General election results 2015

[french frank]

The only thing that counts in the system is a vote 'for'.

But it is, precisely, the system that many people oppose. Just pointing out that 'that's how the system works' doesn't address the problem.

[MrGongGong]

But it is, precisely, the system that many people oppose. Just pointing out that 'that's how the system works' doesn't address the problem.

Exactly

It's not as if there aren't any other systems that could be adopted

[P. G. Tipps]

So, who should form the Government in this scenario? Perhaps a coalition of the tea-drinkers, the walkers and the Parisophiles? But how is this fair to the 85% (bathers, tea-drinkers and walkers) who can't stand Paris? Or to the 80% who only drink coffee?

Believe me, you are wasting your precious time ...

Some members just can't see the glaringly, blindingly obvious no matter how many times you point out that their argument over so-called 'against' votes must apply in every direction and, therefore, their case immediately self-destructs on that alone.

There's maybe a lot to be said for being a Simpleton, after all? :laugh:

[MrGongGong]

Some members just can't see the glaringly, blindingly obvious no matter how many times you point out that their argument over so-called 'against' votes must apply in every direction and, therefore, their case immediately self-destructs on that alone.

No it doesn't at all.


(and anyway shouldn't you be on the streets of Ireland trying to stop their descent into hell? ;-) :Peacedovethingy: )

[ahinton]

The REASON why people vote IS irrelevant

Not to those who vote, it isn't! Were that not the case, people wouldn't even HAVE a reason to vote, would they?!

The only thing that counts in the system is a vote 'for'.

More often that not, to be sure, but not when sufficient tactical votes succeed in keeping a candidate out of office.

There is no 'maybe' or 'against' facility.

We all know that, but the "facility" concerned does not prevent tactical voting.

You may (and do) deplore the fact that FPTP is not wholly representative of all votes cast and I've already acknowledged that point is completely valid. I think even 'simpletons' might understand that! However, we do not have a proportional system, as you are well aware, so there is no point in anyone moaning that it is 'unfair' when, under FPTP, it was fair to all parties! I do wonder if there would have been the same hullabaloo in some quarters if Labour had romped home with a thumping majority under the same system? I'm not insinuating you, yourself, exist in those quarters as it is well-known which party you promote!

I cannot agree with the second part of this. I have never voted Labour, but the unfairness to the Labour Party that resulted from, on the one hand, a greater increase in votes cast for it this time around than that for the Conservatives but, on the other, a difference in their seats of around 100 is clearly unfair. I have certainly never supported UKIP but, again, polling almost 4m votes (more than one third of the number polled by the Conservatives) and being represented by just a single seat is surely the height of unfairness to that party. The LibDems, disastrous as their result has been, still have four times as many seats as UKIP and the Greens together have, yet their vote count is in between those of the Greens and UKIP. It's certainly nothing to do with personal support for or animosity towards any particular party that prompts me to write as I have about this.

I am sure that I am far from alone here or elsewhere in considering the system under which elections in general and this most recent one in particular to have been unfair in varying degrees to most parties on most occasions; I admit that I do not know what the best alternative system should be, but it would need to be far less dependent upon advantages gainable from the arbitrary nature of boundary changes and far more geared towards proportional representation of some workable kind.

On this occasion I'll willingly decline to give a response to my own question as it clearly would be a completely useless exercise as far as some here are concerned? Maybe this forum could be sponsored by Specsavers ... ?

Maybe you should have the courtesy to leave forum sponsorship decisions to FF?

[P. G. Tipps]

But it is, precisely, the system that many people oppose. Just pointing out that 'that's how the system works' doesn't address the problem.

You miss my point. No one (certainly not myself) has denied that a proportional voting system is undoubtedly the fairest method to achieve more accurate representation. However as has been said before, when choosing effective Government there might be other and even better alternatives. Ask the Italians. So your 'problem' doesn't seem to be shared by everyone!

Surely the aim is to achieve a Government that is effective and installing the party which is the most popular (most seats/votes) is certainly one way of trying to attain that. It might interest some here (or may not) that I also used my vote tactically by voting Lib Dem at the Election ... a close friend of mine told me he did exactly the same. As far as I was concerned, and as a passionate pro-European, it was the least worst choice, especially as the sitting MP is George Osborne! I wanted to help give him a bloody nose though I knew that was highly unlikely. So smaller parties gain from tactical voting more than the Big Two, I suspect. Nevertheless, my reason for voting the way I did under FPTP was irrelevant ... I was simply asked to choose a single candidate like everyone else. We might all have very different reasons for our voting choices, and that would still be the case under PR, but in a much more complicated and convoluted manner, ending up with a Government that nobody really wanted and never voted for. Naturally, I'm forced to repeat myself here!

The 'irrelevance' of 'reason for voting' does not of course apply to the individual but to the system itself which is only concerned with the voter plumping for their favourite party candidate (or least despised!) and providing a clear result for whatever party at the end. That's all.

Whilst this system is far from perfect it does have a lot going for it and has clear advantages over its PR alternatives, imho. Some may well argue the FPTP system itself is 'unfair' but given it appears to have broad acceptance by the public given all opinion polls (oops!) and the recent referendum, the Election result certainly wasn't ...

Until there is significant demand from the public for a change to PR the current system can only be deemed to be 'fair and democratic' as the current system is the very will of the people before they actually enter a polling booth (or not!).

However, we are never going to agree on this, are we ... ?

[Flosshilde]

What is an 'effective government'?

[P. G. Tipps]

Maybe you should have the courtesy to leave forum sponsorship decisions to FF?

It was a joke, ahinton ... unlike yourself, I'm sure FF realised that even if she wasn't particularly amused ... :smiley:

[P. G. Tipps]

What is an 'effective government'?

The one we have now, Flossie! :devil:

[ahinton]

It was a joke, ahinton ... unlike yourself, I'm sure FF realised that even if she wasn't particularly amused ... :smiley:

Maybe you should have gone to Vision Express (espressing some vision might not come amiss)...

[ahinton]

The one we have now, Flossie! :devil:

How can you tell? It's only been in office for a fortnight!

[David-G]

But it is, precisely, the system that many people oppose. Just pointing out that 'that's how the system works' doesn't address the problem.

Sorry, I have lost the thread here. What is precisely the system that many people oppose?

[Bryn]

Sorry, I have lost the thread here. What is precisely the system that many people oppose?

The antidemocratic first past the post voting system, I think.

[P. G. Tipps]

The antidemocratic first past the post voting system, I think.

'Many' people may well oppose it but clearly a much greater number seem distinctly unconcerned?

One does sometimes wonder who are the real 'anti-democrats' here!

[ahinton]

The antidemocratic first past the post voting system, I think.

Indeed so; I'm not sure that it was ever deliberately ntended to be anti-democratic but there's now ample evidence that it is so in practice, perhaps none more obviously so than the results of the most recent General Election..