The UK General Election

And I actually said earlier I believe things are going to be very bad. I am under no illusion of how hard it is going to be. The sad part is a lot of people are going to put the hard times as part of Conservative governing, when really it is the seeds of Labour sprouting.

The lower class, the class struggling at the moment, stands to lose out with the Tories in power. That is a cold hard fact. Whilst Labour may have begun the problems, for the lower class the Tories will simply continue them. The real sad part is how the lower class is the class which stands to gain/suffer the most from an election, but is also the class which votes the least due to the complex nature of the system and the bias of the media, which being operated by the rich tends to be very pro-Tory. See The Suns f**king abysmal front page of Cameron as Obama for a perfect example of it.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

DaveEllis Schreef:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Lib Dems actually got more votes than ever.
> They got less seats due to the location of those
> votes. Another massive flaw in our out-dated
> system.

So votes of people in certain locations count more then it does in others?

Yes, but its more complex than that.

If Lib Dems control Area A, with (for example), 500 votes, then if they get 700 votes, those 200 extra are kinda wasted. They already control it, so it doesn't matter.

But it also depends on how many candidates there is and all the rest of it. Lib Dems got 2/3 of the votes of the Tories, but 1/5 the power. Srsly, wat.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

and if you like your stats about how unfair the current system is....

Conservatives: 10,213,492 votes / 291 seats = 35,098 votes per seat
Labour: 8,307,487 votes / 251 seats = 33,098 votes per seat
Liberal Democrats: 6,495,080 votes / 52 seats = 124,905 votes per seat
DUP: 168,216 votes / 8 seats = 21,027 votes per seat
SNP: 482,823 votes / 6 seats = 80,471 votes per seat
Sinn Féin: 150,638 votes / 4 seats = 37,660 votes per seat
Plaid Cymru: 165,394 votes / 3 seats = 55,131 votes per seat
SDLP: 107,396 votes / 3 seats = 35,799
Greens: 269,866 votes / 1 seat = 269,866 votes per seat
Alliance: 42,325 votes / 1 seat = 42,325 votes per seat


That only mentions parties that have won seats, if you're applying proportional representation then parties such as UKIP or BNP would be represented in parliament.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2010 01:27PM by Covfan.

Indeed, if the system was one which worked purely on numbers of votes, the Lib Dems would be much closer behind, and their position would be much more reflective of how the televised debates looked.

---

Conservatives are ahead of Labour by an appropriate margin, however I feel Lib Dem deserve a lot more seats than they got, based on the number of votes.



The picture uses the actual percentages at the time I put the figures in.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2010 05:50PM by alexf1man.

Rumours Clegg is outwardly on a 'no' to a Labour coalition.

Could be a Lib Dem / Conservative merge. Quite possibly a dream scenario, because we could get some good Lib Dem input.

Or Queenie could overhaul it all.

Or we have a hung parliament for 6 months, and a re-election.


Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it

Yeah, think we're likely to have another election fairly soon. Not necessarily in the next few months, but probably in the next year or two. Historically, when there's been a hung parliament, it's caused confusion and unrest which has led quite quickly to another election.

---

If you had the Danish election rules, the Lib. Dem. had gotten 90 more seats. The Conservatives would lose 69 seats and Labour would lose 67. You should move out of the stone age. But I guess your two largest parties feel they have too much to lose.

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2010 08:23PM by Morbid.

All is well and good on that front, but I think, especially the Lib Dem people, are putting too much emphasis and proclaim that a reform on the system will change everything.

I agree, it needs reforming. But it doesn't change things significantly.

BUT as it stands, the top three, based on singular votes alone, the top three still stand the same. The Torys were more popular.

So new system or old, the Torys got the most votes.

I think it is a joke how this will be the second election where Brown wasn't wan't and yet STILL gets to take some sort of major leading role.


Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it

danm Schreef:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All is well and good on that front, but I think,
> especially the Lib Dem people, are putting too
> much emphasis and proclaim that a reform on the
> system will change everything.
>
> I agree, it needs reforming. But it doesn't change
> things significantly.
>
> BUT as it stands, the top three, based on singular
> votes alone, the top three still stand the same.
> The Torys were more popular.
>
> So new system or old, the Torys got the most
> votes.
>
> I think it is a joke how this will be the second
> election where Brown wasn't wan't and yet STILL
> gets to take some sort of major leading role.

52 Or roughly 150 seats is quite significant. Yes, tories are the biggest, but running a country isn't just about the party which is most populair, they only got 36% of the votes, thats abit more then 1/3rd of all who voted. That way you could also get a majority while you don't even have 50% of the votes, and that's just wrong, a democracy is about what the majority of the people wants, not 36%, 40% or 45%, but atleast 50,1%.

The best system still is amount of people who voted / amount of seats, that way if you get roughly 20% of the votes, you get roughly 20% of the seats and 20% of the power. Then you need to have the majority of the seats to go and govern the country, and with that also the majority of the votes.

Morbid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You
> should move out of the stone age. But I guess your
> two largest parties feel they have too much to
> lose.

Agreed, 100%. If this election has shown anything, it should be how our electoral(right word?) system is badly in need of an overhaul to bring it up to date, and to make it more straightforward.
And there's just a chance something might be done about it this time, as one of the Lib Dems' policies is to make modifications to the electoral system AFAIK, and put an end to this "first past the post" BS. We can only hope.

---

Is it just me, or is this a prime time for a win:win on Conservative part and Lib Dems?

Lib Dems want to reform the system, right?

Labour looked into it in 97, then simply ignored it.

Conservatives are also currently pissed at how the system is faulty, because based on number of votes in proportion, they should have won.

So that puts Lib Dems AND Conservatives in the same boat.

So surely, common ground will naturally lure these two together.

Conservatives could form the coalition they so need to get this election a winner; whilst at the same time the Lib Dems could bring with it a reasoning they'll join if Conservatives agree to change the system at the next election.

Conservatives get what they want. Lib Dems get something they want. The public, then, are the main beneficiaries by having a much more structured system.

Long term, this benefits everyone. The public AND the parties. Lib Dems would thus less be likely to be the third leg and 'wasted vote' they are often labelled as.

As a game plan, Clegg would be silly not to take this opportunity. A re-election is still not going to give the Lib Dems a win, unless the system is changed under the hung parliament for a new election in half a year or so.

But under a proposed coalition, they might be able to taint the country with some of their policies and influence, and with hypothetical system changes, come the next election, the Lib Dems could really be a force.

Groundbreaking stuff.


Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/08/2010 02:32AM by danm.

Quote
Iceman-Kimi
The best system still is amount of people who voted / amount of seats, that way if you get roughly 20% of the votes, you get roughly 20% of the seats and 20% of the power. Then you need to have the majority of the seats to go and govern the country, and with that also the majority of the votes.

Disagree completely. There may be a common ground to find in between, but if you follow the votes route to power then you'd have a massive concentration from the few big cities voting for those who's policies suit, and potentially you'd get royally screwed over if you live even remotely rural, just as there is a thinner concentration of voters.

The one good thing about voting for a seat is that that person then represents your area, and while he's still handsomely outvoted in parliament (just look at all the London boroughs for instance), at least they can actually get a say.

The north-south divide is already like a chasm... you want to lengthen it?

Perhaps he means percentage of each seat? Which to me, makes more sense.

i.e. 45,000 people vote in a city centre constituency. 36% vote Labour, 30% vote Conservative, etc.
Then, 15,000 people vote in a sparsely-populated rural constituency. 40% vote Conservative, 25% vote Labour, etc.

If BOTH of those percentages were given the SAME weighting, despite more people voting in the first constituency than the second, then it would be fair IMHO. That way, elections would not become skewed by heavily-populated urban area votes.

I'd assume that the Parliamentary seat allocations would then be decided on the aggregate percentage of votes cast in each constituency, aggregated across the whole country. I like the idea of that system, although the question of what to do when the results come in (as this will unfailingly lead to a hung Parliament) would not be resolved.

---

K*bots UK, specialist providers of 'fun science' Curriculum Enhancement days for Primary and Secondary schools in Britain.
Please find us on [en.wikipedia.org] for more information.

P.S. I personally feel that any reform of the electoral system should remove the Scottish constituencies from the Houses of Parliament, and allow independent rule in Scotland by the seperately-elected Scottish Parliament.

IMHO the fact that Scottish MPs do not sit on the Scottish Parliament, yet DO sit on the British Parliament - and can influence British politics whereas English MPs cannot influence Scottish politics - is an utterly ridiculous situation.

---

K*bots UK, specialist providers of 'fun science' Curriculum Enhancement days for Primary and Secondary schools in Britain.
Please find us on [en.wikipedia.org] for more information.

But decisions made in the Britiah Parliament effect Scotland. It isn't like we're independent. It should not be a case of removing the Scottish ones, but rather allowing a bit more control from the English ones, like it should be.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

Locke Cole Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> whereas English MPs cannot influence Scottish
> politics - is an utterly ridiculous situation.


Yeah that is an odd one. Works particularly strong where there was heavy Labour support that, when removed, would have altered the outlook.

I wonder how long talks are going to go on for.


Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it

Just how hung is the parliament?

Kx
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whuh whuh whuh...

---