Namdrol on 13/4/2010 at 16:25
Highlights yet again the need for reform of the voting system.
A system where more people vote against the winners than for them?
Yet again, up here in Scotland we're leading the way.
R Soul on 13/4/2010 at 16:38
Quote Posted by Namdrol
A system where more people vote against the winners than for them?
A.K.A. a system where the winners get more votes than any other party. Seems pretty fair. I suspect you're in favour of PR, but PR gives too much exposure to fringe parties. 1 outspoken MP can have more influence than his 1/600th of seating space suggests. With FPP that 1 MP needs a serious proportion of votes. In other words he needs real support.
The only problem with our voting system is the people whom we can vote for. PR wouldn't give us better MPs.
SubJeff on 13/4/2010 at 16:41
Troo dat Namdrol. Iirc the Tories had more votes overall last time.
Even in Wales it wouldn't hurt to pay £1 to see your GP. You might get to book an appointment if there was more money in the system too.
ffox on 13/4/2010 at 19:19
Your recollection is wrong. :p
Labour polled 9,562,122 votes and got 356 seats; the Tories got 8,772,598 votes which won them 198 seats, and the Lib Dems got 5,981,874 votes but only 62 seats. If the seats won were in proportion to the vote then Labour would have got 227, the Tories 208 and the Lib Dems 142. On the fringe, UKIP would have won 12 seats, the SNP 9 and Plaid Cymru 4.
The GP booking system is (I think) down to the individual practice. I can book an appointment by phone (geographic number) or online up to two weeks ahead (haven't had occasion to try to book further ahead than that). My mother-in-law's surgery, not too far away, has booking rules similar to ilweran's surgery.
Brian The Dog on 13/4/2010 at 20:25
The GP system is indeed dependent on where you live (i.e. the policy of your local NHS trust). My previous GP had a drop-in-system for 1 day a week and you could book in advance. My current place is annoying as you have to phone on the day and if they're full then they can't book any other days for you :nono:
Whilst PP would make things fairer in the Commons, it'd give fringe parties more of a voice (which they're worried about due to the BNP), and also it would break the link between a local MP and their constituency - they'd have to think how to keep this alive as if you've got problems your local MP is supposed to help you. I guess this is why MPs are looking at the Transferable Vote system as at least it keeps a tie to the local area.
ilweran - since the Conservatives demolished Labour in the Local elections in 2009, what do you make of their chances in Wales for the General Election this time round? Was that just a one-off?
SD on 14/4/2010 at 01:31
Wow, so many fallacies and so little time :)
Quote Posted by R Soul
I suspect you're in favour of PR, but PR gives too much exposure to fringe parties.
By "too much exposure" I can only guess you mean
any exposure. Yes, god forbid that people get what they vote for!
Quote Posted by R Soul
1 outspoken MP can have more influence than his 1/600th of seating space suggests.
Oh really, last time I checked all MPs in the Commons got the same amount of votes.
Quote Posted by R Soul
With FPP that 1 MP needs a serious proportion of votes. In other words he needs real support.
Hold on, you still need significant support under PR too. In a multi-member STV constituency of 4 seats, you need 20% of the vote to be elected (bear in mind you would be up against three other candidates from your party too).
I find that infinitely preferable to the current situation, where a handful of voters in swing seats decide who forms the government, and where Labour can form a government with the support of barely a third of voters.
Quote Posted by Brian The Dog
Whilst PP would make things fairer in the Commons, it'd give fringe parties more of a voice (which they're worried about due to the BNP), and also it would break the link between a local MP and their constituency.
No it wouldn't, you just have slightly larger constituencies. To take Liverpool as an example, rather than the 4 separate constituencies you have now, you would have 1 constituency with 4 seats.
Quote Posted by Brian The Dog
I guess this is why MPs are looking at the Transferable Vote system as at least it keeps a tie to the local area.
Right, that would be Alternative Vote (not to be confused with STV). It's an improvement over FPTP insofar as it gives an element of prefernce voting, and means fewer wasted votes, but doesn't give proportional representation.
Quote Posted by R Soul
The only problem with our voting system is the people whom we can vote for. PR wouldn't give us better MPs.
It would give you more Lib Dems, so of course it would give you better MPs ;)
Brian The Dog on 14/4/2010 at 09:51
Quote Posted by SD
No it wouldn't, you just have slightly larger constituencies. To take Liverpool as an example, rather than the 4 separate constituencies you have now, you would have 1 constituency with 4 seats.
OK, but they'd have to make clear which one to write to. Say I live in Liverpool and had a gripe about housing or policing in my district, I'd want to know one to write to to help sort it out. Or they could agree between themselves which one deals with certain issues. If you had two Labour, one Conservative and 1 LibDem MP for an area though, won't they just argue that it's each others fault?
I agree they ought to do something about the voting system though, it's stupid that so few swing seats get to decide how a nation is governed.
Namdrol on 14/4/2010 at 10:50
I wonder how many of you realise that Scotland has proportional representation for both the Scottish Parliament and Local Government elections?
Let me quote from Vote Scotland to explain the systems used -
Quote:
Additional Member System (AMS).
AMS is an electoral system which combines first past the post with an element of proportional representation which means that the number of seats allocated to parties and individuals in the Scottish Parliament seeks to reflect their share of the overall votes cast.
With AMS, each voter has two votes:
Regional Vote
The regional vote can be used to elect MSPs from party lists or individual candidates for eight regions around Scotland.
Each of the eight regions is made up of a group of constituencies.
Each region returns seven MSPs, making a total of 56 regional MSPs.
The regional vote can be cast by marking your ballot with an X for the party or individual candidate standing in the regional list.
Constituency vote
The is used to elect 73 constituency MSPs.
The constituency vote can be cast by marking your ballot with an X for any candidate standing in your constituency.
The candidate winning the largest number of votes in a constituency wins the seat on a first-past-the-post basis.
Quote:
Single Transferable Vote
On 3rd May 2007, the system for electing councillors will change to a form of Proportional Representation known as Single Transferable Vote (STV).
The size of the council ward will be increased and either three or four Councillors will be elected to each ward.
When you vote you will be asked to rank candidates in order of preference (1, 2, 3 etc) rather than by making a single choice with a cross (X).
Put a "1" beside the candidate you like best, then a "2" beside your second choice, "3" beside your third choice and so on. You can express preferences for as many or as few candidates as you like.
The numbers you use must be in sequence. If you make a mistake, your vote will be valid up to when you made the error – for example, if you miss out a "4" and just rank 1, 2, 3 and 5, only your first three preferences will be valid.
The candidates you vote for may be from the same party, from several different parties or be independents – but every single choice counts!
If your first choice has already won enough votes to be elected, or is eliminated as a result of having the least number of votes, then your vote is transferred to your second choice and potentially on to your third choice and so on, until either three or four candidates have been elected, depending on the size of the ward.
And it works, we have a minority government with the SNP in coalition with the Green Party.
Chimpy Chompy on 14/4/2010 at 11:19
Well wait isn't that the danger? Giving minor parties influence beyond what their small voter base warrants? And governments that can't actually do anyting without forming such coalitions.
ilweran on 14/4/2010 at 11:30
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
ilweran it wasn't clear from your post but if you do like the Lib Dems more, while they won't get the Rhondda seat the Labour majority is so huge that no-one else will either. So there's no need to vote tactically just to keep tories out.
I've always voted Labour, but am somewhat disappointed with them, the Lib Dems would be an acceptable alternative if there was a chance of them getting in which in the Rhondda there isn't. Of course if everyone thinks like that...
Quote Posted by Brian The Dog
ilweran - since the Conservatives demolished Labour in the Local elections in 2009, what do you make of their chances in Wales for the General Election this time round? Was that just a one-off?
I'd be very surprised if the Valleys voted Tory. While there is a general feeling of discontent with Labour nobody I know is openly saying they'll vote Conservative - although that is hardly an unbiased sample.
Cardiff is different and most people seem to think Cardiff North at least will go to the Tories.
Rest of Wales, I really don't know.
