How? Not from what I have read up on PR.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
General Election 2015 - Thoughts/Predictions/Results
- Thread starter MidlandMainlie
- Start date
- Status
How? Not from what I have read up on PR.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
I respect you for holding the view that you hold, but I too am entitled to hold the opinion that I do. Shall we just agree to differ?
dcsprior
Member
If all you want is a list of the winning candidate for each, this can be got from the .csv file linked from https://yournextmp.com/help/api/
I'd also be interested in fuller results in a machine-readable format
By using one of the many other systems which we've been talking about on this thread...
The one Ukip MP might be able to work with the 56 SNP MPs on this.
The SNP are pro PR.
Then again, why would they help a party who are anti Scottish.
I voted SNP, and I am of course happy with the result we got on Thursday, at least from the Scottish perspective. However, the SNP's result was clearly not democratic, and with PR we'd have no more than half the number of SNP MPs. Nevertheless, I'll still continue to passionately support PR as the most democratic option.
The great difficulty with electoral reform is that, to get electoral reform, the party/ies in power have to agree to it. However, as FPTP invariably trends towards a two party system with majority governments, neither of the main parties are likely to be overly attracted to FPTP so we won't get it. FPTP allows the two big parties to steamroll their policies through with support from a minority of the electorate, it makes it easier for them to fight elections by ignoring their "safe" seats and voters... it's completely and utterly undemocratic.
The reason the Conservatives generally oppose reform is because it would undoubtedly disadvantage their own party, but that does not make it democratic. The Tories actually have an unfair advantage over most other parties as a direct result of the FPTP system, and their instance that FPTP is the best option is based solely on them wanting to retain that advantage and retain power.
I don't see what your age has to do with anything.
But please do give me reasons as to why you think that FPTP is the superior system (and this goes out to all members who support FPTP). I've seen plenty of arguments for proportional representation on this thread, but actually very few arguments as to why we should retain FPTP.
We will just have to.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Herman Munster could be local and care about my area. I still require the ability to influence the philosophy of Government. That requires an equal ability to decide on that philosophy, regardless of my geographical location.
I'm afraid I've not read all 128 pages. I also don't see how it is possible to have a stable govt with PR. I would much rather have a centre left or centre right party in govt (preference on centre right) with a stable govt that the markets feel confident in. Sterling rose significantly on the news that's the Tories had won a majority and shares in many companies rose as well.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Why do you not also quote what I said in my posting extract that you have posted above about the number of General Elections that this said age has allowed me to participate in. That, is the reason, "why it has to do with anything" to use your phrase. Experience of participating in the democratic process time and time again. Not refusing to vote nor ruining my ballot paper.
I do not need to give any reasons for my thinking that FPTP is the system it is, save to say that my own personal belief holds this to be so.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
You can do this by standing for election, being successful in winning your seat and working as a back-bencher with others of like minds.
Last edited:
With the FPTP system the candidate who got the most votes in that constituentcy is elected to represent that area. With PR you could end up with a candidate representing a constituentcy where only a small proportion on the electorate voted for that party. I think that is very unfair as another party may have more votes in that area.
I think you are being deliberately obtuse. You only have to read the few pages from when you started posting yesterday.
Unless we want a parliament of sixty million MP's, I don't really think that's a practical way to ensure that each voters views have an equal chance of influencing Government.
EM2
Established Member
Dozens of other countries seem to manage very well. The Republic Of Ireland, for example.
Is that really a surprise? A pro-enterprise, pro-private sector party gains power, and enterprise and the private sector are happy.
If you look at any campaign against discrimination throughout history, it does start with the people discriminated against being the first people to campaign against it. For example, when women wanted the vote, it was women who campaigned for it originally. To start with, men weren't very interested. After all, they had the vote so they didn't really care. But after a while, some men started to realise this was unfair and then men joined the movement. Now hardly anyone thinks women shouldn't be able to vote.
I seem to remember that Ireland needed a massive bail out from the ECB in recent times so that's going very well!
Considering how left wing the Labour Party has gone it's not surprising. Labour love bashing the banks saying they will tax them more and more, that is until one of the biggest, HSBC gets fed up and threatens to leave the UK and take the millions it pays in tax elsewhere and then suddenly Labour love the banks! Same with the whole Non-Dom issue. Mr Balls admitted it would cost the country money by abolishing it, just after the sound bites rather than well thought out policy. So surprise surprise that sterling rises when a party that knows how to grow the economy and create jobs gets a majority.
TheKnightWho
Established Member
Germany. End of story.
That was almost certainly much more to do with not having a hung parliament than who it actually was that had the majority...
EM2
Established Member
Ireland's need for a bailout wasn't because they use PR to elect their Government. It was because the Government that was in power had decided to use a low-tax, low-regulation model for their economy.
An economic model that George Osborne called 'a shining example' in 2006?
Article in The Independent
As someone who was living in Ireland in 2006, I can tell you that the writing was already on the wall.
Last edited:
That's exactly what happens with FPTP!
Candidates can and do get elected with a very small percentage of the vote. In fact, in a lot of constituencies, the majority of the electorate do not vote for the candidate that ends up representing them in the end. For example, in St Ives, only 38.3% of the electorate voted for the Conservative candidate who won. That means that 61.7% of the electorate did not vote for that candidate.
PR gives the candidate that is most acceptable to the greatest number of people. Under PR, you do need to get a reasonable proportion of the vote to get elected. Under STV, you need to get >1/(x+1) of the vote, where x is the number of seats to be elected. The result is that the elected candidate(s) has/have broad support from the electorate. Using list systems works out the same way. By contrast, with FPTP, you may well end up getting the most votes, but it doesn't necessarily mean that you have a broad level of support across the constituency.
Under PR, you may not have the greatest number of first choice votes, but you do need to gather broad support across the electorate in order to get elected, and most importantly the results are broadly proportional to the first choice of the electorate. And that's what parliament is meant to be: a microcosm of the views of the whole electorate.
Being older and voting in dozens of FPTP elections does not in itself give you any reason to support FPTP. I can only ascertain that you've spent most/all of your life in a "key marginal" constituency, or a safe seat where you support the dominant party. I grew up in a safe Labour seat (well, safe until last Thursday), and I can assure you it stinks. The election passes by and you barely notice it. No-one bothers campaigning in your constituency because they know they cannot unseat the incumbent, so you get a token number of election leaflets and that's it. There is no democracy.
But, you're going to attribute your fondness for FPTP to a "belief", which tells me that you have no good arguments to retain the system. So any need for further debate has disappeared.
I am neither pro Europe or anti Europe but Mr Brown signed away a huge amount of powers to Brussels without asking the British people if we wanted it or not. At least the Tories are offering a free vote on whether we stay in or not. Whereas Labour attitude is that they think we should stay in so you don't get a choice.
EM2
Established Member
Why do we need a free vote? We had one in 1973 (or was it 1975?)
Did we vote to join NATO? Did we vote to join the UN? We didn't and we're members of those.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Shall we see how Angela Merkel decides on how that particular matter will be addressed?
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
I don't recall ever being offered a referendum on the coalition Govt's Fixed Term Parliaments Act, or on any of the recent legislation governing data security, or the changes to the education system or the health service of the past few years. Or any of the changes to the powers that the various tiers of local Government have. Or on any of the numerous treaties and agreements that the UK Government has signed with other countries and other international bodies, which implicitly restrict the actions of the UK Government.
In fact, come to think of it, out of the hundreds (thousands?) of pieces of legislation, and (I'm guessing) tens of thousands of changes to regulations etc. that have occurred during my adult lifetime, I cannot recall ever being offered a referendum on a single one of them.
The thing that those who demand a referendum on Europe have never - so far as I can see - explained is why that issue alone should get a referendum when practically nothing else the UK Government does, no matter how major or how significantly it might effect my life, apparently requires one.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Thanks. But yes, it is the full results I want. I'd like to group some constituencies together and do some calculations to see what the various vote shares and swings were in different regions and sub-regions of the UK. Plus, it would be nice to have the data to hand so I can answer any other random questions that might pop into my head
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Thanks, good idea, not discovered anything so far by pursuing that line, but it's possible - I'll keep looking...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
A somewhat subjective way of putting it.
I think you'll find quite a few people would phrase that more like 'when a party that continually tells untruths about the actions of its predecessor, and knows how to take advantage of and then falsely take credit for the natural economic growth that tends to happen after a recession, and more generally in most years thanks to general technological improvements gets a majority'. That latter version is arguably just as accurate. As has been pointed out, the rise in share prices and the currency is likely to be more to do with the fact that a Government of some description has actually been formed.
Last edited:
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
me123 said:
In a democracy, the ability to personally hold to a "belief" is one of the reasons why people have fought and died to establish this system. Would you rather hold to the "Islamic State" principal of "convert or die"...
hock:I was also reminded by your comment of the oil painting of the boy summoned before a panel and being asked "When did you last see your father". Are we now to be asked to justify our own personal beliefs, on this website or anywhere else?
I would never ask any other forum member to justify any personally held views, as that surely impinges upon their personal privacy. Am I alone in the holding of this view?
Hmm, I can see your point, but I'm not sure the constitutional are the same. France, under General De Gaulle pretty much stood aside from NATO without fundamentally changing how France was Governed. I don't think we could reeevaluate our relationship with the continent without it being a pretty fundamental question of the Government of Britain.
I admit to loving the thought of an EU referendum.
Having read this forum during the time of the Scottish referendum, on here during an EU referendum should be a revelation.
Be interesting just how the anti EU side play it.
In the end the Scottish referendum came down to economics, on here the pro union supporters came across as British nationalists.
Even labour supporters ended up coming across as BNP lite.
Certainly the EU referendum should be fun if your interested in politics and neutral regarding the EU.
Having read this forum during the time of the Scottish referendum, on here during an EU referendum should be a revelation.
Be interesting just how the anti EU side play it.
In the end the Scottish referendum came down to economics, on here the pro union supporters came across as British nationalists.
Even labour supporters ended up coming across as BNP lite.
Certainly the EU referendum should be fun if your interested in politics and neutral regarding the EU.
And how exactly were you able to determine who were Labour supporters?
The strange thing about the Scottish referendum was that so many people calling for separation from the UK, were also desperate to remain in the EU! Did they want to self govern or not?
- Status