If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
It's all wrong in my opininon. The first past the post system which we employ isn't right in my opinion, and I feel it would be better to use the proportional representation system whereby if you get 20% of the votes the party would get 20 seats in parliament, 5% would get 5 seats for example and so on.
I think this would be much fairer than the current system for several reasons:
1) As it stands, the smaller parties have little chance of getting a seat. The green party for example got 1 seat in parliament with 258'000 votes. This is a minute amount of votes when considering the 3 main parties...however, the fact that UKIP got around 917'000 votes, and did not get 1 single seat, this points to an unfair system. Likewise, the green party could argue it is unfair that they just got the 1 seat, when Irish party "Sinn Fein" got 5 seats with just 171,000 votes.
2) A party theoretically can have the 2nd highest amount of votes and have not even a single member of parliament. The reason is, in every area, they could come 2nd, and therefore have a massive amount of votes, and so a massive number of peorple across the country supporting their policies. However, because they did not come first in any area, they would not have a single member of parliament.
3) A huge amount of votes are "wasted." If say in one area 5000 people vote Labour, then 5001 people vote Conservative, then those 5000 votes for Labour immediately become worthless, they can have no further effect on who will get into power. They can only ever influence who gets that 1 seat in Parliament. Also, if in one area, 9999 people vote Labour, and only 1 votes conservative, then that is still only 1 seat for Labour in Parliament. So that marginal victory for conservative is worth exactly the same as the massive win for labour when it comes to who gets into power.
4) Similar to the above, but if you live in what is considered a "safe area" for a certain party, then your vote is almost pointless. For example, my friend lives in Stoke, specifically in an area where Conservative has gotten in since voting began. Conservative have got in this time also, and I would bet everything I have on them getting in that area next election. What this means is that, unless he moves house, then even if he massively disagrees with Conservatives policies, his vote is effectively worthless. It won't have any impact on who gets into parliament unless if there is a massive change of opinion in that area.
Also, slightly off the topic off the system for voting, but I think that every vote should have an intelligence test attatched to it, and anyone who fails it, their vote should be disregarded. By this I mean, you should put a cross next to the party you want; however after this, there shuld be the three main policies of all the parties which you are allowed to vote for. You should have to then highlight the policies which apply to the party you have voted for. If you are unable to do this correctly, then your vote does not count.
The reason I say this is that there is a scarily large number of people round my college who don't seem to know why they voted for the party they did. Some seemed to just do it at random when they got into the poll booth, or just picked the party based on if they like the party's colours (tat's genuinely what I heard one girl say):huuh:
Anyway, what are your opinions of the voting systems. Which one is best? and do you think that the first past the post system is fair? Obviously there must be some advantages to it otherwise it would never have been implimented in the first place.
I kind of agree with all of your points apart from the last one. You can't quiz people in order to vote. Everyone deserves an equal right to vote and by testing people on party policies will discriminate against certain people. It is the responsibility of the public to engage in politics and select a party based on whatever is important to them. Unfortunately you cannot enforce it and there will always be people who aren't interested and just vote for the sake of it or choose a party because the candidate is fit or purple is their favourite colour.
I get as frustrated with it as you do but the only way to stop it is to educate and engage, not only allow people to vote if they score well on a test.
Invention, my dear friends, is 93% perspiration, 6% electricity, 4% evaporation, and 2% butterscotch ripple.
~
The truth is out there...anybody got the URL?
~
Don't forget to be awesome.
The British voting system is considered weird. The only problem with changing it is that fiddling with the system basically means fiddling with the results. After all, everyone knows who's to gain and who's to lose from any possible change.
So it's a headache to reach an agreement between everyone, and letting the ruling party make that change doesn't smell all that good...
this basically explains the voting system to a tee. and it is weird, and i think that we should vote separately for our prime minister than for our local mp. in my area, i would have voted tory, but for the whole country, i really wouldn't have.
this basically explains the voting system to a tee. and it is weird, and i think that we should vote separately for our prime minister than for our local mp. in my area, i would have voted tory, but for the whole country, i really wouldn't have.
Haha, you just wanted an excuse to post a video of your creepy fangirl crush
~jokes
Invention, my dear friends, is 93% perspiration, 6% electricity, 4% evaporation, and 2% butterscotch ripple.
~
The truth is out there...anybody got the URL?
~
Don't forget to be awesome.
Today's Toppers
Voting System in the UK
