A Proportional Result: C/D?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Yes, I know we're not short of threads on the Election. Anyway, Dom said yesterday:

Exit Poll:
Labour: 37%
Conservative: 33%
Lib Dem: 22%
Others 8%

Labour: 356 seats
Conservative: 209 seats
Lib Dem: 53 seats
Others 28 seats

So I thought I'd ask the obvious question: would it be a better result for you if they votes went the same way: Labour 239, Conservatives 213, Lib Dems 142, Others 52? Even aside from the question of whether PR would have delivered anything like this, a 57 seat majority for a Labour + Lib Dem alliance is a comfortable enough margin for any form of election that doesn't involve a serious man throwing the Coin of Britain at Speaker's Corner. Or would the effectiveness of the alliance depend on the presence/absence of certain political figures, or indeed even on the electoral system that produced the results?

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Friday, 6 May 2005 12:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Well... one caveat, the parties would get different shares of the vote in a list-based PR election, as no one would vote tactically.

but yeah, two party government better than one, fer shure.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Friday, 6 May 2005 12:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Direct PR would be a bit of a disaster I reckon - there'd be a sprinkling of BNP and no room for independents who, although I don't particularly like any specific ones this time round, do add something. I like the idea of half FPTP / half list version of PR or maybe single transferable vote though.

I think this scenario wouldn't produce an effective government. LDs would go along with loads of Lab policies I personally disagree with and would vote against lots of things I do agree with, and Blair would pay any LD cabinet ministers no attention at all.

― beanz (beanz), Friday, 6 May 2005 12:43 (twenty-one years ago)

I'd suggest we stick with first past the post for the commons, but for the "lords" have a PR system. This would mean that alliances would have to be struck in thes econd chamber to get legislation through. By having FPTP in one allows independents to get in (sometimes) but PR in the other would ensure "fairer" representation and (possibly) more contentious legislation would not get through.

― andyjack (andyjack), Friday, 6 May 2005 13:31 (twenty-one years ago)

Hung Parliament Forever.

― mark grout (mark grout), Friday, 6 May 2005 13:34 (twenty-one years ago)

also it takes a cocking week to count the votes which is NO FUN AT ALL, i want my democracy QUICK. alsoalso, in theory at least, with FPTP you the constituent have a representative that you can go and talk to, rather than perm anyone from six...

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Friday, 6 May 2005 13:41 (twenty-one years ago)

No way Carsmile! the longer the count, the more fun it is. Much more fun.

Also, it is piss quick to count list system votes.

Hung Parliament Forever.

which would lead to the kind of disaster that has happenend in PR countries like Sweden and Norway.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Friday, 6 May 2005 14:28 (twenty-one years ago)

two years pass...

bump

― Grandpont Genie, Monday, 21 April 2008 12:42 (eighteen years ago)

which would lead to the kind of disaster that has happenend in PR countries like Sweden and Norway

what is this disaster of which the Vicar speaks here?

― Grandpont Genie, Monday, 21 April 2008 12:43 (eighteen years ago)

Dude, I was using the irony, a popular rhetorical tool on my planet.

― The Real Dirty Vicar, Monday, 21 April 2008 14:08 (eighteen years ago)

Just because PR works relatively well in Scandinavia doesn't mean it would in the UK. Sweden and Norway have far more consensual socio-political cultures than the UK.

― Zelda Zonk, Monday, 21 April 2008 14:21 (eighteen years ago)

Also do Sweden and Norway generally have dudes dressed as, I dunno, Wombles standing for election?

― Matt DC, Monday, 21 April 2008 14:22 (eighteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.