Green MP
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Adrian on 7 May 2010 06:19 ChelseaTractorMan <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>The problem is that people shout about the national vote %age as if it's >>relevant. It isn't. We don't vote nationally for a government. We vote >>locally for an MP. >> >>There's 650 local elections, with the government being formed by the >>party who win most of them. >> >>It's really not a very difficult concept. > we all understand how the current system works, that isn't the problem. > The problem is it does not result in fair proportional representation of > peoples voting. Its not a difficult concept. OK, but let's not forget that a straight %age vote/seat allocation would have seen the BNP get about half a dozen seats last time.
From: ChelseaTractorMan on 7 May 2010 06:27 On 7 May 2010 10:06:19 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: >The BNP have no seats. > >The Greens have one seat. >The BNP got twice the vote of the Greens. > >The DUP have eight seats. >The BNP got four times the vote of the DUP. > >The SNP and DUP together have fourteen seats. >The BNP have almost as many votes as the DUP & SNP together. > >Discuss. I do not think the electerol system should be designed to exlude a point of view, it should be designed to represent the people. If the BNP had a small role in parliament it might have two effects:- a) show them up for what they are b) make thick rascist thugs who vote for them less angry. It would also force the major parties to stop ignoring the perfectly valid view of poor british born people that they are disadvantaged in access to services by large influxes of immigration instead of labelling them rascists. But in any case theres no reason you have to transfer votes to a party that didn't win any seats outright. -- Mike. .. . Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.
From: ChelseaTractorMan on 7 May 2010 06:32 On 7 May 2010 10:18:00 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> The SNP etc will *win* seats outright anyway. > >So you're not looking at a straightforward %age PR, but a mixed-bag of >FPTP and a bit of PR to try to compensate? isn't that what countries do? You elect MPs, then you top it up by various methods to compensate. -- Mike. .. . Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.
From: Adrian on 7 May 2010 06:32 ChelseaTractorMan <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>Discuss. > I do not think the electerol system should be designed to exlude a point > of view, it should be designed to represent the people. And how better than by dividing the country up into easily comprehended, human-scale areas and getting each area to pick one person to represent them and their local issues directly? > It would also force the major parties to stop ignoring the perfectly > valid view of poor british born people that they are disadvantaged in > access to services by large influxes of immigration instead of labelling > them rascists. This isn't the thread, but that's complete and utter bollocks. > But in any case theres no reason you have to transfer votes to a party > that didn't win any seats outright. Surely that completely negates the point of PR?
From: Adrian on 7 May 2010 06:33
ChelseaTractorMan <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> The SNP etc will *win* seats outright anyway. >>So you're not looking at a straightforward %age PR, but a mixed-bag of >>FPTP and a bit of PR to try to compensate? > isn't that what countries do? You elect MPs, then you top it up by > various methods to compensate. "Compensate" or "massage until you get the result you want"? |