UK General Election 2015 | Conservatives win with an overall majority

[rcoobc]

So a Tory UKIP Unionist govt would have been better then just a Tory one or

given the vote we just had, on what basis could Labour have governed by the will of the people?

I'm not personally for a "proper" PR system (or anything with party lists), I think we need STV which is proportional-ish, but still requires candidates to have a decent support in each constituency.

Having said that, under a PR system I think we could have had governments in the following ways:

Tory Coalitions

Tory-UKIP coalition 36.9+12.6 = 49.5%
Tory-Lib Dem coalition with UKIP agreeing to abstain = 36.9+7.9 = 44.8% but the equivalent of 51.33%
Tory-Lib Dem-SNP coalition = 36.9+7.9+4.7 = 49.5% (obviously unlikely with the SNP)
Tory-Lib Dem-Green coalition = 36.9+7.9+3.8 = 48.6%

Labour Coalitions

Labour-Lib Dem-UKIP coalition 30.4+12.6+7.9 = 50.9%
Labour-Lib Dem-??? with UKIP agreeing to abstain



It's important to note that, when people talk about a PR system, most don't want "absolutely perfect" proportionality. That may sound hypocritical, but it helps the larger parties to govern. In Germany, the "Free Democratic Party" (a coalition partner in 2009) took no seats as they fell below the 5% Party List threshold.

So, in virtually all systems, you can bump those numbers up a bit.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Thats not really what you would be doing. In your case you've called yourself a Labour supporter (voter), so you want to see a Labour candidate get in.

But many people dont have a single preference. I might not mind whether the Greens, Lib Dems or Labour get in. I might prefer Greens, but normally vote Labour because the Greens would be a wasted vote. That's tactical voting. But doing a 1-2-3 Greens, Labour, Lib Dems isn't tactical, it's what I really feel. I dont mind which of the three go in, but I would prefer the Greens.

And you are wrong about the X Factor, the X Factor isn't designed to be the "least offensive" (how boring would it be if it was?!) it's designed to be entertaining and to get the best candidate to win. The X Factor comparison is stupid because it's not how the x factor works (the judges decide each week), but the good thing about round by round voting is you end up with 2 candidates, one who might have support of a group of 30% of the voters (because they are funny), and one that 70% will admit is the clear best singer.

So because you can't make your mind up which way to vote, we change the whole system to make it work for you.

Should we all vote percentages of certainty so we can show exactly how strongly we support each party.

Then we can have 100 day governments and let each party rule for exactly the amount of days they get as a percentage.

This is why I said you have the whole thing backwards. It isn't about you its about the government we elect being able to work and enact the policies they need to and our ability to kick them the feck out when the time comes.

 

[rcoobc]

So because you can't make your mind up which way to vote, we change the whole system to make it work for you.

Should we all vote percentages of certainty so we can show exactly how strongly we support each party.

Then we can have 100 day governments and let each party rule for exactly the amount of days they get as a percentage.

This is why I said you have the whole thing backwards. It isn't about you its about the government we elect being able to work and enact the policies they need to and our ability to kick them the feck out when the time comes.

When I say "me" I dont mean me. It was an example.

It's not for me. It's for Britain. We'd be changing the system because UKIP only got 1 MP from 4 million votes whereas the SNP got 56 MPs from 1.4 million votes. Both the SNP and UKIP think this is unfair. We'd also be changing the system because there is only 1 Conservative and 1 Labour and 1 Lib Dem MP in Scotland, despite them taking 50% of the vote. We'd be changing the system to get Conservatives in Sunderland and Labour MPs in the South East. We'd be changing the system so that people have a choice of which MP to go to when they've got a problem. We'd be changing the system so that there are no wasted votes. We'd be changing the system so there is no tactical voting. We'd be changing the system so there are no safe seats.

We'd be changing the system because at the moment, the ruling party doesn't have the backing of the people.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

UKIP got one MP because of all the constituencies they stood in they couldn't get more votes than any one else in any of them bar one. That's fair enough.

The SNP got the MP's they did because all across Scotland more people voted for them in those constituencies. That's fair enough.

The basis of our democracy is we delegate people to represent us in Parliament. We are not the Parliament ourselves.

You can go to whichever MP is your constituency MP because they should serve you whoever you voted for.

There is no system where people won't vote tactically unless its full PR and then you have an equally bad but very different system of government.

There are no wasted votes as long as they all get counted they all count, its just people with another agenda who call them that.

Safe seats like Gordon Browns old seat was safe? If they are safe seats it is because the holder is vastly more preferred than anyone else.That's fair enough.

No single person for PM or single party for government has the majority backing from the UK population.We still need government though don't we? You are arguing to change the system to jury rig the result so that someone can claim to have that level of support by some complicated, twisted and self interested method as yet undecided by even the minority of people who want a change.

Or we can have a government of the largest party/coalition of agreed parties and let them have a go if they can carry the parliament we actually have elected. Seems fair enough to me.

Can't we sort out; the unelected house of Lords, EVEL, devolution, relationship with the EU, constitutional questions first. Come back to me when you can decide on a system that 50% of people understand and will vote for.

 

[rcoobc]

UKIP got one MP because of all the constituencies they stood in they couldn't get more votes than any one else in any of them bar one. That's fair enough.

The SNP got the MP's they did because all across Scotland more people voted for them in those constituencies. That's fair enough.

The basis of our democracy is we delegate people to represent us in Parliament. We are not the Parliament ourselves.

You can go to whichever MP is your constituency MP because they should serve you whoever you voted for.

There is no system where people won't vote tactically unless its full PR and then you have an equally bad but very different system of government.

There are no wasted votes as long as they all get counted they all count, its just people with another agenda who call them that.

Safe seats like Gordon Browns old seat was safe? If they are safe seats it is because the holder is vastly more preferred than anyone else.That's fair enough.

No single person for PM or single party for government has the majority backing from the UK population.We still need government though don't we? You are arguing to change the system to jury rig the result so that someone can claim to have that level of support by some complicated, twisted and self interested method as yet undecided by even the minority of people who want a change.

Or we can have a government of the largest party/coalition of agreed parties and let them have a go if they can carry the parliament we actually have elected. Seems fair enough to me.

Can't we sort out; the unelected house of Lords, EVEL, devolution, relationship with the EU, constitutional questions first. Come back to me when you can decide on a system that 50% of people understand and will vote for.

You are being quite aggressive, but I dont know why.

You must be joking with some of what you are saying. Agenda? Complicated, twisted, self interested? You are having a laugh.

What if we had, 3 candidates per constituency with the FPTP system, and the top three going through? It's the simplest system in the world. I wonder if you would have a problem with it?

House of Lords, EVEL, Devolution and Relationship with the EU all take precedent of course. But we are talking about Voting Methods because we just had the general election, not a referendum on the EU or Scotland or anything else.

Nothing is going to change in this Government... unless it was a deal the Conservatives as part of Devolution/Constitutional reform anyway.

 

[rcoobc]

As for why we are taling about it, let's put it this way:

UKIP, winner of the European elections and the third largest party in the UK by popular vote have said they will become the party for political reform.

The SNP, winner of the general election in Scotland as well as the Scottish Elections support a change to STV. David Cameron may use STV as a way to placate them, as part of other reforms.

The Lib Dems and Greens also support political reform

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

You are being quite aggressive, but I dont know why.

You must be joking with some of what you are saying. Agenda? Complicated, twisted, self interested? You are having a laugh.

What if we had, 3 candidates per constituency with the FPTP system, and the top three going through? It's the simplest system in the world. I wonder if you would have a problem with it?

House of Lords, EVEL, Devolution and Relationship with the EU all take precedent of course. But we are talking about Voting Methods because we just had the general election, not a referendum on the EU or Scotland or anything else.

Nothing is going to change in this Government... unless it was a deal the Conservatives as part of Devolution/Constitutional reform anyway.

Firstly, yes but I'm attacking the premise and basis of your whole argument not you personally. There are several posters who think as you do and they post often unanswered.

I'm not joking, everything I've said there is true. Since neither of us can claim a logical proof to the supposedly superior ways of counting a countries votes. All of them seem right or wrong depending on the way you want things to turn out.

We had an referendum on PR very recently and the longest serving proponents of a change to the current voting system put forward the one they thought best and it was trounced, I suspect your proposed system would be as well.

The conservatives are in power fair and square, I don't like it, the rest is just sour grapes.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

As for why we are taling about it, let's put it this way:

UKIP, winner of the European elections and the third largest party in the UK by popular vote have said they will become the party for political reform.

The SNP, winner of the general election in Scotland as well as the Scottish Elections support a change to STV. David Cameron may use STV as a way to placate them, as part of other reforms.

The Lib Dems and Greens also support political reform

So everyone who voted UKIP/SNP voted to change FPTP?

The majority of people who voted in the election voted for parties which made no proposals to change the voting system. I can't prove this but I would bet that when most UKIPers were happily voting Tory they had no problem with the current system the fecking hypocrites.

 

[rcoobc]

We had an referendum on PR very recently and the longest serving proponents of a change to the current voting system put forward the one they thought best and it was trounced, I suspect your proposed system would be as well.

The conservatives are in power fair and square, I don't like it, the rest is just sour grapes.

Noooooo we didnt!

Why does no one know what we voted on?!

And I understand and am okay with you being aggressive at the premise. FPTP is a decent system, it is. It has worked in 2/3 party politics for Great Britain for hundred's of years. Its ensured we have moderates and not wackjobs. It holds politicians to account.

But, in my opinion, its days are numbered. STV also does nearly everything good that FPTP does.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

The big downside of FPTP (and most electoral systems) is that they group the population by location. In the past it may have been fair enough to assume that people from one part of the country have similar needs and therefore can plausibly be represented by a single MP.

However, nowadays I would have thought geography isn't as big a factor in determining similar views as compared with wealth, age, type of employment, ethnicity etc

 

[bishblaize]

The big downside of FPTP (and most electoral systems) is that they group the population by location. In the past it may have been fair enough to assume that people from one part of the country have similar needs and therefore can plausibly be represented by a single MP.

However, nowadays I would have thought geography isn't as big a factor in determining similar views as compared with wealth, age, type of employment, ethnicity etc

I think there's enough issues where people's shared geography are relevent for geographic voting to be desirable. Local people use the same hospitals, public transport, schools, etc even if theyre different in financial or demographic terms. Even economies are sufficiently varied from region to region for people from, say, the north east to want different things to people in the south west.

 

[rcoobc]

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Noooooo we didnt!

Why does no one know what we voted for?!

And I understand and am okay with you being aggressive at the premise. FPTP is a decent system, it is. It has worked in 2/3 party politics for Great Britain for hundred's of years. Its ensured we have moderates and not wackjobs. It holds politicians to account.

But, in my opinion, its days are numbered. STV also does nearly everything good that FPTP does.

We voted for FPTP.

 

[rcoobc]

We voted for FPTP.

True.

"What we were voting on."

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

AV

STV

STD

The D'hondt system.(SP)

PR.

FPTP

Any more for any more.

Who cares there are two simple systems. FPTP and PR. Both have major strengths and weaknesses.

Take this explanation of the EU election system for the last EU election and pick the bones out of it.


http://www.europarl.org.uk/en/your_meps/european_elections/the_voting_system.html.


All the hybrid in between ideas have merit but all are very complicated in comparison to FPTP. I don't think any system would have majority support against FPTP.

 

[surf]

I think the current constituency-based system is fairest for the local electors, as they get the local candidate with the most votes. It is fairest to the local candidates, for the same reason. MP's main responsibility should be to the electors in their constituency, not to their party. The connection between an MP and their preferably not-too-big constituency is a key aspect of representation.
Fairness to parties should be secondary to fairness to constituencies. I have no problem with UKIP having only 1 seat. It's up to them to figure out how to turn the system to their advantage. For those who are more party-oriented, PR type systems will seem fairer no doubt.

 

[rcoobc]

Who cares there are two simple systems. FPTP and PR. Both have major strengths and weaknesses.

PR isn't really a system, but could be considered a group of systems.... None of which are very simple.

 

[SteveJ]

They're certainly very boring.

 

[rcoobc]

They're certainly very boring.

Only if you don't love organising things!!!

 

[Ubik]

Noooooo we didnt!

Why does no one know what we voted on?!

And I understand and am okay with you being aggressive at the premise. FPTP is a decent system, it is. It has worked in 2/3 party politics for Great Britain for hundred's of years. Its ensured we have moderates and not wackjobs. It holds politicians to account.

But, in my opinion, its days are numbered. STV also does nearly everything good that FPTP does.

It also wasn't the preferred system of reformers, it was the only one the Tories would allow because it was the most beatable. Labour outbid them with a PR referendum but obviously that coalition was never really going to go anywhere.

 

[peterstorey]

We could get rid of democracy if it continues to deliver unfair outcomes.

 

[Cheesy]

So a Tory UKIP Unionist govt would have been better then just a Tory one or

given the vote we just had, on what basis could Labour have governed by the will of the people?

The Tories had already said they weren't going to do a deal with UKIP. Even if Labour couldn't have governed anyway, the current system is still unfair.

Labour gained 232 times the seats of UKIP, but didn't even manage to gain 3 times the national vote. That's ridiculous.

 

[Cheesy]

The basis of our democracy is we delegate people to represent us in Parliament. We are not the Parliament ourselves.

Of course we're not, but the whole point of having a parliament is that it fairly represents the democratic opinion of the people. This current one doesn't.

 

[Ubik]

When I was talking earlier about Labour having a difficult path back into majority government, I didn't realise it was so bad they'd have to win Kensington - http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/labours-path-back-power-tougher-you-think

Labour better get thinking of good responses to the "SNP coalition" question.

 

[Cheesy]

When I was talking earlier about Labour having a difficult path back into majority government, I didn't realise it was so bad they'd have to win Kensington - http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/labours-path-back-power-tougher-you-think

Labour better get thinking of good responses to the "SNP coalition" question.

They should come out and say that they're willing to work with the SNP if the SNP are willing to officially rule out a referendum for X number of years. Makes perfect sense. Labour get into power, and maintain the UK. It's certainly more sensible than copying the Tories by just endlessly demonising them.

 

[Ubik]

They should come out and say that they're willing to work with the SNP if the SNP are willing to officially rule out a referendum for X number of years. Makes perfect sense. Labour get into power, and maintain the UK. It's certainly more sensible than copying the Tories by just endlessly demonising them.

Would the SNP be willing to make that commitment though? You can tell they think independence is within their grasp now, I'm not sure they'd be willing to postpone another shot for the sake of Westminster influence. I'm still pretty sure Sturgeon got precisely the result she was hoping for last Thursday.

 

[Cheesy]

Would the SNP be willing to make that commitment though? You can tell they think independence is within their grasp now, I'm not sure they'd be willing to postpone another shot for the sake of Westminster influence. I'm still pretty sure Sturgeon got precisely the result she was hoping for last Thursday.

I'm not sure. Depends what happens in the next few years, but what I do think is that the SNP will not go for independence unless they can tell 100% that it's going to happen. A second No vote would kill off nationalist hopes, so they're not going to do it unless they feel assured they can get a Yes vote. And if they're still in the UK, refusing to support a Labour government would be seen as them letting the Tories in, which they really cannot afford to be seen doing.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Pretty sure the SNP will wait to see what happens in the EU referendum.

 

[Ubik]

I'm not sure. Depends what happens in the next few years, but what I do think is that the SNP will not go for independence unless they can tell 100% that it's going to happen. A second No vote would kill off nationalist hopes, so they're not going to do it unless they feel assured they can get a Yes vote. And if they're still in the UK, refusing to support a Labour government would be seen as them letting the Tories in, which they really cannot afford to be seen doing.

Yup fair point. Who knows, Sturgeon might actually make them popular here over the next five years!

 

[Cheesy]

Pretty sure the SNP will wait to see what happens in the EU referendum.

Yeah, that's the big one. A UK vote to leave with a Scotland vote to stay would probably drive up support for independence massively.

Yup fair point. Who knows, Sturgeon might actually make them popular here over the next five years!

Possibly. A lot seemed to warm to her after the debates, and she's certainly not too radical or anything. Their policies are vaguely similar to Labour's, so there's probably a lot of Labour supporters in England/Wales who'd be SNP supporters if they lived up here.

 

[sun_tzu]

Pretty sure the SNP will wait to see what happens in the EU referendum.

Or perhaps try and tag on a second question?
Eg if the uk opted to leave the eu would you want Scotland to be independent and stay in the EU
Even if the uk stays but the second question gets an overwhelming independent vote they could use that to demand another in / out of the uk vote

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Of course we're not, but the whole point of having a parliament is that it fairly represents the democratic opinion of the people. This current one doesn't.

Out of 650 seats in only one could UKIP get more votes than the other candidates. That is the democratic opinion of all those voters in all those seats. So in your opinion we should invent seats to give UKIP. Or take MP's form other constituencies so we can even the whole thing out. Or do away with having MP's tied to constituencies altogether. All this so we can ignore the democratic fact that UKIP despite a fairly large amount of support isn't actually wanted in any particular seat.

It all depends on how you organise your democracy and what you think is the most important part of the stance taken by the voters. If they don't want to elect UKIP then they don't want to elect UKIP. That is part of the way the system works.

There is no perfect system this one has the support of most people over any other system. It is easy to understand and it has produced governments which we can hold to account if we choose to. I have no doubt one day it will be changed but when that happens we will find a whole other set of anomalies and we won't get better government. Ten years later we will be trying to engineer another voting system to iron out the flaws in the next one. Really though the flaws are there because we are flawed and no system can help us with that.

 

[Dante]

A lot of those UKIP votes were protests in otherwise safe seats. Their share would have been very different under PR.

In any case I like FPTP. There are far too many morons in the world. 'One person, one vote' is all well and good in theory, but a system which suppress retardness at the extremes of society is no bad thing. As long as the vast majority are heard, that's the important thing.

 

[rcoobc]

A lot of those UKIP votes were protests in otherwise safe seats. Their share would have been very different under PR.

In any case I like FPTP. There are far too many morons in the world. 'One person, one vote' is all well and good in theory, but a system which suppress retardness at the extremes of society is no bad thing. As long as the vast majority are heard, that's the important thing.

I think it would be hard to argue that under FPTP, the vast majority are heard.

Most MPs are elected with less than 50% of their constituencies votes.

 

[Dante]

But then the major parties change their platform for the next election to try and attract those votes back. Their voices are still heard.

It keeps the likes of Labour and the Tories grounded, whilst demagogues like UKIP are kept from getting near the reins based on a single, specious campaign.

 

[Marching]

Of course we're not, but the whole point of having a parliament is that it fairly represents the democratic opinion of the people. This current one doesn't.

When was the last one that did?

 

[bishblaize]

I think it would be hard to argue that under FPTP, the vast majority are heard.

Most MPs are elected with less than 50% of their constituencies votes.

No democratic system can guarantee that more then 51% of its constituents get their wish.

Besides, when the specifics of possible coalitions aren't known before an election, its questionable exactly how many people would get the outcome they desire under a PR system. Voting Tory is different from voting Tory-UKIP coalition, just as voting Labour is different from voting Labour-SNP coalition.

 

[Cheesy]

A lot of those UKIP votes were protests in otherwise safe seats. Their share would have been very different under PR.

In any case I like FPTP. There are far too many morons in the world. 'One person, one vote' is all well and good in theory, but a system which suppress retardness at the extremes of society is no bad thing. As long as the vast majority are heard, that's the important thing.

What you view as 'extreme' though is entirely of your own opinion. Another person could see that as being completely different. Certainly, making someone else's opinion less valid in a democracy can be a bit of a slippery slope.

 

[Cheesy]

When was the last one that did?

Not sure. 2010 at least resulted in a coalition where the two parties involved had well over 50% of the vote, although the Lib Dems were still criminally under-represented in that election.

 

[rcoobc]

But then the major parties change their platform for the next election to try and attract those votes back. Their voices are still heard.

It keeps the likes of Labour and the Tories grounded, whilst demagogues like UKIP are kept from getting near the reins based on a single, specious campaign.

That would happen under the STV too. Or, practically every voting system in the world. I would in fact argue that you get less of this in FPTP as parties need to win a very small number of people in a very small number of seats to make a big difference.

Hence why the Tories took 0.7% more votes this time yet got 28 more seats. Labour took 1.4% more votes this time yet got 24 seats less.

And there is also this:

Spoiler

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gen...election-how-to-stop-Ed-Miliband-winning.html