A referendum on a new electoral system will be held next year, the BBC learns

[Tintinnabulate]

A referendum on a new electoral system will be held next year, the BBC learns

Just came up on BBC News Website.

[MrPinkPanther]

Shame AV sucks :(

[-:Undertaker:-]

A waste of time, until we get proportional representation then its just going to keep the status quo trio in power.

[FlyingJesus]

Yeah let's implement PR so we can have an even more split government

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yeah let's implement PR so we can have an even more split government

The rest of the world copes with a sometimes split government with the proportional representation system, if the people [electorate] vote in a certain way then why should their proportion of opinion be denied just because they havent voted in the 'correct way' to make it easy for the politicians?

[FlyingJesus]

The only way PR would be politically accurate would be if you had to pass some sort of aptitude test before voting, because I know for certain (due to some people I know and how I know they voted) that there are plenty of people voting the more "radical" parties simply because they're common idiots who have no idea about actual policies. If this was done then you'd get complaints about it not being democratic enough or being prejudiced or whatever, so you can't win either way. There is always going to be disenfranchisement unless you simply allow the most basic of PR systems which would be fuelled by ignorance.

[MrPinkPanther]

Yeah let's implement PR so we can have an even more split government
Democracy should come above everything or are you not just as bad as the people you are trying to oppress?


status quo trio in power.
The Liberal Democrats are unanimously Pro-PR and haven't been in power for 100 years. There is a big difference between being "in power" and being a minority in a coalition government.

[FlyingJesus]

Democracy should come above everything or are you not just as bad as the people you are trying to oppress?

Less democracy =/= oppression

Besides, not everyone's opinion is valuable let's face it

[-:Undertaker:-]

The only way PR would be politically accurate would be if you had to pass some sort of aptitude test before voting, because I know for certain (due to some people I know and how I know they voted) that there are plenty of people voting the more "radical" parties simply because they're common idiots who have no idea about actual policies. If this was done then you'd get complaints about it not being democratic enough or being prejudiced or whatever, so you can't win either way. There is always going to be disenfranchisement unless you simply allow the most basic of PR systems which would be fuelled by ignorance.

I'm sorry but you cant dismiss peoples right to vote on the grounds of; you dont agree with them/think they are ignorant/consider them not worthy of voting. If I or anybody else in any consituency around the country votes for a party which does not win in their local area then their vote is not counted - how is that democracy? Just because you dont agree with somebody over their voting choice doesnt mean their choice shouldnt be considered worthy of electing a government.

For those who are wondering about FPTP, it basically means that any vote which didnt go to the winning party is discounted. With the FPTP system, you end up with a scenario like the mock one below. (bolded = votes not counted due to party not winning the seat).

Labour 22,000 = winner
Conservatives 20,000
Liberal Democrats 6,000
UKIP 2,900
BNP 1,200
Others 980

..thus meaning that a total of 31,080 people in that seat needn't have bothered voting.

[MrPinkPanther]

Less democracy =/= oppression

Besides, not everyone's opinion is valuable let's face it
It does equal oppression in this case because you are preventing a certain segment of the population from being adequately represented in parliament. I despise the views of the BNP but equally they despise my views, just because I disagree with them it doesn't mean I have any more of a right to have representation than they do. It's all about perspective. If that makes sense?

[FlyingJesus]

People voting without knowing why are not worthy voters. Also your vote is not discounted, you just didn't win. It's like being in a group of friends and deciding what to eat - if other people want pizza and you want burgers but the lot of you can only go to one place, your view is taken into account but you don't get your way and it's still a democratic decision.

[Hitman]

People voting without knowing why are not worthy voters. Also your vote is not discounted, you just didn't win. It's like being in a group of friends and deciding what to eat - if other people want pizza and you want burgers but the lot of you can only go to one place, your view is taken into account but you don't get your way and it's still a democratic decision.
You will find that a lot of people vote without knowing why they are voting - this goes for all political parties, Labour, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, UKIP, BNP, etc. Lots of people just choose a random party because they don't know about the policies, a few people I know did this... and the funny thing is they voted for parties that had policies they disagreed with. :D But this will happen with all parties, not just a select few. You could even argue that people voting the BNP know what they're voting for as they have seen all the hype and bad press and agree with "kicking the immigrants out", whereas they may have no idea on Labour or the Conservatives.

PR is far - every vote counts and goes towards electing seats for the party they voted for... yes, people might vote random parties or not know why they're voting, but that's their choice and this is a democracy. Other people's voices shouldn't be ignored just because some people vote randomly.

[MrPinkPanther]

People voting without knowing why are not worthy voters. Also your vote is not discounted, you just didn't win. It's like being in a group of friends and deciding what to eat - if other people want pizza and you want burgers but the lot of you can only go to one place, your view is taken into account but you don't get your way and it's still a democratic decision.

To follow on with your analogy it is like a burger place. You can either go to a place that only sells burgers (aka one party dominates) or you can go to a place that sells lots of different foods (aka lots of different parties) to make everyone happy. Just because someone is ill educated on politics it doesn't mean their vote is worth less. On the campaign trail this year I was actually surprised by how many people are genuinely engaged in politics around election time and are happy to discuss it. I did however see one guy who said he was going to vote the BNP or Liberal Democrats, I don't think he could have read the Lib Dem manifesto ^^

[FlyingJesus]

You will find that a lot of people vote without knowing why they are voting - this goes for all political parties, Labour, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, UKIP, BNP, etc. Lots of people just choose a random party because they don't know about the policies, a few people I know did this... and the funny thing is they voted for parties that had policies they disagreed with. :D But this will happen with all parties, not just a select few. You could even argue that people voting the BNP know what they're voting for as they have seen all the hype and bad press and agree with "kicking the immigrants out", whereas they may have no idea on Labour or the Conservatives.

No I quite agree, I wasn't bashing on any particular party, just the general populace :P


PR is far - every vote counts and goes towards electing seats for the party they voted for... yes, people might vote random parties or not know why they're voting, but that's their choice and this is a democracy. Other people's voices shouldn't be ignored just because some people vote randomly.

Hence my 1st post where I said there ought to be some sort of aptitude test if a PR system were put in place. I quite strongly believe that people aren't equal, so would have no problem with such a requirement, I just don't think it'd happen with all the pro-equality PC humanitarian people out there who think the views on illiterate tax dodgers amount to the same as political scholars.


Just because someone is ill educated on politics it doesn't mean their vote is worth less.

How do you come to this conclusion? I wouldn't go to a curry house for advice on how to fix my car, I wouldn't go to Co-Op for fashion advice, I wouldn't go to a homeless shelter for wedding plans, so why would I want people with absolutely no knowledge of politics having an equal say in how the country's run as those who've dedicated their lives to it?

[Hitman]

No I quite agree, I wasn't bashing on any particular party, just the general populace :P



Hence my 1st post where I said there ought to be some sort of aptitude test if a PR system were put in place. I quite strongly believe that people aren't equal, so would have no problem with such a requirement, I just don't think it'd happen with all the pro-equality PC humanitarian people out there who think the views on illiterate tax dodgers amount to the same as political scholars.



How do you come to this conclusion? I wouldn't go to a curry house for advice on how to fix my car, I wouldn't go to Co-Op for fashion advice, I wouldn't go to a homeless shelter for wedding plans, so why would I want people with absolutely no knowledge of politics having an equal say in how the country's run as those who've dedicated their lives to it?
In what way do you think people are not equal? I am not saying that we're all not equal and I'm not saying we are not all equal, just wondering... is it in terms of education, race, wealth..?

I understand where you're coming from Tom, but people may know or agree with one main policy of a party, and thus vote for them. For example, somebody I know reckons Labour have ruined the country with mass immigration and the justice system, along with all the political correctness and so he dislikes Labour and would not vote them. On the other hand, he knows that UKIP wants to freeze immigration, wants to pull out of the EU, wants to go back on political correctness, etc. so he voted UKIP - he agreed with some main points and thus voted them. Now those parties are just as an example, it could be any party, somebody could hate the BNP's policies but like some of the Lib Dem's so they vote Lib Dem. My point is they don't need to be educated in politics as such, they just need to agree with something the party wants.

[FlyingJesus]

I'm by no means suggesting that you'd have to know everything about all parties in order to vote, but they should at least be able to give legitimate reasons for their party of choice as with your chum. I simply saw too much utterly ridiculous commentry across facebook during the elections to believe that half of them actually knew what they were on about :P by which I do mean actual nonsense like "voting BNP to kick out all foreigners" and "voting Labour because Cameron dresses like a ponce" (actual status not even joking) rather than just things I don't agree with

On the equality point, I'm not suggesting people ought to be enslaved for not being intelligent, I just think that differences in ability ought to be acknowledged - throughout all walks of life, not just academics and politics. I'm not much for humanitarianism so it seems odd to me that people can view the life of someone indefinitely comatose with very little brain activity as having the same global importance as an up-and-coming entrepreneur with huge potential for the future of society. That's two extremes of course, but just written as such to make the point.

[dbgtz]

Has anyone actually asked for this? :S

[MrPinkPanther]

How do you come to this conclusion? I wouldn't go to a curry house for advice on how to fix my car, I wouldn't go to Co-Op for fashion advice, I wouldn't go to a homeless shelter for wedding plans, so why would I want people with absolutely no knowledge of politics having an equal say in how the country's run as those who've dedicated their lives to it?
But Politics is nothing like any of these examples. People vote for the ideology that they believe in, the overwhelming majority of the population know roughly were each party stands on the political spectrum and roughly what they stand for. If you limit voting to those who completely understand politics then you have pure elitism. Everyones vote SHOULD be the same because it effects everyone, not a minority. In fact the government will disproportionately effect less educated people more who will often rely, at least in part, on welfare to survive.