16 May 10
5 edits
Figures from UK election 2005---
Party Votes %Votes Seats %Seats
Labour 9,566,618 35.2 356 55.1
Consve 8,785,941 32.4 198 30.7
LibDem 5,985,414 22.0 62 9.6
Notice anything? Hmmmmm ...something not quite right here....Lib Dems should have a lot more seats.....
Look below.... some of these small parties got a lot of votes. For example the Greens got 257,000 votes but no seats but DUP get 241,000 and 9 seats. UKIP do even worse with 600,000 votes and no seats.
D.U.P. 241,856 0.9 9 1.4
S.N.P. 412,267 1.5 6 0.9
Sinn Fein 174,530 0.7 5 0.8
Plaid u 174,838 0.6 3 0.5
S.D.L.P. 125,626 0.5 3 0.5
U.U.P. 127,414 0.5 1 0.2
Respect 68,094 0.3 1 0.2
Indepnt 18,739 0.1 1 0.2
UKIP 605,973 2.2 -- --
Green 257,695 1.0 -- --
BNP 192,746 0.7 -- --
Scottish Socialist Party 43,514 0.2 -- --
Veritas 40,481 0.1 -- --
Alliance 28,291 0.1 -- --
Scottish Greens 25,760 0.1 -- --
Liberal 19,068 0.1 -- --
Others 252,466 0.8 1 0.2
Totals: 27,148,975 100.0 646 100.0
More and more it just looks like a cartel in favour of the two big parties who have no vested interest in changing anything. No wonder only 60% odd actually bother to vote. No wonder Britain lags behind its more progressive neighbours. No wonder the deep divisions in our society remain when our democracy looks like and old boys club fixed in such a way as to keep anyone else out. PR would bring in consensus politics and heal our divisions and help everyone feel they had a voice.
Wake up Britain , those campaigning for electoral reform are the suffragettes of the 21st Century. Thye may not be throwing themselves in front of horses but in 50-100 years time they will be vindicated.
17 May 10
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterAt least the third party in Britain got some seats.
Figures from UK election 2005---
Party Votes %Votes Seats %Seats
Labour 9,566,618 35.2 356 55.1
Consve 8,785,941 32.4 198 30.7
LibDem 5,985,414 22.0 62 9.6
Notice anything? Hmmmmm ...something not quite right here....Lib Dems should have a lot more seats.....
Look below ...[text shortened]... not be throwing themselves in front of horses but in 50-100 years time they will be vindicated.
If you want to see a cartel that truly favors only the two big parties, you need to look across the ocean.
If you want to see a system whose politics truly promote deep divisions and rejects consensus, you need to cast your eyes far to the west upon that shining beacon on that distant shore.
17 May 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterI thought the lid dem vote was highly concentrated, that would explain why they got few seats despite the number of votes.
Figures from UK election 2005---
Party Votes %Votes Seats %Seats
Labour 9,566,618 35.2 356 55.1
Consve 8,785,941 32.4 198 30.7
LibDem 5,985,414 22.0 62 9.6
Notice anything? Hmmmmm ...something not quite right here....Lib Dems should have a lot more seats.....
Look below ...[text shortened]... not be throwing themselves in front of horses but in 50-100 years time they will be vindicated.
17 May 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterNo wonder only 60% odd actually bother to vote.
Figures from UK election 2005---
Party Votes %Votes Seats %Seats
Labour 9,566,618 35.2 356 55.1
Consve 8,785,941 32.4 198 30.7
LibDem 5,985,414 22.0 62 9.6
Notice anything? Hmmmmm ...something not quite right here....Lib Dems should have a lot more seats.....
Look below ...[text shortened]... not be throwing themselves in front of horses but in 50-100 years time they will be vindicated.
not to mention some people were sent back home when they got to the polling station. There was also that case where they ran out of paper, in Birmigham I think, somewhere in the north.
17 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterThere is no fair voting system. I think some economist proved that amd won a Nobel.
Figures from UK election 2005---
Party Votes %Votes Seats %Seats
Labour 9,566,618 35.2 356 55.1
Consve 8,785,941 32.4 198 30.7
LibDem 5,985,414 22.0 62 9.6
Notice anything? Hmmmmm ...something not quite right here....Lib Dems should have a lot more seats.....
Look below ...[text shortened]... not be throwing themselves in front of horses but in 50-100 years time they will be vindicated.
The voting system has to be the best fit for the circumstances. I agree that the first past the post system is antiquated now that we have multi-dimensional politics and not just Left & Right.
However what do you propose as fair?
Consider a country of 11 million with PR.
5 million vote for the Left. 50 seats
5 million vote for the Right. 50 seats
1 million vote for the Centre. 10 seats
Who has the power? Is that fair?
17 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterAre here any countries where the number of seats does statistically match the number of votes?
Notice anything? Hmmmmm ...something not quite right here....Lib Dems should have a lot more seats.....
No wonder Britain lags behind its more progressive neighbours.
What is the system in these more progressive neighbors? How do they assign seats?
17 May 10
Originally posted by generalissimoIt's actually the opposite. The Lib Dem vote is very dispersed, making it harder for them to come first in many constituencies. They come second a lot. Labour have a big advantage in the cities, and the Conservatives have a big advantage in rural England.
I thought the lid dem vote was highly concentrated, that would explain why they got few seats despite the number of votes.
17 May 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm not sure how many countries have "full" PR but Holland does - there are 150 seats and you need 2/3% of the popular vote to get one (the head of state is the queen and is not elected).
Are here any countries where the number of seats does statistically match the number of votes?
[b]No wonder Britain lags behind its more progressive neighbours.
What is the system in these more progressive neighbors? How do they assign seats?[/b]
17 May 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesYou have my sympathies my friend. What is the %votes cast -to- seats won ratio in the US ? What kind of percentages do third parties get ?
At least the third party in Britain got some seats.
If you want to see a cartel that truly favors only the two big parties, you need to look across the ocean.
If you want to see a system whose politics truly promote deep divisions and rejects consensus, you need to cast your eyes far to the west upon that shining beacon on that distant shore.
17 May 10
Originally posted by wolfgang59Depends what you mean by a "fair voting system" as to whether it's possible or not.
There is no fair voting system. I think some economist proved that amd won a Nobel.
...
Consider a country of 11 million with PR.
5 million vote for the Left. 50 seats
5 million vote for the Right. 50 seats
1 million vote for the Centre. 10 seats
Who has the power? Is that fair?
In your hypothetical example...remember that in a PR system there is less necessity for big parties to remain stable. The "Left" may be fragmented, as may the "Right". The fairest solution might be a coalition between the Centre party and the more moderate elements of each wing.
17 May 10
Originally posted by wolfgang59Actually the way PR in the UK would work is it would let in a large number of minority parties that could form rainbow coalitions and offer alternatives to just a centre coalition. Also you can have so called "grand coalitions " between left and right who can gang up on the centre if it gets too far above it's station.
There is no fair voting system. I think some economist proved that amd won a Nobel.
The voting system has to be the best fit for the circumstances. I agree that the first past the post system is antiquated now that we have multi-dimensional politics and not just Left & Right.
However what do you propose as fair?
Consider a country of 11 million w ...[text shortened]... the Right. 50 seats
1 million vote for the Centre. 10 seats
Who has the power? Is that fair?
In addition , because the system is much more fluid and dynamic , the electorate can severely punish a third centre party for pushing through unpopular policies just because it holds sway.
In the UK , this is not the main point because there's every reason to assume that under PR the Lib Dems might well be a genuine third party or even second place party because of the number of votes they get already under a FPTP system. They could easily get 180-200 seats under PR , making them a genuine force not a bit part player.
17 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59BTW - if you are worried about who has the power consider this. In the FPTP system the power is held by those few minority of voters who happen to live in marginals while the rest of the country helplessly looks on. Why should someone decide your Govt because of where they happen to live?
There is no fair voting system. I think some economist proved that amd won a Nobel.
The voting system has to be the best fit for the circumstances. I agree that the first past the post system is antiquated now that we have multi-dimensional politics and not just Left & Right.
However what do you propose as fair?
Consider a country of 11 million w ...[text shortened]... the Right. 50 seats
1 million vote for the Centre. 10 seats
Who has the power? Is that fair?
Do you live in a marginal or a safe seat? If it's the latter then I'm afraid that I will always be deciding the election for you because I live in a marginal , even if the safe seat is a stronghold for your party.
You would either have to move house or resign the fate of the country to people like me for the rest of your life. There are many people in this country who know that their vote has never ever actually counted for anything. That's a disgrace!
17 May 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadhttp://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/downloads/PRMyths.pdf
Are here any countries where the number of seats does statistically match the number of votes?
[b]No wonder Britain lags behind its more progressive neighbours.
What is the system in these more progressive neighbors? How do they assign seats?[/b]
There's a section in this document which shows the systems
18 May 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterI dont have time to download and read it. All I wanted to know was whether any countries have a system where the seats statistically match the number of votes and what the systems in the UKs progressive neighbor's (that you so admire) is.
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/downloads/PRMyths.pdf
There's a section in this document which shows the systems
You are clearly criticizing the UKs political system as being worse than some others, so I want to know what those others do. Is that too much to ask without getting a link?