How can this possibly be "Democracy" ???

Elyzabeth

Elyzabeth

Member
Location
Bristol, England
Political ideology aside...



How can the UKIP, which got ALMOST 4 MILLION votes

get 1 seat...


and the SNP get 1 seat for every 25,000 votes????


Doesn't sound like a government that is representative of the people's wishes to me !
 

Last edited:
That's just the way it works here.We do not use PR( proportional representation) but we use the first past the post, so each ward has a different MP a constituency, and he/she represents us at Westminster.So it's simply who gets the most votes in that particular place.I am sure that you must know this already as you live here, even though you are from the U.S. but I gave the answer because others here may not understand your question.
 
Proportional representation means that the people are represented in proportion to their numbers..

Someone told me that this system works ( first past the post?) to the advantage of the two big parties.

However it doesn't even come close to being representative of what the people want.

Doesn't sound like a Democracy to me .....???
 

Nobody seems to want to talk about election reform. In the US there have been presidents elected that did not get the majority of the popular vote.
 
The public decided in 2011......... this article is dated May 2011.....



The UK has voted overwhelmingly to reject changing the way MPs are elected - dealing a bitter blow to Nick Clegg on top of heavy Lib Dem poll losses.
Officials say 19.1m people voted in the second UK-wide referendum in history - a higher than expected turnout of 41%.
The final result put the Yes vote at 32.1% and the No vote at 67.9%.
It comes as the Lib Dems suffered a rout in English local elections - and the SNP scored an historic victory in the Scottish Parliament poll.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13297573
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pam
ameriscot said:
nobody seems to want to talk about election reform. In the us there have been presidents elected that did not get the majority of the popular vote.
Click to expand...



but not by such a huge majority ! ( in proportion to the population)

America's weak spot is the electoral college...which is absolutely ridiculous as well..
 
What about the fact that the lives and destiny of some 300 million Americans is actually in the hands of jut 14 billionaires? Because that's what the Citizen's United ruling has done.
 
Elyzabeth said:
but not by such a huge majority ! ( in proportion to the population)

America's weak spot is the electoral college...which is absolutely ridiculous as well..
Click to expand...

That's true it's never a huge difference. In the UK we now have a Tory government that only got 36% of the votes.
 
Elyzabeth, if you was to read the article I posted, You will see it was the public that decided to keep first past the post so you cannot blame the U.K. government this time.
 
Just the way it works folks! Scotland is virtually all SNP now and most of the rest of the country is Conservative, but two elections ago Labour got into power, yes it does favour the two larger parties, but five years ago when we had an election, one of the bigger parties had to go into coalition with the Lib Dems, but they would never have got into power any other way as they don't have enough voters.This system has worked well enough for a long time you know.
 
I think in Canada it's a 'first past the post' situation too. I think that there's been a bit of a suggestion as of last year that maybe it's time to make some changes.....doesn't that sound positive? 'bit of a suggestion, maybe, some changes.....' which probably means it'll never happen. Unfair electoral arrangement rules the day!

I
 
oakapple said:
That's just the way it works here.We do not use PR( proportional representation) but we use the first past the post, so each ward has a different MP a constituency, and he/she represents us at Westminster.So it's simply who gets the most votes in that particular place.I am sure that you must know this already as you live here, even though you are from the U.S. but I gave the answer because others here may not understand your question.
Click to expand...
There is another option - preferential voting.

We have two methods of counting votes. In the Upper House we have proportional representation. Each state elects the same number of senators and to get a senator elected you need to have a quota of votes, usually one sixth of the votes for a half senate election. Voters vote for the party/person of their choice and also indicate where they would want their vote to go if that person fails to get a quota or gets excess votes. By a fairly complicated process all votes are distributed until the most preferred 6 candidates emerge. The major parties almost always pick up pick up 2 seats each and then the remaining two seats go to which ever major/ minor/independent candidates that have managed to accumulate enough of the surplus votes.

For the lower house it is a straightforward preferential voting system. We number all candidates in order of preference. If someone gets 50% +1 of the first preference votes then he/she is elected. If there is no clear winner then the candidate who scored the least votes is eliminated and their votes are redistributed according to the second preferences on the ballot paper. This redistribution continues until one candidate reaches the 50% +1 necessary for election. The advantage is that the eventual winner is the "most preferred candidate" without having to hold a run off election if there is no clear winner.

Proportional voting would have benefited UKIP and preferential voting would probably have produced a more balanced result in Scotland between SNP, Labour and the Tories.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top