Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
In Coventry South, one person does not really have one vote, they have the equivalent of 0.192 votes. The average UK voter has 1.32x more voting power than voters in Coventry South.
Minty said:The power to elect a different set of arsetwats with slightly different agendas?
Sheep choosing which wolf eats them, etc. etc.
MRaverz said:This is why we need Proportional Representation. ;D
Prolescum said:I concur, let's all run off to an island with a bunch of bored teenagers and avoid using birth-names instead yeah...
Squawk, I feel for you dude.
Minty said:Prolescum said:I concur, let's all run off to an island with a bunch of bored teenagers and avoid using birth-names instead yeah...
Squawk, I feel for you dude.
Why no birth names? But, yeah, pretty much
Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland seem to get on fine...Aught3 said:As someone who votes in a proportional system I can tell you it's not perfect. The party with the most votes often doesn't have enough seats to get anything done. I hear that in this election the UK, unusually, might have a hung parliament, we end up with a hung parliament every single time.
Well not everyone's vote counts but a lot more count than in a FPP system. I'm just pointing out that you give up a strong unified government for a lot of party politics and bickering. I suppose if you don't agree with the two main parties, then giving that up is no big deal.MRaverz said:Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland seem to get on fine...
Additionally, which is better. Everyone's vote counting, or over a third of the country being ignored?
A strong party is all well and good if you voted for them, the problem arises when most of the country didn't.Aught3 said:Well not everyone's vote counts but a lot more count than in a FPP system. I'm just pointing out that you give up a strong unified government for a lot of party politics and bickering. I suppose if you don't agree with the two main parties, then giving that up is no big deal.MRaverz said:Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland seem to get on fine...
Additionally, which is better. Everyone's vote counting, or over a third of the country being ignored?
Most of the country didn't vote for our leading party either, but it is true with proportionality voting they had to build a coalition to include 50% of the vote. It becomes problematic when the small parties with 4-5% of the vote are needed by big parties with 45% of the vote, suddenly those small parties get a lot of say on future policy yet they represent a very small minority of the population. Of course there is a bigger problem with plurality voting and that is sometimes parties with fewer votes than others can end up with the majority of seats, similar to what happened to Al Gore. I don't think this has happened in the UK, but it is a possibility.MRaverz said:A strong party is all well and good if you voted for them, the problem arises when most of the country didn't.
It's really the power of a single vote that changes when you change systems. At the moment a vote for a small party is powerless, but if you change to a proportionality system suddenly a vote for a small party will be over-valued. There's no completely fair way to distribute votes and the more fair you make it, the less power the ruling party will have. It's a trade-off.MRaverz said:Obviously, no system is perfect - but I'd prefer a system which means that most of the population's opinion counts.
Where's the most up to date info coming from?Prolescum said:Looks like the Greens have taken their first seat ever in Brighton Pavilion. I love Brighton.