Proportional Representation (UK)

[j1979]

Seriously, you are a complete moron. The highest level of unemployment at the moment is in Birmingham which isn't the North, and guess what unemployed does not equal lazy. And there are plenty of unemployed people in London.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7789784.stm

How about people who contribute sod all to society (a fair bunch of lawyers for example) shouldn't get to vote but those who contribute more as a whole but don't get paid as much should vote? Society will always have poor and rich people. Just because someone is rich doesn't necessarily they are more deserving and should have more say in the running of the country. They tried that a while back and we evolved into a democracy.

+1

lets not forget city traders that just gamble on the hard work and misfortune of others

[TheAnimus]

YorkieBen, its north of the watford gap, its north.......

There are plenty of un-employed people in London, I don't know anyone who is unemployed here right now who isn't entirely of their own making... Lazy or unrealistic aspirations (the way one mate acted at interview... wtf... wtf...) is entirely valid.

[TAKTAK]

YorkieBen, its north of the watford gap, its north.......

It's south of Sheffield, it's south

Same as Uttoxeter is down south

[TooNice]

But that's because the wrong question was asked.

I am pretty sure I asked what I meant to ask even though it might not be the question you wanted to answer

I've seen a fair number of people on FB (and here for that matter) point out the discrepancy there is between the Lib-Dem and the other two major parties. What I was curious about, is whether only the Lib-Dem voters (23% in this GE) wanted PR. If it's only 23% of the population endorsing that system, then it would not be particularly democratic to implement it. So I was wanting to know, hypothetically, from a party-neutral point of view*, whether they thought it is a fairer option than what we have now.

* Okay, I know that might be quite hard - but it's just something I am wondering.

[TheAnimus]

I'm very worried that people read a term like PR, and don't seam to get what the P means.

The question is what is it proportional too?

There are changes to be made, the fact it takes labour 6% less votes to get a majority than it does the tories, the fact that the lib-dems are consistently a significant vote yet not normally politically....

But saying "oh birmingham isn't up north" is completely failing to awnser sim's post, just because you dis like the wording of number 4. Then j1979 you start talking about traders.... wtf. They make up almost an insignificant proportion so have little bearing in any of the situations proposed

[JPreston]

1) It will be too hard to form a majority

Whereas FPTP always results in a majority...? And why should any one party have an absolute majority for five years when they were voted for by only ~35% of the ~65% who bothered to turn out?

2) Small parties that only represent one or two constituencies will be under-represented


Maybe, although I can't think of an example where the loss of a couple of crackpot independents comes close to justifying the downgrading or sheer disregarding of the votes of millions and millions of people everywhere in the country, just because of their postcode.

3) Small national parties will be over-represented (eg. BNP)

No, they'll be represented proportionately to the number of votes they win from the idiots who vote for them. If we were allowed to configure the voting system with the intention of disqualifying parties that we don't agree with why didn't someone tell me sooner? I could have made the whole business a hell of a lot simpler for everyone.

4) It is arguable that the highly concentrated areas, like london, that do more for the country (more output, pay more taxes etc) should be represented more than some area in the North which are full of unemployed chavs.

Damn straight, but this is completely irrelevant - in FPTP and every other sensible voting system, constituencies aren't divided up by simple geographical area but by population density and whatever other relevant and historical factors.


I'm amazed that so many people support FPTP in the poll above, TBH. How can anyone justify a system that delivers absolute power to the party that wins <~25% of the possible votes, that forces people to disregard their opinions and vote 'tactically' for whoever happens to be in first or second place if they want to influence the outcome in any way, that punishes a 1% increase in votes won by a 10% reduction in seats but rewards a 3.9% increase in votes with a 44% increase in seats? Oh wait, the tories depend on FPTP for their continued existence and Rupert Murdoch's retard-rags misinform their readers accordingly. That'll be why, then.

[j1979]

But saying "oh birmingham isn't up north" is completely failing to awnser sim's post, just because you dis like the wording of number 4. Then j1979 you start talking about traders.... wtf. They make up almost an insignificant proportion so have little bearing in any of the situations proposed

i was making the comparison between traders and chav's on job seekers. Can't you see that they both sponge. anyhow back on topic.

[SiM]

Vote should be proportional to income or taxes paid? The Tories would never get our of power Hey, at least it'd keep the high tax rates for the rich in place

That is not exactly what I mean, I am just saying that the people who don't pay for the hospitals, schools, benefits etc, should not have an as big say on how public money is spent. I am not saying that a banker's vote should count more than a factory worker's - but there should be a minimum standard. Ties in with the point that no one has responded to so far.

I personally think that everyone should have to earn their right to vote through either by paying taxes or completing 3 years of national service (of course there will be exceptions like disabled people and students). People who have been sponging off the public money all their lives don't deserve to have the vote.

I would rather the people who choose their vote with the sole criteria of which party will allow them to sponge the most, not be allowed to vote. I know that this is an extreme view, but it is just an opinion.

Unemployment does not matter IMO as long as you have been significantly economically active in the past and plan to be in the future.

I offer my sincere apologies for any northern chavs that I may have offended in my previous post.

[TAKTAK]

I am just saying that the people who don't pay for the hospitals, schools, benefits etc, should not have an as big say on how public money is spent.

I agree with the basis of that, in that people who live off benefits because they're lazy rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish should lose their right to vote, however, those who live off benefits due to illness/disability (obviously dependant on the severity) or due to losing their job but are actively seeking work shouldn't.

I.e. whoever's policy it was to remove benefits for the long term unemployed if they refused to take a job that was offered to them. I'd say add to that losing the right to vote...

I'm sure they would start working (by accepting the offered job) when they couldn't feed themselves.. Or of course as society is today, resort to crime

[TheAnimus]

i was making the comparison between traders and chav's on job seekers. Can't you see that they both sponge. anyhow back on topic.

You obviously know nothing about what your talking about.

Someone who does a highly competitive job, which the demand is very high, to someone who doesn't work at all.

You might as well say footballers are over paid and under worked. Its again something that is set by the market, its again something which many many people wish they could do, but they aren't good enough. Its something people are willing to pay a lot of money to see, its pure market forces.

They often make more money than they morally know how to allocate on a personal inner level, see the french footballers having the orgy with the underage prossie etc.

But one person like that will do more for the economy and job creation if doing their job well than many an MP. A quick history of say the futures market, and why it was first evolved shows how useful it is, and ultimately a highly paid futures trader makes good calls.

[SiM]

Whereas FPTP always results in a majority...?

Didn't say that. It will be much harder than FPTP. There would be a hung parliament almost every time.

2) Small parties that only represent one or two constituencies will be under-represented

Maybe, although I can't think of an example where the loss of a couple of crackpot independents comes close to justifying the downgrading or sheer disregarding of the votes of millions and millions of people everywhere in the country, just because of their postcode.

What about all these Irish and Scottish parties? Unless I am mistaken, NI parties would have about 4 seats with PR.

3) Small national parties will be over-represented (eg. BNP)

No, they'll be represented proportionately to the number of votes they win from the idiots who vote for them. If we were allowed to configure the voting system with the intention of disqualifying extremists why didn't someone tell me sooner?

Technically they will be over-represented since 100% of BNP supporters will vote, but the 35% (non-voters) who don't mind between Lab/Con will be under-represented. Plus yes, while no one will officially say it, disqualifying extremists in this way is probably a reason why they chose this system (corrected above).

IMO, politics in the UK is too fragmented for PR to be fair. It would too confusing for everyone to have every party as a choice on their ballot paper. Currently I can't vote for SNP even if I wanted to, but it wouldn't make sense for me to be able to, though it wouldn't be fair excluding it in a PR system. Perhaps if there is regional PR with a minimum threshold for a seat then it could work.

[Terbinator]

I agree with the basis of that, in that people who live off benefits because they're lazy rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish should lose their right to vote

I doubt they're the type who [want to] vote anyway in all seriousness.

[oolon]

I think this hung parliament is a good test if they cannot work together now, why would they under pr? The parties need to understand the people did not want any of them in complete control, and i hope the eletorate will punish them if they just ask us again. The people have decided, the parties just don't like the answer. If we get a stable 4 year government... bring on pr.... if not try something a bit less of a change like stv.

[Terbinator]

The reason they can't work together is because of the current system - it doesn't make sense to have a government produced by FPTP then expect it to be run like a PR one.

[j1979]

You obviously know nothing about what your talking about.

lol. moving away from the point about the chav and the trader. i will spell it out for you, and why you took the bait yet again.

What the conservative mind set fails to see, time and time again in every topic, subject or indeed thread.. is their own failure to compromise on any point that does not fit in with their ideal world. In essence conservatives fail to concede that a different way of doing things might have benefits. The fact that this is mirrored by most Tory party members points to a logical conclusion that compromise (or a coalition) will not work. It won't work because conservatives are incompatible with the idea of mutual benefit.. Lack of compromise has been the cause of many problems even within the conservative party. When it comes to change conservatives are generally frightened, defensive and mostly wrong. You and many conservatives argue against PR, why?? ... Vested interest !!

we may soon have a right of centre government, when most people in the UK have voted for a left of centre government. Even the labour party that gained massive leverage from FPTP in 2005 and other elections, agree in principal that FPTP is unfair. Governments should reflect the will of a nation, and at the moment they don't!

the voting system will change (someday), and finally the Tories will be forced to compromise or die. So like it or lump it you will lose your precious FPTP. and then you will see that most people don't think like yourself, that you are not the oracle and that one party can not cover the views of a nation.. also that your views on the trader vs chav are just that, your views.

[TheAnimus]

lol. moving away from the point about the chav and the trader. i will spell it out for you, and why you took the bait yet again.

The only way I can interpret that is as a total contradiction.

How does someone who works very long hours, doing a job that is in high demand, with constant pressure to exceed performance, sponge.

In an economic point of view they are byfar a net contributor.