Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Arpeggio

What The 2015 Election Results Would Have Been Like Under Proportional Representation

Recommended Posts

..what you were trying to say was UKIP would have had more than 80 seats..... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this sums it up nicely :

Number of votes needed per seat won at the 2015 election. Produced by Tom Bursnall from the UKIP National Executive:

SNP 26,444
CONSERV 34,342
LABOUR 40,232
GREENS 121,216
LIBDEM 289,262
UKIP 3,767,137

Edited by XswampyX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..what you were trying to say was UKIP would have had more than 80 seats..... :rolleyes:

If thats the will of the people...I see Greens would have been on 24..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If thats the will of the people...I see Greens would have been on 24..

What a horrible thought!

But it would expose their credulous ideas, and so next time they wouldn't get any votes. I hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This obviously irrelevant PR is not going to happen the country voted for fptp so that's what it is and will stay .

Because the lib dems let down their supporters so badly, we have gone back to a two party system.

The libdems and the labour party were extremely arrogant and ignored their supporters.

My constituency went from lib dem to Tory, the lib dem had a huge majority and I expected him to win, I sent him an email 5 years a go saying how disgusted I was and how I would never vite for them again. The result was he lost by 1500 votes, people like my family made a difference , we do matter even though we didn't vote for the con. We enabled him to win and I would vote the same way again.

In my view the seat was a sitting duck for labour but their candidate was pathetic and seemed to be a token effort.

Labour will only recover when people real wealthier, so good luck with that.

As usual the media spend the whole campaign talking about things and people that turned out to be irrelevant, ukip and the greens are never going to be other than a minor irrational, those 3.9 million ukip votes were wasted as was the green.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mirror article linked by the OP assumes for its illustrations "splitting the share of the vote crudely between the parties", but it must be worked out by treating at least Scotland as a separate division as the SNP would be allocated just over half of Scottish MPs in the Mirror scenario, more or less in line with its popular vote share in Scotland and certainly not its crude UK share.

From my admittedly limited experience of PR systems (and I do not include AV as such a system), PR elections can be based on voting in large (compared to present size) multi-member constituencies, or with regional-level additional member corrections applied to voting in smaller single-member constituencies, or on a totally regional vote. (Scottish councils, Scottish parliament, and European elections). The devil is certainly in the detail as to the effect of these systems on, for example, their treatment of smaller parties, and on the ability of party machines to choose favoured candidates (closed lists) or give voters some say (STV).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recently with less votes counting due to more voters going for the smaller parties, at least it has brought PR back into discussion. If PR becomes a more critical voting agenda that's a good start, even within, perhaps especially within, an FPTP system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PR is the only reasonable voting system for the UK parliament. The reason they put AV to the people is because people would have voted for PR if that was put to them. There is no reasonable argument against PR.

We already have elected local councillors for local issues and elected MEPs for european issues.

The UK MP is for UK issues so I don't see the need for any real local connection. The UK parliament should really be a federal parliament for UK wide issues, which is what is actually does anyway.

Has anyone ever met their MP? 99% of people probably never have and never will. Even if you wanted to contact them you'd probably find it easier to write, email or phone them. They are usually only in their constituency once every 2 months.

The majority of UK voters voted against the Conservatives.

Edited by DEATH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like contituencies to be three times bigger and for us to elect three MPs per constituency. The first MP would be the one who had won on a FPTP system. All the losers votes would then go into a national pot and all other 400-odd MPs decided by means of PR. This would keep an element of FPTP which is important as RK has noted on a different thread.

The parties would rank their prospective MPs and also choose where to spread their PR MPs. To deal with the prospect of excessive stacking of MPs in one constituency I would propose larger regional areas where many PR MPs could serve collectively, but then again I have never gone in for all this Localism stuff. This would mean that, for instance, a fervent UKIP supporter in the North East would proabably have the opportunity of talking to a UKIP MP who he felt had his best interests at heart, though he might have to travel to Newcastle to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this sums it up nicely :

Number of votes needed per seat won at the 2015 election. Produced by Tom Bursnall from the UKIP National Executive:

SNP 26,444

CONSERV 34,342

LABOUR 40,232

GREENS 121,216

LIBDEM 289,262

UKIP 3,767,137

...only from the point of view that this is not a democracy ....it's called normally ...loaded dice... :rolleyes:

Edited by South Lorne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...only from the point of view that this is not a democracy ....it's called normally ...loaded dice... :rolleyes:

Yep!

We could have our cake and eat it.

Keep the elections the same, but the MP's get a weighted vote in parliament, in respect to the total number of votes cast in the whole election, divided by the number of MP's in their party.

UKIP 3,767,137 / 1

GREENS 121,216 / 1

Conservative 11,332,860 / 330

Etc... etc...

It means the one UKIP MP would have a vote worth 80 time a conservative one, but each constituency can choose who represents them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep!

We could have our cake and eat it.

Keep the elections the same, but the MP's get a weighted vote in parliament, in respect to the total number of votes cast in the whole election, divided by the number of MP's in their party.

UKIP 3,767,137 / 1

GREENS 121,216 / 1

Conservative 11,332,860 / 330

Etc... etc...

It means the one UKIP MP would have a vote worth 80 time a conservative one, but each constituency can choose who represents them.

Too much power would be invested in just one MP. It's an open invitation to corruption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too much power would be invested in just one MP. It's an open invitation to corruption.

How, You still need the votes? I admit the transition would be quite unnerving, but we would soon get used to the idea. People would vote for the MP they wanted, and if they didn't want him/her then they would vote for the party that they wanted.

You could also limit it to say 10x

I can't see one party getting all the votes but only having 1 MP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How, You still need the votes? I admit the transition would be quite unnerving, but we would soon get used to the idea. People would vote for the MP they wanted, and if they didn't want him/her then they would vote for the party that they wanted.

You could also limit it to say 10x

I can't see one party getting all the votes but only having 1 MP.

One person is easier to bribe than 80. Your 10X limit is an improvement, but you would be better served just having an element of PR than weighted votes. In Parliament there should be one MP, one vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a fair point, but they would have one person, one vote. Our vote carried over.

You can't have constituency's with PR, we vote and then somebody else chooses who will be your local MP. How's that democracy and who gets to pick the most juicy ones?

You have to admit it's set up to give the worst outcome ever? And when you do, why is it like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see electoral reform happening in this parliament. There's simply no pressure for the turkeys to vote for Christmas - a petition doesn't matter a damn.

The only time there has ever been real pressure is under the coalition, but the LibDems botched it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see electoral reform happening in this parliament. There's simply no pressure for the turkeys to vote for Christmas - a petition doesn't matter a damn.

The only time there has ever been real pressure is under the coalition, but the LibDems botched it.

It would sort out the SNPs though for the Tories

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Next General Election   90 members have voted

    1. 1. When do you predict the next general election will be held?


      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.