10 MPs between them is a joke.

SNP 1.5 million votes, 57 seats!

Which way will it go, peaceful protests or rioting in the streets?

Absolutely pathetic arguement!

Let me break this down so that you fully understand this and i will do it in terms so that you fully understand

Imagine every county having one seat.

Every year each county have 5 possible representatives, each represented by red, white, blue, green and purple

In Sussex, White win by receiving 1.3 million votes

In Surrey, Purple wins and receive 7.4 million votes

Why should purple receive more seats than the whites? Population density is different all over the country and will result in large numbers of votes in certain areas despite not coming out on top.

To me the current system is very fair!

 

[Pantani]

I understand where you are coming from. But the danger of such an approach is we end up with something similar to Italy or Israel, where minority parties are able to leverage their power in a coalition to extract policies and concessions that are extreme, and don't represent the views of the vast majority.

Come on El P. You cannot just use Italy and Israel as examples. The Italian system is a mess, and always has been. You cannot really use them as an example to prove a point on electoral systems, as they change it every five minutes.

What about:

Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
Germany
Iceland
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Malta
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey

I've deleted the ones I know little about. Are you telling us that all of these countries are hamstrung by extremist views held by minority parties?

 

[Simster]

[MENTION=12656]Pantani[/MENTION] , you might want to remove Belgium from that list. It took them 18 months to form a coalition government in 2011.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I accept that. I just don't like this notion that extremists shouldn't be allowed a voice because they are extremists. The people should be able to decide that.

You don't like UKIP? Good for you. Millions do though, and they deserve a voice.

The main issue with FPTP is that real change can never happen. It's little more than a cosy duopoly, and when it isn't, you really do need someone with a bit more political nous than a naive VI-Former like Nick Clegg in order to effect change.

Real change has happened over the last 50 years. Then it was simply Labour v Conservative with an odd Liberal here & there. Then the SDP started who amalgamated with the Liberals to become LibDems. Labour then started devolution which caused SNP & Plaid Cymru to emerge. Change happens but it happens slowly.

 

[Hamilton]

But this result is also democracy. It's not democracy/not democracy, black/white; but just different versions of it. Under this particular system it's just not about how many votes you get nationally; never has been.

Personally, I really don't mind having vile lowlife scumbags like UKIP kept out by an electoral system whose criteria they, lest we forget, have NOT met - just because a significant number of twisted f**kers spread thinly throughout the country are mad enough to favour them. It's also not without precedent for an electoral system to have restrictions in place to keep the extremists out: Germany has exactly that spelled out in its Basic Law, for instance.

I think they may actually now fade a bit, especially if Farage is really a goner. Some individuals seem simply to have liked him, in a way that they simply haven't likedMiliband. Takes all sorts I guess.

I think this is the interesting point. Were people voting for UKIP or were they voting for Nigel Farage. Remains to be seen.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Come on El P. You cannot just use Italy and Israel as examples. The Italian system is a mess, and always has been. You cannot really use them as an example to prove a point on electoral systems, as they change it every five minutes.

What about:

Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
Germany
Iceland
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Malta
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey

I've deleted the ones I know little about. Are you telling us that all of these countries are hamstrung by extremist views held by minority parties?

PR works in South Africa as the main party is streaks ahead of everyone else (65% of the vote), for a number of reasons which I will not go into here, so it is important that the minority parties have seats in parliament. However, the people who end up as MP's are chosen by the party and not the electorate. There are some people in all parties that, given the choice, I am sure the electorate would not want in parliament at all.

 

[El Presidente]

I've deleted the ones I know little about. Are you telling us that all of these countries are hamstrung by extremist views held by minority parties?

Fair point, well made. I don't know enough about all of them to comment with any authority.

Are they better, worse or just different to the system we have though?

 

[Pantani]

[MENTION=12656]Pantani[/MENTION] , you might want to remove Belgium from that list. It took them 18 months to form a coalition government in 2011.

I know, it is more the point that they were not over ruled by minority parties the whole time. In fact they even excluded the separatist Flemish party, despite them winning the most seats (I think).

 

[alfredmizen]

PR works in South Africa as the main party is streaks ahead of everyone else (65% of the vote), for a number of reasons which I will not go into here, so it is important that the minority parties have seats in parliament. However, the people who end up as MP's are chosen by the party and not the electorate. There are some people in all parties that, given the choice, I am sure the electorate would not want in parliament at all.

Tribalism ? The ANC is mainly supported by the Shona ?

 

[Pantani]

PR works in South Africa as the main party is streaks ahead of everyone else (65% of the vote), for a number of reasons which I will not go into here, so it is important that the minority parties have seats in parliament. However, the people who end up as MP's are chosen by the party and not the electorate. There are some people in all parties that, given the choice, I am sure the electorate would not want in parliament at all.

I agree that parties only choosing who is in parliament is not the best system. I am not necessarily pro pure Proportional Representation myself. If it was left up to me, the House of Lords would be a PR elected house (with a 1/2/3% minimum threshold for representation) and we would continue as we are with the House of Commons (with perhaps some independent boundary realignment).

 

[Pantani]

Fair point, well made. I don't know enough about all of them to comment with any authority.

Are they better, worse or just different to the system we have though?

A mix of all three. Some countries it works well. Some like Belgium (thanks [MENTION=232]Simster[/MENTION]) there are so many disparate parties that no one has a proper mandate. Some it is somewhere in the middle.

 

[nwgull]

The current system prevented the National Front and the BNP from achieving parliamentary representation.

Just because there are nutters spread all over the country, it doesn't mean they have to be represented in our executive and legislative bodies.

That is democracy and free speech. If enough people in a country support certain views and policies, however unpleasant they may be to the majority, then they have a right to have those views represented.

What right does anyone have to say what views or political parties are 'nutters'?

 

[KZNSeagull]

Tribalism ? The ANC is mainly supported by the Shona ?

The Shona are mainly in Zim - very few in South Africa. Shona is not one of the 11 official languages! The Zulus and Xhosa are the biggest tribes in SA. President Zuma is a Zulu. The ANC crosses tribal boundaries. The main tribal opposition, the IFP has all but disappeared.

 

[El Presidente]

What right does anyone have to say what views or political parties are 'nutters'?

Anyone and everyone.

I was called a nutter for voting Green yesterday!

 

[alfredmizen]

The Shona are mainly in Zim - very few in South Africa. Shona is not one of the 11 official languages! The Zulus and Xhosa are the biggest tribes in SA. President Zuma is a Zulu. The ANC crosses tribal boundaries. The main tribal opposition, the IFP has all but disappeared.

Sorry, my mistake I mixed up Shona with Xhosa , I'm reading a book about Zimbabwe at the moment.