ChatterBank7 mins ago
Referendum
16 Answers
The referendum on the English voting system to be held in May is giving a choice of First Past The Post (present system) & Alternative Voting (A/V) could someone please explain to me why we are not being given the choice of voting for Proportional Representation (P/R) which I understand quite a lot of electors would like to see ? Also do A/Bers think that voting in a general election should be made compulsary in law as I believe it is in Australia ?
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by whiskeryron. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
In the UK voters do not elect a government. They elect Members of Parliament to represent their interests at Westminster and those members select a government. PR cannot accommodate this. Parties would select the members of Parliament in numbers proportional to the number of votes cast for them. The electorate would thus lose the link between themselves and the person they elected – a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs in my view. Further, it would make the election of Independent MPs virtually impossible. An added disadvantage is that it would lead to a permanently “hung” Parliament, and a permanent Coalition government and we’ve seen recently just how well that works.
The vote on May 5th is one of the manifestations of such a government. The Conservatives (the Party with the greatest number of seats) would not ordinarily entertain such a change and, despite their last minute conversion to voting reform, neither would the Labour Party if they told the truth. It was just one part of the hefty price the Tories paid for the LibDems’ support.
Compulsory voting is not a very good idea. Large numbers of people do not appear on the electoral role for various reasons despite registration being compulsory. Large numbers of people will not have taken part in the recent Census for largely the same various reasons. To suggest that the country has the will and the ability to force people to vote when we cannot even get them to register their whereabouts is somewhat foolish. Even if it could be enforced there is nothing to stop voters simply spoiling their papers or popping them into the ballot box empty (unless, of course, we are to have an official standing over them whilst they vote and thus end the principle of a secret ballot).
The vote on May 5th is one of the manifestations of such a government. The Conservatives (the Party with the greatest number of seats) would not ordinarily entertain such a change and, despite their last minute conversion to voting reform, neither would the Labour Party if they told the truth. It was just one part of the hefty price the Tories paid for the LibDems’ support.
Compulsory voting is not a very good idea. Large numbers of people do not appear on the electoral role for various reasons despite registration being compulsory. Large numbers of people will not have taken part in the recent Census for largely the same various reasons. To suggest that the country has the will and the ability to force people to vote when we cannot even get them to register their whereabouts is somewhat foolish. Even if it could be enforced there is nothing to stop voters simply spoiling their papers or popping them into the ballot box empty (unless, of course, we are to have an official standing over them whilst they vote and thus end the principle of a secret ballot).
Thank you for your answer New Judge, my problem is that I'm not happy with party politics where it is of no consequence to like & support a certain politition who lets face it is told by someone else how he will behave & what line he must follow.Before I retired I was in the printing trade & I was a member of a printing union,I was apalled to discover that in a general election my union was giving block votes to the labour party without consulting me or any of my colleagues which to me made a mockery of the voting system, so you can see that my idea of a fair alternative would be for everyone to elect a member of parliament directly without the consraints of party politics.Ron.
I think you may be mistaken about the unions’ “block vote” arrangements, Ron.
Such votes are not cast for candidates in the General Election but are cast for positions in the Labour Party (usually the leader). In fact, having not followed Labour Party protocol much I’m not sure that it is still done at all, but it was certainly never done to cast votes in the General Election. In that election only registered individuals are entitled to vote.
Such votes are not cast for candidates in the General Election but are cast for positions in the Labour Party (usually the leader). In fact, having not followed Labour Party protocol much I’m not sure that it is still done at all, but it was certainly never done to cast votes in the General Election. In that election only registered individuals are entitled to vote.
The list system is the one used in Israel. Many people claim it is the most democratic you can get. Each party has a list of names, and every block of ( say ) 50,000 votes earns a seat. Names are ticked off from the top of the list downwards, so top names get seats. Top names are put there by the party bigwigs, so all their pals always get elected, come what may. But no "elected" member of the Knesset ever represents a constituency.
But the HUGE problem in Israel is that groups with very little national support can get a few members elected - such as religious parties. The list system can never result in a total majority for one party, so coalitions always have to be formed. And almost always, tiny parties can hold the balance of power. The religious parties can say to the big parties, "we'll put you in power if you give us special rights, if you make the whole population ( religious or not ) obey religious rules, about food, sabbath, religious holidays, etc etc etc "
If we had that system, imagine the BNP holding the balance of power. It could happen.
But the HUGE problem in Israel is that groups with very little national support can get a few members elected - such as religious parties. The list system can never result in a total majority for one party, so coalitions always have to be formed. And almost always, tiny parties can hold the balance of power. The religious parties can say to the big parties, "we'll put you in power if you give us special rights, if you make the whole population ( religious or not ) obey religious rules, about food, sabbath, religious holidays, etc etc etc "
If we had that system, imagine the BNP holding the balance of power. It could happen.
Which while, if it happens, is better then being forced to vote for an individual, is as pointless as going to deliberately spoil a ballot paper. The government knows why turn out is low, it's because many don't feel their vote means anything. They feel disenfranchised. Nigh never asked about issues, they get a ballot every so often to vote for an elite to rule in their stead. An elite that aren't even obliged to keep to their stated aims.
1 to 16 of 16
Latest Posts
ChatterBank8 mins ago
Iwant To Make My Wishes About End Of My...
Law11 mins ago
Technology23 mins ago
