loginandtonic Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Its claimed the reform Brown wants is not PR, but a 1st pref etc. Not sure I understand the difference, but anyways...... Is this an advantage to him or not? Else why's he suddenly pushing for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oracle Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Diebold electronic voting machine of course,administered by a government database. you should be completely reassured that these systems will be totally secure,given the wonderful advances this administration have had in data handling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godless Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Preventing the annihilation of Zanulab, fostering a future socialist revival, ingraining socio-political contracting into the populace and integrating it into a global governmental system of protagonistic poly-socialism. Basically another attempt at global communism/fascism that lead to WW2 and the Cold War while saving face and delivering promises to his masters. Something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loginandtonic Posted June 9, 2009 Author Share Posted June 9, 2009 Diebold electronic voting machine of course,administered by a government database.you should be completely reassured that these systems will be totally secure,given the wonderful advances this administration have had in data handling Preventing the annihilation of Zanulab, fostering a future socialist revival thats what i thought, hmm. as for brown i could've sworn he'd be resigned by today by popular demand but i hadn't figured on how self-serving the 'loyalist' MPs are, wanting their salaries another year not just to October Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthurwasright Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 It seems thousands of people find it hard to put one X on a ballot paper without spoiling it Imagine the chaos if they were asked to put three Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Woods? Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Diebold electronic voting machine of course,administered by a government database.you should be completely reassured that these systems will be totally secure,given the wonderful advances this administration have had in data handling Instant-runoff voting and single transferable voting (both used in Australia) are, in my opinion, preferable to the first past the post system used here. They give a better representation of what the voters want, in my opinion. However, this is the most hamfistedly naked attempt at preventing the complete erradication of the Labour party that will occur under FFP voting one could possibly imagine. How about they finish the House of Lords reforms they started before they start with the House of Commons...(or have they finished the reforms, i.e. remove the hereditary peers and replace them with Labour cronies?) If Brown thought he could get away with it, he would call a state of emergency and declare himself dictator. A disgusting, odious anti-democrat. I feel nothing but loathing for this man and his supporters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrivateerMk2 Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Do Labour honestly believe they are in anyone's top three? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ologhai Jones Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Perhaps the question should be, if we could start again from a blank page, what electoral system should we have? Proportional Representation: I can't think of a way of using PR whereby a group of people can be candidates for a single constituency, and only one of them will go forward to be the representative of that constituency. So (unless I'm missing something), then PR would mean that we'd need to do something more like the European elections where the geographical regions become larger and we have multiple 'winners' -- meaning that representatives may have less connection with individual voters. So, if the idea of having people voting for candidates that will (geographically) better represent them personally (and produce a single 'winner'), then PR is impossible? In the situation of relatively small geographical constituencies with a single representative (irrespective of whether you think it would be an advantage/disadvantage to Labour or whoever), do you think the Alternative Vote scheme actually produces better results ('better' being to more accurately represent who the electorate would want to become MPs) than FPTP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quagmire Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 MMP seems to work well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ayatollah Buggeri Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Ironic that Labour are now preparing to abandon the FPTP system, given that they've spent the last decade subtly tinkering with it to give themselves an inherent advantage (e.g. tweaking the constituency boundaries so that Tory stronghold constituencies have bigger populations than Labour ones). Given that current opinion polls indicate that they'd lose whatever the system, my only guess at Brown's short-term thinking is that introducing PR would open the way to a Lib-Lab coalition, thereby keeping the Tories out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
righttoleech Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Brown wants to bring in a system where the party gaining least votes wins. It is his best chance of success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.