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

It should be uniform every coupler if years. Even numbers.

Morning Manda.

Hope you're ok now that the dust has settled.

I'd be interested in hearing your ideas for reforming the system if you get chance later.

Ta.

If the Tories hadn't crushed the competition would you still be bleating on about electoral reform?

Surely the title of the thread should be "How can we manipulate the system to make sure Labour and the Lib Dems do better next time".

In 5 years you'll realise what a great day yesterday was.

No, it's honestly not about that.

(As I pointed out in my opening statement - see above.)

I just think politics is changing and it may be time to look at how the system could be improved to reflect this.

It'll never happen, by the way - Turkeys voting for Christmas and all that.

And the Tories didn't "crush" anybody.

They've got a slim majority and Cameron's got a back bench rammed with Euro-sceptics who are going to make John Major's "Maastricht bastards" look like a bunch of boy scouts on a church picnic.

Chairmanda wrote: 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

Extremely well said, Manda. For what it's worth, here's what I wrote on this same subject yesterday:
The fear of a Labour govt propped up by SNP persuaded many to vote for the only option that would avoid it. This was the issue that Cameron played on quite cleverly, backed up by The Sun, The Mail and the Telegraph who all put the fear of God into the electorate with repeated talk about chaos and catastrophe.

I do think Sturgeon was the most charismatic and effective leader and I think, again, that the nasty media portrayal of "Red Ed"  had a real influence when people went into the polling booths.

I would rather the parties had simply relied on statements of policy rather than launch personal attacks on each other, and in the end I think most voted out of fear and what they saw as the lesser of two evils.

What's interesting is how the lesser parties, UKIP, Greens etc all attracted lots of votes and increased their share in almost every English constituency, yet achieved very few seats under this system, which will have to change so that there is a fairer representation of the electorate's wishes. For once I agree with Farage! The establishment, however,  will not want or allow  change based on fairness!!

Manda. On the one hand you argue that PR would deliver a fairer result for the millions of Green and UKIP voters but disapprove of the PR "list" approach i.e. that voters wouldn't necessarily get the local "personality" they want.

Absentee MPs already contribute to this scenario and anyway are you prepared to stop people voting for national party policies in a general election? Surely local issues are to be voted on in local elections - and national issues in a general election where policy is more important that personality? Local issues simply don't come up at Westminster unless you're the MP for Heathrow so it's irrelevant.

I believe in "one person, one vote" i.e. that everyone's vote should be worth the same as every other persons - which is not the case under the "first past the post" system.

What we currently have is that every Tory vote is worth 33 Green votes or 112 UKIP votes - a bent system that has produced a bent result.

That is not democracy - it's a fix and I've said so for years. Finally we have an election which makes the point clearly.

The fact that UKIP are the 3rd largest UK party but only have 1 seat when SNP and the NI parties have loads of seats with a fraction of UKIPs support is an insult to democracy. I'd never vote UKIP but I fully support the principle of equality in voting and if I was one of the 12.5 million UKIP voters I'd be marching on Downing St to demand electoral reform.

However PR wasn't the only issue to emerge from this corrupt election. If anything the main thing it shows is that the Tories - and now Labour - are an English party - not British - and that the divisions in our society have become more pronounced and polarised during the last Government.


The issue of Europe will destroy the Tories as they are internally split about EU membership and that's what did for Major who also had a small overall majority at the time.
Ironically, the SNP - whose stated ambition was to block the Tories but in actuality simply delivered the Tory win - will struggle to get anything done for the people of Scotland.

There's one other thing that's blatantly wrong with the current system and that's "tactical voting". In my area of rural Norfolk which is conservative as far as the eye can see, the only theoretical challenge to the Tories is the Libdems. There is absolutely no point in voting anything else and I believe this scenario affects up to a third of voters nationally. A PR system would actually allow voters to vote for the party they prefer.

There will be trouble ahead unfortunately as all this election has achieved is exacerbate tensions and highlight injustices.

I disagree wanders. Local issues are hugely important in my opinion for the MP. Campaigns for transport, housing, health provision, economic regeneration, education are areas both the local council and the MP impact, let alone the fact the best mps in my opinion again, are those who take casework seriously and work tirelessly in their constituents behalf, not those always with an eye on the next promotion.
To answer your question, Breaders, I'd really favour a real real reorg, not just of mechanism of voting. Local mps elected to the House of Commons to represent their constituents via a single transferable vote system, and the House of Lords made into an elected body based on number of votes cast per party so truly representative of the country. Divide the powers a bit akin to congress and senate in USA. Prime minister, and cabinet elected by all members of both houses, likely to give a wide range of party reprentation as has to be in same ratio as seats. Downside, the perceived lack of 'strong' government, upside stability and consensus rather than extremism. Before anyone shouts 'Italy' that us so fragmented and without the structure I outlined above. It's never going to happen, but I think an increasing number of people are saying what we have lacks legitimacy, the system sucks, and whilst the 2 major parties support it, it will always tend to a confrontational, partisan leadership, in which each will get their turn at some stage. Going back to bed now!

Why is it unfair?

From a constituent level you vote for the party you want in power for YOUR constituency.

The one with the most votes wins the seat - simple as that.

What tends to happen nowadays is that all voted are then counted at a national level which then causes the ruptions that we should have PR. 

In how many seats did UKIP come 2nd behind the party that won the most votes?  Yes they came second and not first.  Coming second in anything in life means nothing you have to come first, and UKIP didn't oome first.

Yes our system is flawed but it is the best of all the systems that are currently around.  Lets not forget it is NOt a national vote for the Prime Minister (as that would be akin to Presidential Elections in the US) but it was a General Election for representation of all constituencies in the country, and as such you vote for the person/party in your constituency only!

Breadman wrote:And the Tories didn't "crush" anybody.

They've got a slim majority and Cameron's got a back bench rammed with Euro-sceptics who are going to make John Major's "Maastricht bastards" look like a bunch of boy scouts on a church picnic.

Indeed... but one of the first visitors to No 10 the next day was none other than Graham ' Ada ' Brady, the Chairman of the 1922 Committee. Now that Cameron no longer has to deal with Clegg and Cable it's obvious he will be trying to get the backbenchers onside so he can push on with his programme unhindered.

It's interesting that UKIP polled nearly 13 million votes nationwide and ended up with one MP whereas SNP had a total of 1.5 million votes and ended up with 56 MP's.

Reebok Trotter wrote:It's interesting that UKIP polled nearly 13 million votes nationwide and ended up with one MP whereas SNP had a total of 1.5 million votes and ended up with 56 MP's.

But nationally doesn't matter it what happens in each constituency.

Fact is UKIP either came 2nd or 3rd in many constituencies and as such do not win that seat, but still poll many votes.

As for SNP and Scotland, how many people live in the constituencies outside Edinburgh and Glasgow but SNP win because they won the most votes and as such are allowed to take that seat in Palace in Westminster.

If we were to adopt some sort of PR system, whether totally or a hybrid style then we would lose constituencies as we know them and then the MP's would be selected from a national pool in order of who has been the longest serving or given the most money to the Party (as in the European Elections) and the practice of choosing your local MP is lost.  Seems far less democratic.