I voted YES and for the Tories (No Lib Dem or UKIP in my area)
I voted yes because every MP should have the support of 50% of their constituency, and it also helps keep unpopular extremists out of politics.
Printable View
I voted YES and for the Tories (No Lib Dem or UKIP in my area)
I voted yes because every MP should have the support of 50% of their constituency, and it also helps keep unpopular extremists out of politics.
No it doesn't. It gives "unpopular" parties the chance. And by unpopular I mean those with not many votes, yet they can some how end up influencing the final outcome with AV.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kittysoft
Frankly it isn't possible for an MP to have support of 50% of their constituency rly, hence why it's best settling for what the majority want (FPTP ;)).
It's highly likely no will win anyway, thankfully may I add.
you'd vote Lib Dem over Tory? o.oQuote:
Originally Posted by Kittysoft
And actually, AV gives extremists a chance. (due to the 2nd/3rd/4th choice thing)
Well I wouldn't mind seeing a couple of UKIP. I agree with them quite a bit on the EU farce. Might make Parliament a bit more interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Right-Wing
Vote UKIP (Y) Finally an agreement between me & you in this forum :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Catz
It was also reported that an UrbanLife poll suggested Yes to AV was taking the lead, so I wouldn't count your chickens! :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Hecktix
The problem with this is that I fear people won't bother leaving the house in order to vote on changing the system. The majority of people most likely take the stance of "there's nothing wrong with the current system so I'm not gonna vote to change it," hence not moving from their house. On the other hand, people may vote in their local election and think "there's nothing wrong with this" so just vote to keep it the same. Time will tell, but I think AV is a stupid system due to the fact some people will have two votes, whereas others will have one. That isn't democracy.
If you don't vote you can't complain, which you do seem to spend all your time doing anyway.. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
The only way to get a true representation in a General Election is to make the vote compulsory for everyone, just like the census. That way, you can be certain that those who "don't vote" are being truly represented, and we don't have moaning politicians (oh, just like the Lib Dems) who are crying over FPTP being "unfair."
Quite right. I do think Parliament is too largely populated with the two main parties and it would be nice to see some variation once in a while, just to see what they can offer and what change they bring about. There's virtually no chance of UKIP getting in power because people simply aren't knowledgeable enough about their policies (despite Dan's constant preaching :P), but it would be nice to have a couple, just to bring up a few of their more plausible alternatives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catz
I voted yes as I can see the benefits of such a system, even though I know it won't win the vote - loads of people are against it :P
And no, it wouldn't give extremists the chance - they need votes for that, and you're assuming people will actually vote for these parties in the first place.
Oh but I can, the choice that I want is not there - therefore there is no need for me to vote for either system. If I took that view in elections, i'd end up picking between Labour, the Liberal Democrats and Conservative and then I truly wouldn't be able to complain because knowing how identical and to put it simply, dreadful they are, i'd be voting them into office and keeping their dying parties alive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew
George Carlin sums it up perfectly at 1:35, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk *contains bad language*
The option not to vote is just as important as the right to vote, in most dictatorships for example you have to vote (even if there is a non-choice) otherwise you are in serious trouble. If UKIP weren't standing for example in my local area or I just wasn't happy with anybody standing, why should I vote? Now as for the issue of FPTP, it is unfair. In theory a small party could get 10% or even 20% of the vote and not recieve any representation in parliament. In the General Election for example, UKIP polled at 920,334 votes and ended up with 0/650 seats - The DUP polled at 168,216 votes and ended up with a total of 8/650 seats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew
A quick look at the European Elections in 2009 under proportional representation show just how quickly PR ends tribalism and can be a game changer, or even the Finnish General election a few weeks ago can be used as an example with the True Finns soaring.
Fair? I think not.
eurgh, this is the one thing that pisses me off the most when it comes to voting. it seriously grinds my gears. someone said that to me when i said i wasn't sure who i was voting for last year so i said i probably wouldn't vote as i didn't really wanna vote willynilly (i did vote in the end nevertheless) and i just had a fatass go at him. people can complain about whatever they desire, and just because they refrain from voting doesn't remove their freedom of speech in regards to what's occurring. hell, i'd complain even more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathew
PR is the way forward imo.
If that had been in the last election the following would've occured:
Conservative: 235
Labour: 188
Lib Dem: 150
UKIP: 20
BNP: 12
SNP: 11
Green: 6
Democractic Union: 4
Sinn Fein: 4
Plaid Cymru: 4
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 3
Ulster Conservatives and Unionists - New Force: 2
English Democrats: 1
Other: 10