We just rejected a move towards proportional representation.
Under the current fptp system, the government is effectively chosen by a small and unrepresentative group of reactionary middle-englanders.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:52, 2 replies, latest was 14 years ago)

a small and unrepresentative group of reactionary middle-englanders The Daily Mail
(Reverend Fister "a disciplined fuckwit", Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:57, Reply)

That's true if there isn't major swings in seats.
I think a controvertial policy like full reform of drug law could change things in previously safe seats.
And lets face it, it's a issue that nearly everyone has either been affected by or has an opinion on.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:58, Reply)

Can you give me some examples from the past fifty years where it hasn't been true?

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:59, Reply)

1997

(PsychoChomp, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:02, Reply)

how was Blair's government not elected by a small and unrepresentative group of reactionary middle-englanders
again, exactly?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:07, Reply)

Because it was a large group of reactionary middle-englanders

(PsychoChomp, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:18, Reply)

It wasn't really, though, was it?

( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:33, Reply)

I mean, the number that voted for him
was at least a factor of two smaller than the number who didn't.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:34, Reply)

See, what is happening here is you are each defining your own terms for 'large group of reactionary middle-Englanders'
Just thought I'd mention it...
( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:37, Reply)

+ 2million votes from 1992
Torys got about 5 million less votes.
I don't think that change in voting behaviour could be called small.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:37, Reply)

I don't think you've quite got the point of this conversation.
I'm not for a second arguing there wasn't a huge swing. I'm just saying the government is still chosen by a relatively small group of middle-englanders regardless.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:47, Reply)

No need to be quite so patronising.
In 1997, 182 seats changed hands, nearly 28% of the total. That's not dissmissable as middle england deciding the parliment, that's over a quarter of MP's being chucked out.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:54, Reply)

It doesn't really work like that, though.
it requires a frightening small number of people to swing a close seat, so a very small number of people actually made a difference. You're right that there was a large swing in voters, but becuase of the system we use, the actual large swing in seats that made a difference was caused by a very small number of voters, relatively. I mean, you could probably work it out but I'd be astonished if the swing voters that changed seats added up to much more than half a million or so.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 16:00, Reply)

Surely every election can theoretically be won on one vote.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 16:08, Reply)

yes, but our system allows a government not wanted by the majority
to be placed in power by the actions of a minority.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 16:10, Reply)

Are you on crack?

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:27, Reply)

I am
*grins*
( girlinthehole, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:38, Reply)