British Referendum

[York Minster]

Discuss.

[Lucy]

Didn't vote, forgot it was today actually! I'm in the middle of exams though so I'm really busy.

However, I do think we should stick with first past the post...the person who gets the most votes should always win otherwise what's the point of having a vote if the person people choose doesn't win?

[Patrick Bateman]

A poor man's PR.

[Drico One]

the person who gets the most votes should always win otherwise what's the point of having a vote if the person people choose doesn't win?

The point is that a person or party who doesn't get 50.1% hasn't won. The people haven't chosen them - a majority has in fact rejected them.

Certain PR systems are far better at rectifying this. When the vote is transferred, you get a far more reflective picture of how people have voted as it takes account of their secondary preferences - not just their first choice. Eventually, the winner "gets more than 50%". In multi-seat constituencies, a quota has to be reached or all rival candidates have to be eliminated before the final seats are filled. It's a far more sophisticated system and better reflects true opinion.

In Britain, Thatcher had absolute power with 42% of the vote - even though 58% of the valid electorate did not vote for her. It was the same for New Labour. It's no wonder the self-interested dinosaurs in both of those parties have decided to back the status quo - turkeys don't vote for Christmas. Unless there is a majority for any party, coalitions are the natural default position. If nobody has earned a majority, there is no logical reason why they should hold absolute power and get to implement their manifesto in full.

Drico.

[Your Funny Uncle]

AV is a bit crap compared to proper PR but FPTP is complete bollocks with more than 2 parties contesting the election so I voted for AV.

[York Minster]

the person who gets the most votes should always win otherwise what's the point of having a vote if the person people choose doesn't win?

The point is that a person or party who doesn't get 50.1% hasn't won. The people haven't chosen them - a majority has in fact rejected them.

Certain PR systems are far better at rectifying this. When the vote is transferred, you get a far more reflective picture of how people have voted as it takes account of their secondary preferences - not just their first choice. Eventually, the winner "gets more than 50%". In multi-seat constituencies, a quota has to be reached or all rival candidates have to be eliminated before the final seats are filled. It's a far more sophisticated system and better reflects true opinion.

In Britain, Thatcher had absolute power with 42% of the vote - even though 58% of the population did not vote for her. It was the same for New Labour. It's no wonder the self-interested dinosaurs in both of those parties have decided to back the status quo - turkeys don't vote for Christmas. Unless there is a majority for any party, coalitions are the natural default position. If nobody has earned a majority, there is no logical reason why they should hold absolute power and get to implement their manifesto in full.

Drico.

+1

In the US, Clinton won with around 43 percent of the vote because Ross Perot, the third party candidate got a good chunk back in 92. I think because the US has only two main parties, these issues don't crop up all that often. But I think the system we have is precisely the reason we don't have a more diverse party structure. Look out in 2012 though, the time is certainly ripe for 3rd parties with the discontent in the GOP, not to mention the lack of a decent front runner.

We also have a terrible problem here called the electoral college, installed by the founding fathers due to their belief that the citizens were very intellige...erm, I mean, worry about idiot citizens and big/small state rivarlry. The popular vote doesn't matter in presidental elections, which is how Gore lost in 2000 despite actually winning by 500,000 or so real votes. It's happened three other times in the past, though the electorate easily forgets Hayes/Tilden.

[Drico One]

To be fair to the "founding fathers" - I hate the hagiographical nature of that term - it was a huge leap of faith to allow one-man, one-vote. Given the fact that even now many voters form their opinions by scanning the editorial in The Sun, I'm still not sure it was the right decision. However, if I had my way, I'd suppress my concerns, burnish my impeccable democratic credentials and keep the system with a minor change. Maintain one-man (and woman), one-vote, but have those with a suspect IQ (or subscriptions to Heat magazine) vote only on X-Factor and the rest of us vote in representative elections. It's win-win and you'd have a full turnout every time.

Drico.

[York Minster]

To be fair to the "founding fathers" - I hate the hagiographical nature of that term - it was a huge leap of faith to allow one-man, one-vote. Given the fact that even now many voters form their opinions by scanning the editorial in The Sun, I'm still not sure it was the right decision. However, if I had my way, I'd suppress my concerns, burnish my impeccable democratic credentials and keep the system with a minor change. Maintain one-man (and woman), one-vote, but have those with a suspect IQ (or subscriptions to Heat magazine) vote only on X-Factor and the rest of us vote in representative elections. It's win-win and you'd have a full turnout every time.

Drico.

It may have not been lemonade twaddle to make such a decision - but they didn't really make it "one man, one vote". No women, slaves at 3/5s a person, etc. All the early thinkers disagreed with each other. There were the federalists and the anti-federalists. But, yes, this doesn't stop the tea party idiots from thinking they were set in stone and perfection. Our Constitution was a giant compromise on many counts. There really was no grand ideal.

[gregf]

We have had AV or Preferential Voting since 1920.
It is a harmless way to give voters more choice and influence.
It keeps MPs and big parties working harder as it gives a small chance to 3rd party candidates.
It does some good, and no harm.

To see people arguing against it, is bizarre.
The big parties may be against it because they think they may loose strength. But even that is phooey.
It just looks like some people are always going to be frightened by something new. Sad.