Oh Dear...

[securespark]

A change to the first past the post system would have done UKIP well.

Shame it was rejected in the referendum a few years ago.

 

[KenGMac]

Seems to work OK up here for the Scottish Parliament.

BUT?

I do not think the new single ruling party would allow it in Westminster it could undermine there, what appears to be a slim majority even further, in fact that slim majority may never have happened, I for one do not see the turkeys that are the lobby fodder voting for that type of Christmas present, after all the grandees simply want to hold on to power, and maintain the Status Quo.

Ken

 

[mark vincent]

works ok in New Zealand as well.

 

[plugwash]

The thing I remember most about the AV refferendum was the only people who actually explained to me how it worked were the no campaign. Of course they put a negative spin on it. The yes campaigns materials were all wishy-washy with no substance.

 

[joe-90]

It works in Oz too.

The SNP got 1.5 million votes which gave them 56 seats.

UKIP got 3.8 million votes and got 1 seat.

That's more votes than the SNP and Lib Dems combined - for just one seat.

Great system that one.

 

[KenGMac]

The really odd thing about the way PR is or was supposed to work up here was that in the overall scheme of things, there was not supposed to be a single dominant party?

What happened was that the SNP end up being the main party in a Co-Alition, then during another round of voting became the dominant party?

the only apparent variable to the scheme to keep the Scottish Parliament fragmented was the Voters? that un-Predictable lot decided to go with a party that was all out for Scotland, and that party was not riding along on the coat tails of some Westminster driven tune, or at least that is how the Westminster parties are viewed up here whether Labour or Conservative.

To make my case, Annabel Goldie a very competent, and up here reasonably high profile politico who was the Conservative leader walked out stating that the English lords and masters were not listening to Her and as such She could not take any more from that source. That at least should tell you something?

Ken.

 

[JBR]

A change to the first past the post system would have done UKIP well.

Shame it was rejected in the referendum a few years ago.

A great shame. I don't remember even being asked.

As things are, it appears we are stuck with the FPTP system: the two 'main parties' will never allow a PR system as it would mean them no longer being able to take it in turns to 'run' (ruin?) the country.

Of course, part of the problem is that the majority of people only seem to want to vote for one or other of the two 'main parties'. I can only assume that they are happy with the ongoing pantomime.

I suppose that it is just conceivable that, after things deteriorate beyond a certain point, people may decide to try a different option.

 

[Micilin]

The really odd thing about the way PR is or was supposed to work up here was that in the overall scheme of things, there was not supposed to be a single dominant party?

What happened was that the SNP end up being the main party in a Co-Alition, then during another round of voting became the dominant party?

the only apparent variable to the scheme to keep the Scottish Parliament fragmented was the Voters? that un-Predictable lot decided to go with a party that was all out for Scotland, and that party was not riding along on the coat tails of some Westminster driven tune, or at least that is how the Westminster parties are viewed up here whether Labour or Conservative.

To make my case, Annabel Goldie a very competent, and up here reasonably high profile politico who was the Conservative leader walked out stating that the English lords and masters were not listening to Her and as such She could not take any more from that source. That at least should tell you something?

Ken.

These comes a point when it doesn't matter what mainstream system you use, the numbers return a majority.

 

[joe-90]

We had a referendum for AV in 2011. JBR said at the time he voted against it.

 

[JBR]

We had a referendum for AV in 2011. JBR said at the time he voted against it.

Perhaps you'd like to show us the evidence of where I said that?

Incidentally, AV is not the same as PR.

 

[joe-90]

No I know it's not. Did you vote for it? Yes or no will do.

 

[Dextraneous]

Did you vote for it? Yes or no will do.

Not if you want PR

 

[JBR]

joe-90 wrote:
We had a referendum for AV in 2011. JBR said at the time he voted against it.

I replied:
Perhaps you'd like to show us the evidence of where I said that?

No I know it's not. Did you vote for it? Yes or no will do.

I thought that you already made an accusation that I said I voted against it. I, and I'm sure others, are awaiting the evidence I requested.

Surely you weren't lying, Joseph?

 

[joe-90]

No. It was in 2011 and i'm fooked if I'm trawling back four years to find it.

Did you vote for AV? Yes or no?

 

[JBR]

No. It was in 2011 and i'm fooked if I'm trawling back four years to find it.

Did you vote for AV? Yes or no?

I suggest that you trawl back four years to find it, if you are sure that's what I said.