General Election 2010

[Woodstock Jag]

There's loads of different PR systems.

 

You've got the Additional Members System (AMS) (what the Scottish Parliament has) which basically has a number of constituency MPs, then several constituencies are lumped together and assigned 4 or 5 regional MPs, which are allotted according to how people vote on the 2nd list. If a party has already done well with constituency MPs in that region, they're less likely to be given additional seats unless they poll really really well in the list vote. It typically produces something inbetween absolute PR and conventional FPTP as far as representation is concerned, and is affected by the ratio of constituency:region MPs in how proportional it is.

 

Secondly, you've got the D'Hondt Method, which instead of having constituency MPs splits the country up into large regions (basically what we do for European Parliament elections) and each big constituency has several MPs which are split between the parties according to their share of the vote in that region. This one typically favours main parties slightly over smaller ones, and would (I reckon) be slightly better at keeping the likes of the BNP out than purer forms of PR

 

Finally, you've got Single Tranferable Vote, which splits the country as per D'Hondt, but you "rank" your MPs by preference, and they "recycle" votes once the first candidate is picked and keep going until every seat in the region has been applied. It's the most proportional system of the lot and you'll typically find that the votes:seats ratio is as close as you can get it other than by accident.

 

Edit: it's worth pointing out that other countries use defences against extremist parties getting seats in PR based systems. In Germany, for example, you have to poll at least 5% NATIONALLY of the list vote to be eligible to get a seat. A threshold like that would, however, cause the UK problems given that SNP and Plaid support is acutely regional and the Northern Irish party system is completely separate.

Edited May 9, 2010 by Woodstock Jag

[jaggybunnet]

There's loads of different PR systems.

 

You've got the Additional Members System (AMS) (what the Scottish Parliament has) which basically has a number of constituency MPs, then several constituencies are lumped together and assigned 4 or 5 regional MPs, which are allotted according to how people vote on the 2nd list. If a party has already done well with constituency MPs in that region, they're less likely to be given additional seats unless they poll really really well in the list vote. It typically produces something inbetween absolute PR and conventional FPTP as far as representation is concerned, and is affected by the ratio of constituency:region MPs in how proportional it is.

 

Secondly, you've got the D'Hondt Method, which instead of having constituency MPs splits the country up into large regions (basically what we do for European Parliament elections) and each big constituency has several MPs which are split between the parties according to their share of the vote in that region. This one typically favours main parties slightly over smaller ones, and would (I reckon) be slightly better at keeping the likes of the BNP out than purer forms of PR

 

Finally, you've got Single Tranferable Vote, which splits the country as per D'Hondt, but you "rank" your MPs by preference, and they "recycle" votes once the first candidate is picked and keep going until every seat in the region has been applied. It's the most proportional system of the lot and you'll typically find that the votes:seats ratio is as close as you can get it other than by accident.

 

Edit: it's worth pointing out that other countries use defences against extremist parties getting seats in PR based systems. In Germany, for example, you have to poll at least 5% NATIONALLY of the list vote to be eligible to get a seat. A threshold like that would, however, cause the UK problems given that SNP and Plaid support is acutely regional and the Northern Irish party system is completely separate.

 

 

aye well if i wasnt confused before i am now, i am glad we are trying to simplify things

 

anyone have a clue which one we would be likely to go for?

[Woodstock Jag]

aye well if i wasnt confused before i am now, i am glad we are trying to simplify things

 

anyone have a clue which one we would be likely to go for?

 

A type of AMS was suggested in the Jenkins Commission when New Labour took a look at alternative systems, but it was shelved because they were doing so well with FPTP and the seats are, generally speaking quite biased in their favour. It would be my personal preference if they were going to go for a PR system, but D'Hondt isn't too bad, provided you can keep some sort of system for a quasi-constituent link.

 

The Lib Dems seem to want STV, which is used in Council Elections and in the Northern Irish Assembly.

 

Labour pre-election were offering another system again called Alternative Vote, which only makes a slight change to FPTP so that votes in current constituencies are recycled until a candidate has more than half of the vote (to give each candidate a majority mandate rather than a plurality one) but in many cases (especially in Scotland, it wouldn't actually affect most seats at all.

 

The Tories are (generally) opposed to radical system reform but want the number of voters in a seat to be much more equal than it is now. There is a (minority) school of thought among Conservatives that some form of PR would be a blessing in disguise north of the border, as it would ensure a constant block of Tory MPs and might encourage those sympathetic to the Conservatives but who vote tactically instead to turn back. It would make life a lot harder for them in England, though.

[Blackpool Jags]

Truth is both the Tories and Labour, as beneficiaries of the FPTP system are, by and large, opposed to PR as a general principle.

 

JB: "the one irony I got from this is that it would mean that the very same people who foam at the mouth about the BNP would also let the bnp in with this system, baffling". You're dead right about this; the desired goal, for some, of having PR without a BNP presence in the Commons, is nonsense - it would be a reality.

 

Personally, and for the reason mentioned above I'm a PR cynic. I also note some of the democratic carnage in other countries, notably Italy, through much of the past thirty years where the tail has truly wagged the dog, including the fascist parties grabbing a disproportionate slice of the legislative action.

 

FPTP has its drawbacks, but I'm yet to be convinced of a more meritorious system.

[jaggybunnet]

 

FPTP has its drawbacks, but I'm yet to be convinced of a more meritorious system.

 

 

thats where i am at the moment, i have had nothing shown to prove it would be better.

 

as for scotland showing the way, sorry but all it shows is that snp is a weak minority party that has to go cap in hand to get enything passed/done.

[GrantB]

thats where i am at the moment, i have had nothing shown to prove it would be better.

 

as for scotland showing the way, sorry but all it shows is that snp is a weak minority party that has to go cap in hand to get enything passed/done.

 

Oi!

 

We wont be weak after the next Scottish election as it has been proven now that only the SNP can be trusted to stand up for Scotland's interests.

[jaggybunnet]

Oi!

 

We wont be weak after the next Scottish election as it has been proven now that only the SNP can be trusted to stand up for Scotland's interests.

 

 

you been drinking again

[GrantB]

you been drinking again

 

I dont drink at work

[Mediocre Pundit]

Truth is both the Tories and Labour, as beneficiaries of the FPTP system are, by and large, opposed to PR as a general principle.

 

JB: "the one irony I got from this is that it would mean that the very same people who foam at the mouth about the BNP would also let the bnp in with this system, baffling". You're dead right about this; the desired goal, for some, of having PR without a BNP presence in the Commons, is nonsense - it would be a reality.

 

Personally, and for the reason mentioned above I'm a PR cynic. I also note some of the democratic carnage in other countries, notably Italy, through much of the past thirty years where the tail has truly wagged the dog, including the fascist parties grabbing a disproportionate slice of the legislative action.

 

FPTP has its drawbacks, but I'm yet to be convinced of a more meritorious system.

Bugger me gently BJ - I actually agree with all of that post!

[Phoenix]

Oi!

 

We wont be weak after the next Scottish election as it has been proven now that only the SNP can be trusted to stand up for Scotland's interests.

 

That would be the same SNP that recieved less than 1/5 of the Scottish votes?

Edited May 9, 2010 by Phoenix

[Phoenix]

There's loads of different PR systems.

 

You've got the Additional Members System (AMS) (what the Scottish Parliament has) which basically has a number of constituency MPs, then several constituencies are lumped together and assigned 4 or 5 regional MPs, which are allotted according to how people vote on the 2nd list. If a party has already done well with constituency MPs in that region, they're less likely to be given additional seats unless they poll really really well in the list vote. It typically produces something inbetween absolute PR and conventional FPTP as far as representation is concerned, and is affected by the ratio of constituency:region MPs in how proportional it is.

 

 

Never quite understood the fairness of this system. Seems that a party is punished for being successful in the constituency MP's. Would be better if the list MP's were separate and were simply elected on a PR basis i.e 20% list votes = 20% list MP's

[GrantB]

That would be the same SNP that recieved less than 1/5 of the Scottish votes?

 

Only because Labour's negative campaigning scaring voters that if they didn't vote for them, they'd get the Tories. That worked didn't it?

 

It will be a different story in a Scottish election and Labour know it!

[Mr Scruff]

Indeed Scotland should be run by Scots.

 

However, it's a shame that a large proportion of the electorate got spooked by Labour's 'vote for us or you'll get the Tories' negative campaigning.

 

Maybe now, the electorate will realise that the only true way to stop the Tories is by voting SNP.

I think you're right in your overall analysis that the Labour vote increased in Scotland precisely to 'stop the Tories'. But is that not a specific example of "negative campaigning" - Vote SNP to keep the Tories out?

 

England overwhelmingly voted in favour of a Conservative government. One of the best ways to ensure a split UK would actually be to see Salmond's "progressive alliance" become a reality and I suspect this is precisely why Labour will reject it. An Alliance of Labour/ Lib Dems/ SNP/ PC/ SDLP and Alliance simply to "stop the Tories" could (should?) build a huge desire amongst the English electorate to see either a Federal ot separate political system emerging from this.

 

It seems clear to me that the current system is becoming unsustainable. I think we are likely to see the break up of the UK within the next decade; Labour not the Tories will be the biggest stumbling block to this.

 

While I'm not idealogically against this, it scares the life out of me how the current political balance in Scotland will produce a growing and vibrant economy in the future. The majority of the parties support expanding the public sector with no real evidence of how this will be achieved AND this against the backdrop of very sick public finances (of which we will have to take our share). There could be an awful lot of pain that my children's generation will have to grow up with.

[GrantB]

I think you're right in your overall analysis that the Labour vote increased in Scotland precisely to 'stop the Tories'. But is that not a specific example of "negative campaigning" - Vote SNP to keep the Tories out?

 

England overwhelmingly voted in favour of a Conservative government. One of the best ways to ensure a split UK would actually be to see Salmond's "progressive alliance" become a reality and I suspect this is precisely why Labour will reject it. An Alliance of Labour/ Lib Dems/ SNP/ PC/ SDLP and Alliance simply to "stop the Tories" could (should?) build a huge desire amongst the English electorate to see either a Federal ot separate political system emerging from this.

 

It seems clear to me that the current system is becoming unsustainable. I think we are likely to see the break up of the UK within the next decade; Labour not the Tories will be the biggest stumbling block to this.

 

While I'm not idealogically against this, it scares the life out of me how the current political balance in Scotland will produce a growing and vibrant economy in the future. The majority of the parties support expanding the public sector with no real evidence of how this will be achieved AND this against the backdrop of very sick public finances (of which we will have to take our share). There could be an awful lot of pain that my children's generation will have to grow up with.

 

You are right as I dont really want people voting SNP just to stop the Tories, I would much prefer people to vote SNP because they believe that Scotland should be in charge of it's own affairs.

 

However, it is ironic that the tactic that labour employed to get people to vote for them hasn't worked. I hope people can now see through that.

[Blackpool Jags]

Bugger me gently BJ - I actually agree with all of that post!

 

As I see it, electoral reform isn't an issue which is generally defined round party politics. So, unless there was a clear identifiable advantage, or otherwise, for either of the main parties at the time of a Commons vote (which may well just be held to endorse the findings of a referendum?), the Commons Whips would probably not be involved: ie a free vote.

 

I'm sure the emergence of the Lib Dems, as king makers, will force this issue onto the agenda sooner rather than later.

[Mediocre Pundit]

This is brilliant. Lib Dems now trying to do a deal with all the rest of the losers to cobble together a coalition. Labour are also changing their leader so you've got to assume we'll have another unelected Prime Minister. I'm looking forward to seeing the pound crashing sometime soon, and us losing our AAA rating - making all that debt that Gordon racked up much harder to pay the interest on. It seems that the most important thing is to get power, not to do what's good for the country.

 

This is the best advert for never, EVER, allowing PR as a form of government. Promise the electorate something, let them vote, then ignore it all and do back-room deals to get as much power as you can - devil the consequences.

 

Clegg, if you turn your back on the Tories the ramifications on the British economy will be severe, there will be another election within the year and a thumping Tory victory and you will have proved exactly why you should never get near power. Do the right thing.

[AwNaw]

Not sure it would be a thumping Tory victory. Depends who the new Labour leader is. I think this election was a protest vote against Brown and not particularly for the Conservatives or else they would have already won by a huge majority. And that was with massive backing from Sky News and pretty much every Paper bar the Independent and the Mirror. Even the Guardian left Labour's side.

[GrantB]

This is hilarious. Dangerous Dave is NEVER going to get into No.10 at this rate.

[Blackpool Jags]

Cool Dave will be anything but cool right now. Probably been working on his Rumpelstiltskin impersonation since this afternoon.

 

That's politics peeps.

[Mediocre Pundit]

So this is "New Politics", Clegg? No thanks...

 

Tories have offered referendum on AV - seems pretty democratic to me.

 

"Dave" will be fine and will be PM before the end of the year, if not before the end of the week. The only politician coming out of this looking good is Cameron, having offered quite a lot of concessions in the interest of forming a stable coalition that will last for a full term. I fully believe the electorate will see that. I just hope that Clegg doesn't help ruin the country before that happens.

[GrantB]

So this is "New Politics", Clegg? No thanks...

 

Tories have offered referendum on AV - seems pretty democratic to me.

 

"Dave" will be fine and will be PM before the end of the year, if not before the end of the week. The only politician coming out of this looking good is Cameron, having offered quite a lot of concessions in the interest of forming a stable coalition that will last for a full term. I fully believe the electorate will see that. I just hope that Clegg doesn't help ruin the country before that happens.

 

The only person who will ruin the country is David Cameron. Clegg is quite right. He's given the Tories a chance, they haven't been able to seal the deal so he's looked at the alternatives.

 

Although it would be the best option from the perspective of bringing Scottish independence a reality faster, I still cannot bring myself to want Cameron to become PM. The guy has absolutely no policies whatsoever apart from to help out his rich pals.

[jaggybunnet]

The only person who will ruin the country is David Cameron. Clegg is quite right. He's given the Tories a chance, they haven't been able to seal the deal so he's looked at the alternatives.

 

Although it would be the best option from the perspective of bringing Scottish independence a reality faster, I still cannot bring myself to want Cameron to become PM. The guy has absolutely no policies whatsoever apart from to help out his rich pals.

 

 

snp policies

 

 

edit to add labour and libs policies

Edited May 11, 2010 by jaggybunnet

[Mediocre Pundit]

The only person who will ruin the country is David Cameron. Clegg is quite right. He's given the Tories a chance, they haven't been able to seal the deal so he's looked at the alternatives.

 

Although it would be the best option from the perspective of bringing Scottish independence a reality faster, I still cannot bring myself to want Cameron to become PM. The guy has absolutely no policies whatsoever apart from to help out his rich pals.

Cameron is posing no danger to us losing our AAA rating or the pound winning the race to the toilet. Clegg and his procrastination, and Labour and their determination to hold onto power no matter the cost, are.

 

The Tories have made as many concessions as the largest single party should have to (probably even more so given that they wanted to form a stable long-term coalition) and the Lib Dems can't bring themselves to agree and seem to instead want to join Labour, whom the voters rejected and who are going to impose another unelected PM on us. If this is the "New Politics" we were promised I'd prefer to stick with the old thanks...

[crazy davie]

Cameron is posing no danger to us losing our AAA rating or the pound winning the race to the toilet. Clegg and his procrastination, and Labour and their determination to hold onto power no matter the cost, are.

 

The Tories have made as many concessions as the largest single party should have to (probably even more so given that they wanted to form a stable long-term coalition) and the Lib Dems can't bring themselves to agree and seem to instead want to join Labour, whom the voters rejected and who are going to impose another unelected PM on us. If this is the "New Politics" we were promised I'd prefer to stick with the old thanks...

Cameron is a danger to the old, the sick, the vulnerable. People who need help.

Cameron will be great for the rich and successful. People who don't need help.

 

Cameron doesn't have policies for Britain. Cameron has policies for making himself and his wealthy pals even wealthier.

[Mediocre Pundit]

Cameron is a danger to the old, the sick, the vulnerable. People who need help.

Cameron will be great for the rich and successful. People who don't need help.

 

Cameron doesn't have policies for Britain. Cameron has policies for making himself and his wealthy pals even wealthier.

Daily Record propaganda with absolutely no basis in fact...