Sippo
Living in the 80s
Offline
Posts: 15600
I ain't gettin on no plane fool
|
|
« Reply #225 on: Friday, May 7, 2010, 14:51:17 » |
|
This is a mess really isnt it??
An Eton Mess quite literally.
|
|
|
Logged
|
If my calculations are correct, when this baby hits 88 miles per hour, you're gonna see some serious shit...
|
|
|
ghanimah
Offline
Posts: 3639
|
|
« Reply #226 on: Friday, May 7, 2010, 14:56:59 » |
|
One thing that's pretty clear is if the Tories can't win an outright majority against 13-year incumbents, led by one of the most unpopular PMs in memory, on the brink of a massive recession, and with the Lib Dems failing they way they have, they're never going to get a better chance. I reckon Cameron played a big part in the Tories' underperformance, for all he's supposed to be the New Blair, he's massively repellent
Good points, although I think it's worth noting that the Tories' face an inbuilt bias in the electoral system; they have to win something like 2 million more votes to achieve the same number of seats as Labour, and they had to have the biggest swing in modern history to achieve a majority of just one. They always faced an uphill task. Then of course there's the 'UKIP effect', which by my reckoning has cost the Tories about 18 seats in this election. I tried my best in Oxford West but didn't quite manage it.
|
|
|
Logged
|
"We perform the duties of freemen; we must have the privileges of freemen ..."
|
|
|
Samdy Gray
Dirty sneaky traitor weasel
Offline
Posts: 27141
|
|
« Reply #227 on: Friday, May 7, 2010, 14:57:38 » |
|
Yep total. Problem is as far as I can see with PR then it would be like this every time
Well, yes, the whole point of a PR system is that you will very rarely get a single party majority.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Spy
Offline
Posts: 2483
|
|
« Reply #228 on: Friday, May 7, 2010, 15:00:05 » |
|
Well, yes, the whole point of a PR system is that you will very rarely get a single party majority.
The whole point is that the make up of parliament would accurately reflect the votes cast. It's not specifically to avoid single party majoritys.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
pauld
Aaron Aardvark
Offline
Posts: 25436
Absolute Calamity!
|
|
« Reply #229 on: Friday, May 7, 2010, 15:07:42 » |
|
Good points, although I think it's worth noting that the Tories' face an inbuilt bias in the electoral system; they have to win something like 2 million more votes to achieve the same number of seats as Labour, and they had to have the biggest swing in modern history to achieve a majority of just one. They always faced an uphill task.
As they stood as the only major party opposed to electoral reform, you'll forgive me if I use phrases containing the words "hoist" and "petard". And in any case, it's the same system Blair completely smashed the Tories under and for that matter Thatcher smashed Labour under. Cameron is a massive failure before he's even started
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Samdy Gray
Dirty sneaky traitor weasel
Offline
Posts: 27141
|
|
« Reply #230 on: Friday, May 7, 2010, 15:09:52 » |
|
The whole point is that the make up of parliament would accurately reflect the votes cast.
It's not specifically to avoid single party majoritys.
I didn't mean the specfic point of PR is to avoid a majority, moreso that it's a by-product of the effect of the system.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Spy
Offline
Posts: 2483
|
|
« Reply #231 on: Friday, May 7, 2010, 15:16:58 » |
|
You said it was "the whole point" but I guess that was just a figure of speech. Yes, it is a by-product.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Colin Todd
Offline
Posts: 3318
|
|
« Reply #232 on: Friday, May 7, 2010, 15:18:25 » |
|
Surely PR must mean that some regions end up getting represented by MP's who
A. Have nothing to do with that area (ok, some are like that under the current system) B. Are not representing the largest party as voted for by the people of that area
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Doore
|
|
« Reply #233 on: Friday, May 7, 2010, 16:52:03 » |
|
Surely PR must mean that some regions end up getting represented by MP's who
A. Have nothing to do with that area (ok, some are like that under the current system) B. Are not representing the largest party as voted for by the people of that area
Yes - no electoral system is perfect. 30 million voters cannot be crammed into a perfect system. Speaking from a personal point of view, as a non-Tory in a constituency that has been held continuously by the tories since the 1880s, my vote under the current system was, in effect, irrelevant. Yes I voted anyway, I think its a responsibility. Under a PR system, in a very small way, my vote would have made a difference.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Simon Pieman
Original Wanker
Offline
Posts: 36319
|
|
« Reply #234 on: Friday, May 7, 2010, 17:10:56 » |
|
Doesn't it all depend on what form of PR would be in place? If there was no link between constituency and MP then a Tory-vote in a non-Tory constituency would cancel your vote out.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Doore
|
|
« Reply #235 on: Friday, May 7, 2010, 17:36:48 » |
|
Doesn't it all depend on what form of PR would be in place? If there was no link between constituency and MP then a Tory-vote in a non-Tory constituency would cancel your vote out.
Under the single transferable vote system (which is in no way perfect) you get a constituency link and some proportionality.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
A Gent Orange
|
|
« Reply #236 on: Friday, May 7, 2010, 17:38:54 » |
|
This is where multi-member constituencies come in. Under that system each (larger) constituency has say four or five MPs. This makes it far more likely that you'll have an MP of you party representing you and still have the local tie to an area. So people feel that their vote counts as they feel represented.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Talk Talk
|
|
« Reply #237 on: Friday, May 7, 2010, 19:34:35 » |
|
Thank fuck it's over. It makes no odds to me who got elected/what coalition is best/who has the best smile on TV. They are all shits.
What I do like though is that nAnny Snelgrove has gone. "Tears in her eyes" at the count apparently. Great, I wish I had been there to see it. Good riddance you venal grasping selfish cunt.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
pauld
Aaron Aardvark
Offline
Posts: 25436
Absolute Calamity!
|
|
« Reply #238 on: Friday, May 7, 2010, 19:38:17 » |
|
What I do like though is that nAnny Snelgrove has gone. "Tears in her eyes" at the count apparently. Great, I wish I had been there to see it. Good riddance you venal grasping selfish cunt.
Still bitter about losing your deposit last time round then? I see one of your lot stood in Devizes and got a similar spanking - only just beat "spoilt ballots"
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lumps
|
|
« Reply #239 on: Friday, May 7, 2010, 19:51:58 » |
|
Good points, although I think it's worth noting that the Tories' face an inbuilt bias in the electoral system; they have to win something like 2 million more votes to achieve the same number of seats as Labour, and they had to have the biggest swing in modern history to achieve a majority of just one. They always faced an uphill task.
Then of course there's the 'UKIP effect', which by my reckoning has cost the Tories about 18 seats in this election. I tried my best in Oxford West but didn't quite manage it.
You're deluded if you think that all the votes thrown to UKIP / BNP / ED and other assorted right wing nut jobs were all at the expense of the Tories.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|