Guest sillybear2 Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Of course it would, but it raises nasty issues that politicians are too weak to tackle. There's the religious faction who get there free seats. Not to mention the Mandy Question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
three pint princess Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Not to mention the Mandy Question. Do not name the Dark one, it only draws him closer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timm Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Not to mention the Mandy Question. And the Sugar Question, and the Kinnock Question, and the Adonis Question, and the Malloch-Brown Question, and the Drayson Question. In fact, all the cronies in the upper house. (But I only get really mad about the cronies that pass across to what should be an elected legislature). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashConnoisseur Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Condorcet or AV voting is not actually the best and most democratic system unless voting becomes compulsory. As only 30-40% of the UK electorate actually vote, its statistically impossible based on previous general elections and distribution of the vote between parties to ever get the 1st past the 50% post. So this will actually wipe out the independent MP's & minority parties ensuring the 2.5 parties remain in power and do the bidding of their donors or those rich enough to buy their Politics! I'd love to know the game plan! Although the voting method is identical (ranking candidates in order of preference) Condorcet is not the same as AV. In Condorcet each candidate is 'played off' against each other like a football league table to determine who wins. In AV second preference (and if needs be third and lower preference) votes are redistributed until a candidate has over 50% of the votes cast (not of the entire electorate). Neither system requires compulsory voting in order to work satisfactorily. However, the fact that people can make a sincere vote for their preferred candidate may well increase turnout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erranta Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 legacy hunting.He wants to be remembered as anything other than crash gordon. How about a big sign hung around his neck prisoner photo style > Gordon Brown NOVICE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
50%deposit Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 all this talk of a new system is rubbish. weve had thousands of years to think up a decent system, there isn't one, they are all pretty much the same. Brown cannot pull a new system out of a hat because his ass is sore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashConnoisseur Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Ok apologies for assuming Condorcet was the same as AV, it does look similar to AV. As you say, they are very similar (identical from the voters perspective). The difference is in the way that votes are counted. Condorcet is more tedious to count, but I think easier to explain (almost everyone is familar with a league table where teams are played off against each other). AV is quicker to count, but is potentially gameable (winner can be changed by insincere second preference votes). so it does discriminate against independents and minority parties. Only against parties that have narrow support (e.g. BNP). Candidates that have moderate widespread appeal (e.g. Martin Bell type independent) would likely find it rather easier to win than under FPTP. Don't forget that voters can vote for such candidates as their first choice without risking a 'wasted vote'; if their first preference fails to win their second (or lower) preference vote still gets counted. Plus what if someone only wants to vote for 1 candidate and no others?Does that render their vote invalid? Voters can just vote for one candidate if they wish, either with a '1' or a 'X' (backwards compatible with current system), to count as a valid first preference vote for that candidate. With Condorcet their vote would only be counted when that candidate is 'played off' against the other candidates; it would not be counted in 'play offs' between two candidates they did not vote for. Australia, which uses AV, makes it compulsory to rank all candidates, but this is not an inherent requirement of AV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashConnoisseur Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8092235.stmOf course, there's more chance of a hung Parliament with proportional representation and it would avoid the likely complete wipe-out of the NuLabour species. Any chance of changing the thread title since Brown isn't proposing PR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthurwasright Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Surely no one seriously believes we are going to have a national debate of the issues Organize a referendum And enact legislation All before the next General Election Less than 12 months away Aint gonna happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 it's all so obvious!!he knows first past the post will obliterate him/NuLabour,so he's just playing for scraps. Pathetic. Correct but what you would expect from Brown. He has a majority and bringing in PR now would screw Cameron completely. The Lib Dems would be onboard so it's a real winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSWHPC Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 I think Labour doesn't really want reform, otherwise they would have done it years ago. Now is a good time to have PR defeated, in view of fear of minority parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 So after last nights vote that would mean we would have about 100 BMP MP,S I'm not normally a fan of PR but you're talking me around! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blankster Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 What is proposed is not true proportional representation, but a modified first-past-the-post system whereby votes are weighted by 50% towards the party in power. This would mean that a vote for Labour would count as 1.5 votes, while a vote for any other party would count as 1 vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warwick-Watcher Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Ahh, if it's not PR it's no good then - just a new way to divvy-up seats between the identical big three. Boring. False alarm. Worst of all it would enforce party lists - their favoured blue eyed boys, girls and trannies would be elected no matter what we personally think of them. To get proper democracy again we need to ban the whip system and make MPs truly independent (starting with no state funded pension - they are either self-employed or they are employees; presently they enjoy the best of both worlds plus have tax exemption for allowances!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashConnoisseur Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Worst of all it would enforce party lists - their favoured blue eyed boys, girls and trannies would be elected no matter what we personally think of them.To get proper democracy again we need to ban the whip system and make MPs truly independent (starting with no state funded pension - they are either self-employed or they are employees; presently they enjoy the best of both worlds plus have tax exemption for allowances!). Alternative Vote (AV) has been proposed NOT AV Plus (from the 1998 Jenkin's Report). AV does not use party lists. AV is more democratic than any PR system or FPTP since it enables sincere choices to be made without risk of a 'wasted vote'. Condorcet voting would in my opinion be better still (see my earlier post). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.