And when will it be changed? I read somewhere that the Tories need an 11 percentage point advantage to actually win a majority in the House of Commons.

I believe it takes at least 22,000 votes to elect a Tory and 12,000 to elect a Labour MP, because of the way the populations of each constituency are drawn up.

This will be changed for the next election and will alot fairer for both parties and I think will have a significan effect on the result.

Any system will do as long as the tories don't gain ground :D

And when will it be changed? I read somewhere that the Tories need an 11 percentage point advantage to actually win a majority in the House of Commons.

Hopefully never!

It delivers a clear working majority for whoever is the more popular party.

Only those who indulge in bestiality vote for tories anyway.

I must admit I like the system, I thought the PR system used for the Euro elections was terrible, with just voting for a party.

I thought it made the candidates very remote.

Hopefully never!

It delivers a clear working majority for whoever is the more popular party.

Well, obviously if the Tories get 40% and Labour gets 35% of the vote, Labour's not the more popular party (although they'd still have more seats than the Tories).

I must admit I like the system, I thought the PR system used for the Euro elections was terrible, with just voting for a party.

I thought it made the candidates very remote.

That's why I love the German system. You get one vote for a local candidate and one vote for the party. The Free Democrats never win any constituencies, yet they're represented in parliament because of the Zweitstimme (2nd vote).

Only those who indulge in bestiality vote for tories anyway.

:lol: Damn straight!

I have this friend who is into beastiality but he votes for labour :dunno:

Why are you lying? Report your sin to the 'sins you commited today' thread.

ok, I will :cry:

Originally posted by Be Happy
Why are you lying?

I've said it time and time again, Medo is "He who sits on the throne of lies."

That's why I love the German system. You get one vote for a local candidate and one vote for the party. The Free Democrats never win any constituencies, yet they're represented in parliament because of the Zweitstimme (2nd vote).
It is a good system in Germany, it would I believe increase voter turnout as proportional representation makes everyones vote appear to go towards something and reduces the problem of people thinking their count is not wrth it because X is going to get in anyway.

On the down side it gives parties a lot more power than an individual. In the UK it would be a lot more likely a number of unaffiliated people could get seats than i n Germany. In addition I see my local MP in the local pubs and shops and he used to come into the local video shop I worked in as a 16 year old. It makes the MP seem a lot more part of a community and likely to represent them as individuals. Presumably all those extra MPs n Germany may not represent the people so directly - which of course could mean better for the great good, but if my MP suddenly represented twice the number of people it ould perhaps spread him too thinly and would make him less usefull to me as an individual, plus there would be hunreds of MPs who just don't do half the jobs that a local MP does making a two tear house.

There are many ways to have PR. I think our current system is incredible and one day we will change it.

In the 1983 election, the Liberal/SDP Alliance gained 26.34% of the national vote, the Labour Party got 26.94% of the national vote. Yet Labour got 148 seats, the Alliance got 13. That is reason enough to change our system.

I agree, i don't like the system used in the Euro elections as it was a closed list system. The australians system of plain simple alternative vote is probably the best.

The australians system of plain simple alternative vote is probably the best.

I'm not sure, as this can deliver results even more disproportionate than simple pluarlity. I quite like the Irish System though.

To be honest I wouldn't be bothered with our system, if we had other Checks and Balances, we don't the House of Commons (or more properly the executive within it is all powerful. I wouldn't mind having Simple Plurality for the Lower House and a Senate elected in a system similar to that used in Scotland.

One of the most respected politicians in the NL never gained more 2,5% for his party but his input over some 2 decades is still highly rated. Proportional representation must come.

Upgrade the HoC to the HoL with the current electoral system (constituency representation) and a chamber from PR to replace the HoC. Do allow me to be a William of my time ;)

You'd have Labour, Conservative, LibDems, Greens, nationalists et al. You'd have the better consensus. LibDems may hold the balance, Labour might go red-green like in Deutschland. Conservative with nationalists would be your nightmare :)

It may not be perfect, but we can at least count our votes, unlike a certain place across the pond....

still doesn't change the fact the LibDems and to a lesser degree the Greens, should have had held more political sway.

The worst system IMO is the Election system in the USA.

It may not be perfect, but we can at least count our votes, unlike a certain place across the pond....


yeah, those canadians need to get their shit together.

I'd like to see an electoral system of larger constituencies electing 4-5 MPs each. So for example if in a contituency labour got 55%, tory 25%, Lib dem 15% and others 5% you might get 3 labour 1 tory and 1 LD MP.

You'd get far less extreme results and huge majorities but still keeping local MPs, at least one of which is quite likely to be from a party you support.

yeah, those canadians need to get their shit together.

:laugh:

very good.

i think everyone agrees the electoral system needs changing but no one can agree what to. the party in power doesnt want to change it as theyd put themselves out of power if they did, the tories in scotland like pr now because they are but used to hate it, blair doesnt like pr now but used to like it and so on. i think that pr would be the best guarantee we could ever have for excessive policies like in the 80s or blairs worst never happening again - it forces political parties to compromise with each other and reduces their extremes.

the Tories need an 11 percentage point advantage to actually win a majority in the House of Commons.


Of course they don't that would only be if voting patterns stayed similar to last time with a simple nationwide swign oen way or the other.

John Major won with a 7.5% advantage in 92. There haven't been many siginficant electoral changes since then (a few extra seats and boundary changes) and if people voted as they did in 92 the conservatives would win.


The reason such a huge swing is needed now is that for the last two elections labour and lib dem supporters have voted tactically anti-conservative. For that reason the extra hurdle now needed for the tories to get in is a fair one - it reflects the will of the people - that the majority do not want a conservative government. If that sentiment disspears and people are willing to vote for their party even if the tories get in then such a large lead wont be required.

I dont think any party has ever had over 50% of the vote but most people dotn like hung parliaments and woudl rather have a strong government.