Voting Day Is Here!


lubidog posted on May 7 2005 at 06:33 PM said:
64% didn't want labour, yet they have nearly twice as many seats as the tories. 22% voted lib dems(why?), but they only have 60 odd seats. crazy!!!!! But the only ones who can change the system are Labour...

I won't hold my breath :(

I've said it before and I'll say it again; it's not as bad as in 1983.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
markusdragon posted on May 7 2005 at 05:53 PM said:
Ah yes, but proportional reperesentation would get rid of the local politics element to the election, thus disenfranchising the voter.

not sure I understand where your coming from there :blink:

@lubidog
do you mean why would people vote for libdem period, or do you mean why would people vote for libdem knowing they didn't have a chance
 
Last edited by a moderator:
c0ncept posted on May 7 2005 at 02:41 PM said:
if 40% of the people voted labour and the other 60% of the votes was split between two or three parties then actually more people DON'T want a labour government than do. The voting sytem should be changed so you vote for who you want in power least.
lol, then the rubbish but lesser known parties would win....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
what with a combination of first past the post favouring the large and ruling party/ies, campaigning these days reduced to mud slinging and a democratic system based around so many lies and so much spin its no wonder people feel distanced from politics.

problem is though its so very easy to get PR wrong, just look at italy, if it had any sense it would switch back to its old system.

one thing that i do feel needs to be said though:

in terms of politics, a distinction needs to be made within the British isle. Putting aside the issue of Northern Ireland i think that this country as a whole would benefit from a full on breaking up of England, Scotland and Wales. The EU allows places like Luxembourg and Belgium to exist very happily, no reason Scotland and Wales can't do the same.
 
spray posted on May 7 2005 at 11:51 PM said:
problem is though its so very easy to get PR wrong, just look at italy, if it had any sense it would switch back to its old system.

Doesn't Italy have FPTP now? And still manage to have coalition Government?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
markusdragon posted on May 7 2005 at 05:53 PM said:
Ah yes, but proportional reperesentation would get rid of the local politics element to the election, thus disenfranchising the voter.


Yes, but which system is worse? I used to be against PR, cos we could have a lib dem mp in a tory aria, etc. But the results of this election are so cruel!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Italy has currently in use a mixed electoral system, in which the 75% of the seats are assigned by uninominal voting system, and the remaining 25% by proportional system.
 
LHC posted on May 8 2005 at 12:54 PM said:
Italy has currently in use a mixed electoral system, in which the 75% of the seats are assigned by uninominal voting system, and the remaining 25% by proportional system.

I see, thanks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Italian system is a mess, but that doesn't mean that ours has to be so!

PR is accused of letting too many minority groups in, but what good does tactical voting do?
 
no, no. The first election would be how they are now, vote for who you would like to run for the general elections. Only the second tier would be PR
 
Yeah, so?

c0ncept posted on May 9 2005 at 02:04 PM said:
no, no. The first election would be how they are now, vote for who you would like to run for the general elections. Only the second tier would be PR
To me, this says the voting system would be as follows:
1) Vote for which candidates you would like to stand
2) Vote on which of these you want to win


So either the first election or the second election is a waste of time
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I still think some system of PR would be fairer! Minority groups or no!

Dunno how exactly, but the German system, any Germans can explain...?
 
Back
Top