Some table I saw (of which I am unsure what method of PR used) calculated around 10 or 12 seats for them.It's a fair cop if the electorate want them, plus it'd be good to put them on the spot.
(
Christian's Bolt and Ski,
Fri 7 May 2010, 19:38,
archived)
The electorate are stupid and democracy doesn't work very wellJust an observation.
(
Tribs 🦇 ↓ dn ʎɐʍ sᴉɥʇ ↓🦇,
Fri 7 May 2010, 19:41,
archived)
If it were STV they'd probably still not get any,I suspect.
(
Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag,
Fri 7 May 2010, 19:41,
archived)
Well am I right in understanding that the STV system is only a shade better than AV and FPTP?I'm trying to sort out an opinion on PR, because I've yet to hear a bad argument against it that isn't a bit all "We don't want them in".
( Christian's Bolt and Ski,
Fri 7 May 2010, 19:44,
archived)
How about "PR is bad beecause no-one understands it?"Actually, I quite like the Additional Member System we have here in Scotland, but I don't know how much of the electorate understand it.
(
Crystal Magnet Like a diamond geezer, but better,
Fri 7 May 2010, 19:47,
archived)
Yeah that argument I'm aware of as well, but isn't thst basically another way of saying that the electorate are stupid?I mean I'm happy to cast aspersions and deliver an opinion about a wide group of people, but when I have seen how preferential voting systems work, it doesn't seem that hard to grasp.
( Christian's Bolt and Ski,
Fri 7 May 2010, 19:50,
archived)
Well my argument against it is that MPs are supposed to represent the views of their constituents in parliament.Any system where you choose by party instead of by candidate means, essentially, NO representation. The parties tell YOU what you have to stand for, not the other way round.
Under some forms of PR the party gets to draw up a list of candidates and the ones at the top get priority for any seats that whole party wins, so you really have no choice who represents you, only which party. They could put some cunt like Mandelson at #1, for instance, and if they won any seats at all he'd get in. That's pretty rotten, if you ask me.
EDIT: why has it made "#1" into a link? Oh well.
(Under some forms of PR the party gets to draw up a list of candidates and the ones at the top get priority for any seats that whole party wins, so you really have no choice who represents you, only which party. They could put some cunt like Mandelson at #1, for instance, and if they won any seats at all he'd get in. That's pretty rotten, if you ask me.
EDIT: why has it made "#1" into a link? Oh well.
Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag,
Fri 7 May 2010, 19:49,
archived)
But don't people vote for party allegiances now anyway as opposed to voting in a nice person for their MP?I mean mine's an ineffectual pratt, but it hasn't halted Labour from winning again or the Conservatives's equally useless tosser from getting a large share of the votes either, which works out because my constituency used to be a Tory stronghold.
And if this is being naive ignore it as so, but what if ideally this representation were to be taken up by an elected Upper House?
(And if this is being naive ignore it as so, but what if ideally this representation were to be taken up by an elected Upper House?
Christian's Bolt and Ski,
Fri 7 May 2010, 19:57,
archived)
They do,but that's the problem that needs fixing, in my mind. Personally, I think all MPs should be independent. That way the electorate would have to find out something about who they were voting for.
My problem with an elected upper house is that if both houses are chosen by the same means, then having two of them is really quite redundant. There has to be some institutionalised reason why the upper house would ever send a piece of legislation back for review, and there have been quite a few pieces of legislation that have been sent back for review lately that damn well needed sending back. On the whole, I pretty much agree with everything the House of Lords ever says and does and it would be a sorry tale if they ever got reduced to little more than an uncritical shadow of the commons.
(My problem with an elected upper house is that if both houses are chosen by the same means, then having two of them is really quite redundant. There has to be some institutionalised reason why the upper house would ever send a piece of legislation back for review, and there have been quite a few pieces of legislation that have been sent back for review lately that damn well needed sending back. On the whole, I pretty much agree with everything the House of Lords ever says and does and it would be a sorry tale if they ever got reduced to little more than an uncritical shadow of the commons.
Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag,
Fri 7 May 2010, 20:04,
archived)
"A curious statistic: Oxford's combined vote: LD: 41087 Con: 33633 Lab: 27937. One Con MP, one Lab MP."sourced off bbc news, via DailyInfoOxford on twitter
(
spacefish bong!,
Fri 7 May 2010, 19:57,
archived)
hmm,I wonder what the results would be like if constituencies were allowed to overlap somehow.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag,
Fri 7 May 2010, 20:07,
archived)