FPTP or PR

[skitzee2k]

OK, there have been a lot of small debates breaking out in a lot of threads about the Pros and Cons of both these systems.

Very briefly (so i can try and remain unbiased) here are what we have so far.

FPTP. Pros -
1) More likely to end up with a Majority meaning more decisive actions.
2) Each seat is answerable to it's voters

FPTP. Cons -
1) Losing a seat by 1 vote still counts as losing, full stop.
2) Smaller parties tend not to stand a chance of any real power

PR. Pros -
1) Every vote counts towards the end result
2) The government will need to compromise with other parties in order to govern. (is also a Con. I guess)

PR Cons-
1) Power is not held by any one party so radical reform is difficult and lacks ability to vote out any specific MP.
2) Encourages disproportionate power to smaller fringe groups

Let the Voting commence, will be interesting to see what you actually think and not just the people who make the most noise, (myself included.)

I know there are other options but these are the main ones being spoken about so a "Other option" would just be far too general.

Feel free obviously to challenge any pro/con.

 

[corgiman]

i do like the fact the FPTP means (more often than not) a majority government, but would benefit from standardizing the seats would make for interesting parliament

 

[skitzee2k]

i do like the fact the FPTP means (more often than not) a majority government, but would benefit from standardizing the seats would make for interesting parliament

Agree corgi, that to me is the one flaw, and it isn't anything to do with the system as the intention is that they are the same size but it hasn't be done properly.

 

[holmslaw]

I did a few sums the other day based on total No of votes per party.

10,706,647 voted conservative
8,604,358 + voted labour
6,827,938 + voted lib dems
--------------------------
26,138,943 = total voters

And the seats where shared as follows,

307 cons
258 + lab
57 + lib dems
--------------------------
622 = total seats (ignoring independants)

26,138,943 total votes cast
622 ÷ No of seats
--------------------------
42,024 votes req for each seat

Which would have resulted in:

10,706,647
42,024 ÷
--------------------------
254 cons seats, actual seats was 306

8,604,358
42,024 ÷
--------------------------
204 lab seats, actual seats was 258


6,827,938
42,024 ÷
--------------------------
162 lib dem seats, actual seats was 57

I think this would be a fairer system but we would have to live with continual coalition govs. With similar claims to power based on seats won, agreement on anything would be impossible.

Would PR give a similar result?

 

[skitzee2k]

97 views and only 10 votes, shocking

Looks like fptp wins it though.

 

[sooey]

97 views and only 10 votes, shocking

Looks like fptp wins it though.

You never gave a "non of the above" option.

 

[skitzee2k]

97 views and only 10 votes, shocking

Looks like fptp wins it though.

You never gave a "non of the above" option.

I know, i mentioned that in my original post. As that is not an option that is on the table. What would you suggest out of interest?

 

[sooey]

I'd go for a benevolent dictatorship as that's the only thing that would allow someone a chance to sort out the mess.
I don't mind being put forward as the dictator if no one objects. I'll be really really benevolent honest.....








to all me mates.

 

[skitzee2k]

I'd go for a benevolent dictatorship as that's the only thing that would allow someone a chance to sort out the mess.
I don't mind being put forward as the dictator if no one objects. I'll be really really benevolent honest.....








to all me mates.

Lol, well the closest we can get to that is a very high majority government, which is impossible under PR but possible under FPTP. So, if you had to pick...

 

[sooey]

Yeah but dictators don't have to worry about getting reelected so they can make the hard decisions. Like where shall I stash me cash....Switzerland or under the bed...or both.
Seriously though, the high majority governments just use their power to forward as many policies as possible in their favour for the next election.
I think democracy as we know it has had its day, although I personally can't think of a better system. In conclusion, human nature being what it is we're all f*cked whatever happens so get used to it.

 

[mickyg]

97 views and only 10 votes, shocking

Looks like fptp wins it though.

well if you included AV I would have voted for that but you didnt.

 

[skitzee2k]

97 views and only 10 votes, shocking

Looks like fptp wins it though.

well if you included AV I would have voted for that but you didnt.

So apart from AV you have no pref?

The AV system seems fatally flawed as well though, don't you think?

I mean for example.

Party A gets 45% of the first vote
Party B gets 36% of the first vote
Party C gets 19% of the first vote.

Party C gets eliminated, but because they have nothing in common with either party A or B but they HAVE to vote for an alternative, 19% of the vote, possibly picked at random and not ACTUALLY what they want gets distributed between party A and B, meaning a party could win the seat even though more people want another party.

I Know that is very specific, but, for example...I am tory, in some areas the torys bottomed out, so my SECOND choice would count as my vote...In any area where the torys bottomed out, so would any of the other choices I would have made...so I would have to vote for a party I don't want....and that vote counts just as much as people's first choice.
So they may CLAIM to have 51% or more of support, but if they needed alternative votes etc, then obviously they didn't otherwise they would have won outright.

Doesn't make sense and is in no way fairer than "person with the most votes wins".

 

[mickyg]

The AV system seems fatally flawed as well though, don't you think?

I think that all the systems are flawed. basically because we have more than 2 parties sharing the majority of the vote. You need only 2 main parties if your ever going to get a majority vote otherwise its problematic.
Ideally I think if someone wins whether it be a majority or not they should be given a majority regardless. A majority have voted for them to run the country and therefore thats what they should do. Obviously I doubt this will ever happen. I think AV is possibly the next best thing, but yes its not ideal, but at least it will give people who's votes have been otherwise wasted the chance to still make a difference and it will ultimately result in a majority government without coalitions.
I can see why people support PR as it seems in theory the only way to represent everyones vote, as opposed to now where realistically only a few thousand people can actually influence the results, but it would just result in more unstable government, more hung parliaments, more coalitions, BNP getting seats in parliament and various other problems, so as wonderfully democratic as it sounds it just won't work out for the good.

 

[D_Hailsham]

How about increasing the deposit (currently £500) which has to be paid by every candidate and increasing the percentage votes (currently 5%) a candidate has to obtain if they are not to loose their deposit? This would get rid of the "protest" candidates who are standing on a single issue and have no hope of getting into Parliament, let alone forming a government.

 

[mickyg]

How about increasing the deposit (currently £500) which has to be paid by every candidate and increasing the percentage votes (currently 5%) a candidate has to obtain if they are not to loose their deposit? This would get rid of the "protest" candidates who are standing on a single issue and have no hope of getting into Parliament, let alone forming a government.

it would be a start and a good idea, but it won't solve the problem.
In Browns own constituency the independants accounted for less than 1%. and in my own constituency it was 1%, I expect this to be fairly common across the UK?