Out of interest...

[OldGit]

1. Yes the Liberal Democrats and Labour have more in common with one another-its something I acknowledged. But this doesn't get rid of the fact the Conservatives got more of the vote, and would have more of the seats regardless of what electoral system we have.

2. So instead of this "tyranry of the slightly larger minority" as you put it, you think were better off with a coalition based on two parties who have less of a claim to a mandate to govern? I'm sorry but i can't see the rationale there, and is hardly a more democratic solution. Whats the point of democracy if a large amount of peoples views aren't considered?

But any coalition, and most single party governments, mean that a large amount of people's views aren't considered. By your logic the tories have to be part of it, so either your priority - electoral reform - is dropped by the liberals or it is adopted by the tories. Either way a large number of people will have their view discounted.

 

[Profondo Rosso]

The Tories ****ed Labour over in the '51 election in the same way.

Let's face it if you ask LibDem voters who they'd rather their party joined up with out of Labour or the Tories, 99% would say Labour. Why would someone voting for a left party want to team up with a party to the right as opposed to another left one? The fact is a lot of Labour/LibDem voters will happily shift allegiances depending on the situation of the election and this doesn't happen with the Tories.

I forgot who said it, but: "there are only 2 votes you can make that matter in British politics: Tory and anti-Tory."

When 62% of people voted for a non-Conservative government how can they be elected? Surely if they were, then exactly your point of arguing against it is true, in that the majority of the public's views aren't being considered? It just shows the fundamental flaw in the voting system.

 

[drummindefender]

The Tories ****ed Labour over in the '51 election in the same way.

Let's face it if you ask LibDem voters who they'd rather their party joined up with out of Labour or the Tories, 99% would say Labour. Why would someone voting for a left party want to team up with a party to the right as opposed to another left one? The fact is a lot of Labour/LibDem voters will happily shift allegiances depending on the situation of the election and this doesn't happen with the Tories.

I forgot who said it, but: "there are only 2 votes you can make that matter in British politics: Tory and anti-Tory."

When 62% of people voted for a non-Conservative government how can they be elected? Surely if they were, then exactly your point of arguing against it is true, in that the majority of the public's views aren't being considered? It just shows the fundamental flaw in the voting system.

By that logic 70.9% of people didn't vote for a Labour government, and 77% didn't vote for a Lib Dem goverment. Plus I voted Lib Dem more becaue I didn't want to vote Labour then the Tories, and I'm sure there are others (albeit not as many) who did the same when voting for them.

But any coalition, and most single party governments, mean that a large amount of people's views aren't considered. By your logic the tories have to be part of it, so either your priority - electoral reform - is dropped by the liberals or it is adopted by the tories. Either way a large number of people will have their view discounted.

It may be my priority, but I'm not narrow minded enough to think that my priority is the countries priority, and more people have voted for the Conservatives then any other party, so they should be in government, even if its not what I or you personally want.

 

[drummindefender]

Oh and im glad Mandelson is winning in the **** stakes

 

[Blue Maniac]

Oh and im glad Mandelson is winning in the **** stakes

Ted failed his driving test.

 

[tedfoxxx]

Ted failed his driving test.

:icon_lol:

 

[drummindefender]

Ted failed his driving test.

This saddens me. Im glad i've got some closure though-I haven't slept in days

 

[Doggie_muz]

Anything but FPTP or the AV system being advocated by Labour which wouldn't make a lot of difference. The more proportional the better.

I have three problems with proportional representation.
1 - It means parties like the BNP are (more) likely to win seats - that said, I guess if x% of the population want that, then it's democratic to do so.
2 - You have to set a minimal level - I think Turkey is 10%, Sweden 4% (these figures could be very wrong) etc. - this seems to be just an arbitrary level and may well result in a 3 party system, which defeats half of the point.
3 - And most important I think - the chances of getting a strong government are very slim.

I don't know what the best solution is, but this doesn't seem like it.

 

[Profondo Rosso]

By that logic 70.9% of people didn't vote for a Labour government, and 77% didn't vote for a Lib Dem goverment. Plus I voted Lib Dem more becaue I didn't want to vote Labour then the Tories, and I'm sure there are others (albeit not as many) who did the same when voting for them.

Exactly. Which is why our voting system which encourages far too much tactical voting doesn't really work.

 

[drummindefender]

But strong government leads to the "tyranny of the majority" as mentioned earlier. Unless you have voted for the winning party, your vote effectively means nothing, as the opposition is always so weak that their views are barely reflected in the governing process.

I think its worth a shot. If it really is a disaster, its not unfeasible to go back to the old system. Plus all these countries who do have PR have hardly gone into anarchy as a result

 

[Profondo Rosso]

But strong government leads to the "tyranny of the majority" as mentioned earlier. Unless you have voted for the winning party, your vote effectively means nothing, as the opposition is always so weak that their views are barely reflected in the governing process.

I think its worth a shot. If it really is a disaster, its not unfeasible to go back to the old system. Plus all these countries who do have PR have hardly gone into anarchy as a result

We are in agreement on PR being worth a try (it's done well in Germany and Scandinavian countries for years). I think we've got our wires mixed up here. :icon_lol:

I was talking about a Lib-Lab government and the moral legitimacy of it. I'm sure the vast majority of LibDem or Labour voters would view their vote as more of an anti-Tory vote (obviously they support the party, I mean in terms of the three main parties) and the majority would vote for that and not a Tory government or a Lib-Con or Lab-Con government.

The surprise low turnout for the LibDems, considering how much higher their polling opinion was even after the debate, even after the immigration issues had been dissected or whatever other excuses were given, was that the majority of people who were going to vote LibDem realised that Labour were the only party who could genuinely challenge the Tories.

I just don't think you can claim moral legitimacy of the Tories being in power and not the Lib-Lab coalition when they are linked so much in many people's minds and people will happily shift their votes between them tactically.

It's just a very odd 3 party system we have in this country, where 2 parties have so much in common compared to the other one.

 

[Profondo Rosso]

Anyway. I'm pretty certain we will be having another election within 6 months. A year at most...

 

[Durham Fox]

So the one eyed ****wit gets another 5 years potentialy. 7 years as a completely unelected prime minister. That's democracy for you.

 

[bocadillo]

Anyway. I'm pretty certain we will be having another election within 6 months. A year at most...

I think you're right. Even if something is cobbled together now, it's unlikely to last more than the summer. I was saying that there would be another election in October even as this one was being planned. Let's see if I'm right.

 

[Durham Fox]

We are in agreement on PR being worth a try (it's done well in Germany and Scandinavian countries for years). I think we've got our wires mixed up here. :icon_lol:

I was talking about a Lib-Lab government and the moral legitimacy of it. I'm sure the vast majority of LibDem or Labour voters would view their vote as more of an anti-Tory vote (obviously they support the party, I mean in terms of the three main parties) and the majority would vote for that and not a Tory government or a Lib-Con or Lab-Con government.

The surprise low turnout for the LibDems, considering how much higher their polling opinion was even after the debate, even after the immigration issues had been dissected or whatever other excuses were given, was that the majority of people who were going to vote LibDem realised that Labour were the only party who could genuinely challenge the Tories.

I just don't think you can claim moral legitimacy of the Tories being in power and not the Lib-Lab coalition when they are linked so much in many people's minds and people will happily shift their votes between them tactically.

It's just a very odd 3 party system we have in this country, where 2 parties have so much in common compared to the other one.

My vote was anti Labour and Lib Dem and I backed the party with the most seats.

 

[Boy Genius]

My vote was anti Labour and Lib Dem and I backed the party with the most seats.

Same here Duzza,

 

[SwedeFox]

What are the advantages with your system compared to the systems used in other democracies (over here for example)?

It's sounds absurd that people won't bother voting because their constituency already belongs to this or that party and to me that undermines the whole idea of democracy - that your vote can make a difference.

Have I misunderstood something?

 

[Cate Fox]

What are the advantages with your system compared to the systems used in other democracies (over here for example)?

It's sounds absurd that people won't bother voting because their constituency already belongs to this or that party and to me that undermines the whole idea of democracy - that your vote can make a difference.

Have I misunderstood something?

Nope, you've got it pretty much spot on

 

[drummindefender]

Interesting point mentioned on Sky News earlier-the countries with Majority governments (including us, Greece, Japan, and the USA) have the highest levels of debt-and much more in comparison where there are minority governments, arguably because compromise has produced more sound financial management.

Put that in your proverbial pipe

 

[Hazzman]

Ashcroft is said to be transfering some dough from his offshore account. So we can all do it again in six months time.