pentagathus
Baron
Are tuition fees really our highest priority? I don't even see how the current system is meant to be unfair.
Whatever Part of the World Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II Owns Right Now.
- Thread starter AreJohn
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Baron
I like the French way of electing single officials, e.g. their two step presidential election. Their way of electing the parliament is just FPTP, with the added twist of a second round of voting if a candidate doesn't reach a majority with at least 25% of the valid votes in his or her constituency the first time around.Captured Joe said:
I dunno what's supposed to be special about the Dutch system, that's just normal proportional representation right? But then you also don't have any cut-off point, right?
But yes, I consider proportional representation to be inherently better. If it requires more compromise from the parties then honestly that's a plus as well more often than not.
In Germany, with the proportional representation, a party nonetheless needs to get at least 5% of the votes be allowed to enter parliament, to avoid and endless flood of teeny tiny parties that clutter up the field and make consensus/majority needlessly complicated.
The seats that are then "left over" because of those exclusions are then distributed in a way that once more majorly favours the big parties which is BS, but like it has been said multiple times before in this thread unfortunately no system is perfect.
But then Germany has been dominated by a coalition of the two largest parties in the countries for two of Merkel's terms so the whole thing is sorta moot for now. They even voluntarily granted the opposition more rights when it comes to certain organisational things to make their own dominance less severe...
So as I understand it, Theresa May called this election on her own, this wasn't the regularly scheduled time for election, so she could improve her (and her party's, I guess) standing in Parliament? Isn't that basically what happened with why the Referendum on Brexit was called?
What I never understood (among other countless things connected to the FPTP joke) is how you are supposed to express disapproval with "your" party. If you are in a sensible democracy (ie. proportional system), there is usually larger number of parties. And if you are a social democrat and your social democratic party is not doing what it should do or is burdened by scandals, you still can vote say christian democrats, far-left parties, technocrats or something. What do you do when you are a disappointed social democrat in a FPTP system? Vote market liberals or throw your vote into a garbage bin?Wigster600 said:
Marowit said:
They offered us the absolute worst system, possibly worse than FPTP. AV (alternative voting, also known as instant runoff, with a few alterations to make it even less fair) was the only choice offered beside status quo, and it's clear that the tories who called the referendum chose the crappiest system possible.
It was win-win for them. In the case of status quo, the tories keep their majority. In the case of change, they would probably still win, but the greens and UKIP would probably take even more seats from labour in most cases, and after a few disastrous elections they would offer to change back to FPTP.
The situation where AV leads to a better system was never going to happen because referendums are dumb and politicians only use them to secure a bonus mandate and reinforce the status quo. Nobody with the power to call a referendum would suggest a more proportional system than AV because nobody in the major parties would benefit from it.
Because their votes are stratified mostly by age and class, and not location. There are areas where they have a flat ~10% of the vote across dozens of constituencies.
Wigster600 said:
Someone had the same idea about 150 years ago, mate.
most constituencies are between 60,000 and 80,000.Similar threads
