Is it finally time for electoral reform and a bit of PR?

I've always been a staunch opponent of proportional representation because I've always believed that "first past the post" was the best system for electing a government.

But after recent events, I'm less sure.

And this isn't sour grapes because Labour dropped the ball and cocked up their campaign, allowing Cameron's lot to actually secure a very unlikely parliamentary majority - fair play to them, they won fair and square.

I am now beginning to think that British politics has changed forever and the system we use to elect governments may need to change to accommodate this fact and give more people the representation at Westminster that they actually want.

When I was a spotty Politics student twenty odd years ago, the received wisdom was very much that PR was unnecessary in Britain because there wasn't really enough effective opposition to the main parties to make it worth while bothering with it.

You had the Monster Raving Loonies, lone mentalists with their own specific agendas (The Free Beer on Tuesdays Party, etc) a handful of Northern Irish MP's and not a lot else.

But the dynamics of British politics have changed dramatically over the last ten years with the rise of The SNP, Plaid Cymru, The Greens and UKIP - all far more credible than David Sutch and all with far more popular appeal.

I'm no fan of Nige and the boys but they secured 3.8 million votes yesterday and yet only returned one MP.

Manda's lot received 2.4 million but only have eight seats at Westminster.

That's (quite neatly) 13% of the vote returning 1.3% of the MP's at Westminster.

Is that fair?

I'm no longer sure.

I'm not very good at understanding the ins and outs of politics if I'm being honest but it seems a strange system to me. Using UKIP and the Lib Dems as an example, how can it be right that a party that received only 2.4 million votes have more presence in Westminster than a party that received 3.8 million? Whoever gets the most overall votes should win imo, or is there a reason why that wouldn't work?

When I won Miss Preston in 2001 it was simple - whoever got the most votes won, even if the margin of victory was a single vote.

It would be a much fairer system in politics.

Natasha Whittam wrote:When I won Miss Preston in 2001 it was simple i shagged the judges.

Manda,

When you finally wake up after sleeping for three days after your efforts over the last 48 hours, I'd appreciate your input on this thread if you don't mind.

A sort of professional opinion to offset the usual meaningless glib stuff that my threads appear to attract.

Cheers. 

Well, I've never been so offended!!

Bloody serious question that was. 

Didn't mean you, mate - obviously.

I was referring to the confused transsexual.

And Nat.

Breadman wrote:Didn't mean you, mate - obviously.

I was referring to the confused transsexual.

And Nat.

Soz grandad

Breadman wrote:Didn't mean you, mate - obviously.

I was referring to the confused transsexual.

And Nat.

  I know I was only joking. I was rather hoping Manda would have an input on this thread also.

Bwfc1958 wrote:

Breadman wrote:Didn't mean you, mate - obviously.

I was referring to the confused transsexual.

And Nat.

  I know I was only joking. I was rather hoping Manda would have an input on this thread also.

Fuck me! can you go 2 days without sleep?

Manda last went to bed on Wednesday and got up at about two o'clock in the morning on Thursday to start preparing for Election Day.

She said she had to stay up for the local election results this afternoon and from looking at when they finally came in down there, I reckon she couldn't have got to bed much before about tea time tonight.

By my reckoning that's about four hours kip out of fifty two.

I couldn't hack it, so fair play to Manda - that is dedication.

Yes, its highly unfair.
What I suggest is either a pr vote straight up, if you get 15% of the votes you get 15% of the seats.
or.
A double vote. May 7th vote for the party you want to win. A straight count is done. Then the top 3 parties from the first vote are allowed to run for seats. Or something similar.

Its time to boogie on a Saturday night.

Lets dance.

Morning all. I agree the current system is obviously flawed, and more suited to good old fashioned 2 party politics. The smaller parties struggle so hard to break through, and generally have to target ruthlessly to concentrate their vote in one area in order to get any victory. 13 million people voted for a candidate who lost, and in many cases, was always destined to lose given the system, which leads to the tactical voting nightmare where you struggle to vote for what you want, in case that splits votes and let's in exactly what you don't want. Ukip would have 52 seats not 1 (not the thread to argue if that is a good thing) so it feels wrong...in fact, can't remember the exact timelines, but for a v v long period, the government who won had the fewest votes nationally but concentrated in their most winnable areas. However, I don't like pure pr as a system. 2 reasons, I think it's vital any elected representative has a personal contact with their constituency, loves it, breathes it, lives it, rather than be allocated to it on some kind of party list. And that's my second reason, the parties would then run lists, so career politicians would work internally to get their name highest up it to maximise electoral chances, rather than working in their communities to build grass roots support and I believe we want community minded people, not pure politicos running the country. Pr tends to coalitions, we have an adversarial system of government and opposition,even the way the House of Commons is laid out, so any debate on Pr to my mind isn't talking about our voting system alone, it's talking about how we want to be run. If I haven't bored you to death already, happy to share later my suggested solution!

Manda,what about the press? Do they still have an inordinate amount of power?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/08/rupert-murdoch-election-sun-wot-won-it

That's an interesting one, Bonce. I would have said the influence if the press was on the wane because there are so many more instantly accessible and interactive media outlets now available (could say we are on one now!). Even the mainstream press is now being more read on their online rather than print version, and I'm sure I'm not the only person who enjoys reading the comments as much as the article. I only buy a paper once a week, on a Sunday, and I buy a different one each week to challenge my pre conceived beliefs, or see what people may be reading and believe to be true. Think I was wrong though. There was little if any pretence of impartial reporting, and I believe people vote generally on emotion, fear, greed, empathy, good or bad...they don't vote on evidence based logic or long term reasoned thought. My interpretation of what happened on Thurs (remember I'm still tired and emotional) is that via the media, the Tories raised the spectre of lab/snap running the country, their emotional plea was vote for us or we will have Scotland running us, and that worked...the press contributed hugely to having people vote in fear of an outcome, rather than believing in hope for the future. So yes, I now think the press has such an influence over politics, politics such an influence over our lives and the planet, and the fact that this power is concentrated in so few mainly foreign hands does not sit easily with me

Will you be running again manda? Do you get a chance to regain at local elections.

The next local elections are in 4 years, and general in 5. This may sound sour grapes, but certainly in part I lost my council seat because people who never vote in locals normally turned out for the general election, knew nothing of the local issues or candidates, and voted purely on the same party lines as they did nationally. Hell yes, I'm winning my seat back in 4 years when it can be fought on local issues!

Just to add i thought locals where every two years. Shows what i know