Well, the answer is the so called Alternative Voting system. But 5 May 2011 the UK blew it. Absolutely amazing volume of ignorance came through loud & clear. The best result was a handful of places where up to 60% voted for Alternative Voting. The problem is, I bet, it wasn't explained proper. It is not a voting system where you vote for your favourite. It's a system where you vote for who you hate the most thru to who you hate the least. But you Brits obviously didn't understant it. I'm Aussie!
The first past the post system IS MORE DEMOCRATIC only if MPs do their jobs properly (to represent people) because technically in a democracy the leader and his cabinet don't matter because the Commons who vote in or out legislation are the people who matter. The LibDems want voting reform but I strongly disagree because then we will go to a US presidential system and that is much less democratic.
We need BY-Yearly MP elections
5 yearly leadership elections. GET RID OF PARTY POLITICS.
@alex471996 AV is specifically about electing MPs, nothing else. That's why it's important - we need MPs with the support of the majority of their constituency, candidates who aim to represent everyone instead of just a minority who can guarantee them victory (like in safe seats).
If you really want to get rid of party politics AV is a step in the right direction - keeping things the way they are just benefits the two main parties and gives people no real choice but to vote for one of them
I wrote that about the Libdems proposing a complete move to PR
Now you've got me slightly confused, i understand the proposals and how AV will work but are you saying get AV but not Proportional representation.
I can understand what you are saying, candidates have to appeal to everyone not just get the most 1st votes Those who are 'popular' with everyone even if not everyones preference will get the seat and this will make it a better system. Is that what you mean.
@alex471996 PR is a possibility later if people vote for AV, but not a chance if it's rejected
And yeah- in AV if someone gets 50% of the 1st preferences then they win. If not, they need other people's lower preferences, which is them saying 'if I have to choose I prefer this person'- the winner will be preferred over the other contenders, like people who don't vote Labour or Tory would probably prefer one over the other. So candidates have to appeal to people who wouldn't usually vote for them
@cactustactics Ok, last thing. Would you agree that it is important to have a physical local MP representing you who is accountable. With PR my vote goes to a party, not a person and so who can i hold to account / who to i go to to talk about an issue. Who will stand up and say in parliament "A company in my constituency wrote to me to say..."
Would you support a move to PR as AV seems to be a move to PR.
@alex471996 Personally yeah, I do think the local link is important. AV isn't a move towards PR specifically, just that if people *do* want a more proportional system (not necessarily without local MPs) then our views will be better represented under AV, and a 'No' vote here will be used as proof that people never want any reform whatsoever.
The Lib Dems wanted AV+ at first (AV for local MPs, another vote for an extra group of MPs allocated proportionally) but the Conservatives didn't allow it
Well, the answer is the so called Alternative Voting system. But 5 May 2011 the UK blew it. Absolutely amazing volume of ignorance came through loud & clear. The best result was a handful of places where up to 60% voted for Alternative Voting. The problem is, I bet, it wasn't explained proper. It is not a voting system where you vote for your favourite. It's a system where you vote for who you hate the most thru to who you hate the least. But you Brits obviously didn't understant it. I'm Aussie!
listen2meokidoki 1 week ago
@listen2meokidoki
Basically the libdem supporters reckoned they were traitored on
when their leadership joined the tories in power, And they did sell
out on things financial. Tories went right back to acting like nobs of course.
So libdems lost all their support and so when they got their chance
to vote, and libdems leadership wanted AV, they got hit for selling out.
Their tory partners were against AV and ran a, hard, campaign. and
Labour were meh.
johnspencertv 1 week ago
The first past the post system IS MORE DEMOCRATIC only if MPs do their jobs properly (to represent people) because technically in a democracy the leader and his cabinet don't matter because the Commons who vote in or out legislation are the people who matter. The LibDems want voting reform but I strongly disagree because then we will go to a US presidential system and that is much less democratic.
We need BY-Yearly MP elections
5 yearly leadership elections. GET RID OF PARTY POLITICS.
alex471996 1 year ago
@alex471996 AV is specifically about electing MPs, nothing else. That's why it's important - we need MPs with the support of the majority of their constituency, candidates who aim to represent everyone instead of just a minority who can guarantee them victory (like in safe seats).
If you really want to get rid of party politics AV is a step in the right direction - keeping things the way they are just benefits the two main parties and gives people no real choice but to vote for one of them
cactustactics 10 months ago
@cactustactics
I wrote that about the Libdems proposing a complete move to PR
Now you've got me slightly confused, i understand the proposals and how AV will work but are you saying get AV but not Proportional representation.
I can understand what you are saying, candidates have to appeal to everyone not just get the most 1st votes Those who are 'popular' with everyone even if not everyones preference will get the seat and this will make it a better system. Is that what you mean.
alex471996 10 months ago
@alex471996 PR is a possibility later if people vote for AV, but not a chance if it's rejected
And yeah- in AV if someone gets 50% of the 1st preferences then they win. If not, they need other people's lower preferences, which is them saying 'if I have to choose I prefer this person'- the winner will be preferred over the other contenders, like people who don't vote Labour or Tory would probably prefer one over the other. So candidates have to appeal to people who wouldn't usually vote for them
cactustactics 10 months ago
@cactustactics Ok, last thing. Would you agree that it is important to have a physical local MP representing you who is accountable. With PR my vote goes to a party, not a person and so who can i hold to account / who to i go to to talk about an issue. Who will stand up and say in parliament "A company in my constituency wrote to me to say..."
Would you support a move to PR as AV seems to be a move to PR.
alex471996 10 months ago
@alex471996 Personally yeah, I do think the local link is important. AV isn't a move towards PR specifically, just that if people *do* want a more proportional system (not necessarily without local MPs) then our views will be better represented under AV, and a 'No' vote here will be used as proof that people never want any reform whatsoever.
The Lib Dems wanted AV+ at first (AV for local MPs, another vote for an extra group of MPs allocated proportionally) but the Conservatives didn't allow it
cactustactics 10 months ago