A British General Election

STEED · 10-17-07, 07:42 AM

Where, when and have I got time for another pint? Relax, I was thinking we need two compulsory things, first everyone from 18 to 65 must vote and here is where the second one comes in, you will have the option to a vote of no convinced in the three main party's. That way you can stick it to the big three by saying I've had it up to here with your lies.

I bet all three party's would run a mile from that idea.

AntEater · 10-17-07, 07:58 AM

Sorry to barge into another british topic, but how about changing to proportional representation instead plurality voting?

In a proportional system, the lesser parties always get more votes and while mostly two parties are dominant in that system as well (like in Germany or France), smaller parties can claim sizable amounts of parliamentary seats.
In Germany, we use a proportional system disguised as a part-plurality system. Meaning you elect both a local MP in your district as well as a state list. But the actual number of seats is just derived from the second vote, the district winners just take up the first places of the parliament seats, while the rest is "filled up" with list candidates.
District winners only play a role when a party has more districts than "real" percentage, this leads to "overhead mandates", simply meaning that more seats are added to the parliament.

Captain Nemo · 10-17-07, 08:08 AM

The main argument against proportional representation (PR), and I'm not saying it's a valid one, is that it would result in hung parliaments i.e. no party having overall control to form a government. The Liberal Democrats have argued for PR for many years.

Nemo

Chock · 10-17-07, 08:12 AM

Personally, I have lost interest in the forthcoming general election now that the Lib Dem leader has 'resigned'. I was looking forward to seeing Gordon do battle with Ming, purely for the comedy value. Now that's gone:rotfl:

If only the Tories would get a leader called Doctor Zharkov, I'd regain my interest.

Chock

STEED · 10-17-07, 08:19 AM

Chock, sound like the fourth option is for you, none of the above. :hmm:

Prof · 10-17-07, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by STEED

I was thinking we need two compulsory things, first everyone from 18 to 65 must vote...

Agreed, except that I think everyone over the age of 18 must vote, not just those aged 18-65. There's always the option of proxy or postal voting if a voter cannot make it to a polling station.

Quote:

and here is where the second one comes in, you will have the option to a vote of no convinced in the three main party's. That way you can stick it to the big three by saying I've had it up to here with your lies.

Disagree. If you don't like any of the established parties you are completely free to stand as an independant or form a party of your choosing. The current equivalent of spoiling your ballot is, in my opinion, a dereliction of duty for a voter.

I would NOT like to see PR introduced for the simple reason that I'd rather have a strong government (even if I didn't agree with them) than a weak coalition which couldn't actually do anything.

Captain Nemo · 10-17-07, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prof

Disagree. If you don't like any of the established parties you are completely free to stand as an independant or form a party of your choosing. The current equivalent of spoiling your ballot is, in my opinion, a dereliction of duty for a voter.

But isn't that rather a costly option? Not sure what the cost of the deposit is for standing at an election, but it is a lot more expensive than it used to be.

Nemo

STEED · 10-17-07, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prof

Disagree. If you don't like any of the established parties you are completely free to stand as an independant or form a party of your choosing. The current equivalent of spoiling your ballot is, in my opinion, a dereliction of duty for a voter.

We all know this country is a two party state and the Liberals are a wast of space and any how all the other smaller party's have no hope being voted in to power as the cost of putting up candidates is not cheap. My option gives the voter the chance to wake up change things with the vote of no convinced which will deliver the message we the voter have woken up and we want change.

As things stand those pigs at Westminster are rolling around in the money troff and having a field day making us work for them which is all wrong. They work for us, the whole stinking system needs a kick up the ass and why the heck do we need 600 odd MP's? I said it before and I shall say it again, just look at America they have less than us and America is one big country with different time zones.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/

XabbaRus · 10-17-07, 03:01 PM

We have list system in Scotland for the Scottish parliament.

You choose your consituency member and then vote for who you want as your regional member.

And guess what we have the SNP in power with a minority government. Yep works great.

jumpy · 10-17-07, 03:30 PM

Hehe, I think it's a dangerous thing for everyone between the ages of 18 & whatever, to be compelled to vote. How can you be sure that they will vote the right way?!

Seriously though, given the collective ignorance showed by many citizens of this country an ignorant voter is worse than no vote at all imo.

On the other hand, were compulsory voting to be, it would at least prevent people like tony 'things can only get better' blair from announcing a 'landslide victory' in the last general election when the figures clearly show that less than half of the electorate turned out to vote. It's exactly that kind of rhetoric that fools the ignorant section of the people that I was talking about before...

Another thing that occurs to me is this: If the election result is based on the number of votes having to be a high enough percentage to unquestionably show that one party or candidate was a clear winner, the situation of having the majority marking the ballot paper with 'none of the above' would lead to no-one being elected and so the whole situation would perpetuate itself with a series of failed votes, resulting in election after election and no government would be chosen to run the country.
Whilst this may seem to be the most even means of choosing a government in terms of what the people actually want, in reality I think it would stall any choice for leadership before the race had even begun.

Plato had it right insisting on only those who were educated enough to make logical and informed decisions could vote, having served their time for the state. Leaving aside some of Plato's other ideas regarding the 'perfect society' as ridiculous, I believe true democracy to be a failure when looking at the numbers of people in today's society when compared with the original Greek city state model of two or three thousand years or so ago, for which it was designed.

Chock · 10-17-07, 03:43 PM

Although it very often gets slammed as right wing, I quite like the idea perpetuated in Robert Heinlein's Starships Troopers, whereby only people who have served the state in some form or other for a set number of years earn the right to vote. That way, one could instill a sense of duty and pride in citizens, and they would feel that voting was a privelege and something to be guarded and used for a purpose. If that were the case, politicians would have to work hard to earn something that people really valued.

Not to mention the added bonus that all the freeloaders and junkies would get stuffed over and receive no help whatsoever:rotfl:

Chock

jumpy · 10-17-07, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chock

Robert Heinlein's Starships Troopers

OT
Did he really write that?

Chock · 10-17-07, 04:58 PM

Sure did. The political aspects of the book are somewhat glossed over in the movie version, but there is some info about its dealings with a meritocracy on the Wikipedia page about the book:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers

If you've never read it, you should, it's an entertaining read with some quite likeable pronouncements about common sense politics, as is most of Heinlein's stuff, with even his 'juvenile' novels being more adult than a lot of stuff that is genuinely written for teenagers these days, see 'Starman Jones' for a good example of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starman_Jones

Chock

CB.. · 10-17-07, 07:21 PM

it's all just a circus anyway..you got your government...and you got two other parties trying desperately to appear like they have different polices from the government ..so..they can get to be the government..and implement all the same policies that the government implements..

why bother??? it's not democracy ...it's a pantomime

It's BEHIND you!!! lol

let them play act at being seperate political parties all they like...they are like three polars bears in a snow storm argueing over who has the blackest nose..the country is run by McDonalds as far as i can tell..:p

Hakahura · 10-19-07, 10:22 AM

Flame prevention bump

10-17-07, 07:42 AM	#1
STEED Lucky Jack Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Down Town UK Posts: 27,695 Downloads: 89 Uploads: 48	A British General Election Where, when and have I got time for another pint? Relax, I was thinking we need two compulsory things, first everyone from 18 to 65 must vote and here is where the second one comes in, you will have the option to a vote of no convinced in the three main party's. That way you can stick it to the big three by saying I've had it up to here with your lies. I bet all three party's would run a mile from that idea. __________________ Dr Who rest in peace 1963-2017. To borrow Davros saying...I NAME YOU CHIBNALL THE DESTROYER OF DR WHO YOU KILLED IT!

10-17-07, 07:58 AM	#2
AntEater Grey Wolf Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Germany Posts: 936 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Sorry to barge into another british topic, but how about changing to proportional representation instead plurality voting? In a proportional system, the lesser parties always get more votes and while mostly two parties are dominant in that system as well (like in Germany or France), smaller parties can claim sizable amounts of parliamentary seats. In Germany, we use a proportional system disguised as a part-plurality system. Meaning you elect both a local MP in your district as well as a state list. But the actual number of seats is just derived from the second vote, the district winners just take up the first places of the parliament seats, while the rest is "filled up" with list candidates. District winners only play a role when a party has more districts than "real" percentage, this leads to "overhead mandates", simply meaning that more seats are added to the parliament. __________________

10-17-07, 08:08 AM	#3
Captain Nemo Ace of the Deep Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: London, England Posts: 1,144 Downloads: 54 Uploads: 0	The main argument against proportional representation (PR), and I'm not saying it's a valid one, is that it would result in hung parliaments i.e. no party having overall control to form a government. The Liberal Democrats have argued for PR for many years. Nemo __________________ "I'm afraid there is no disguising the fact that King's obsession with the Pacific and the Battle of Washington cost us dear in the Battle of the Atlantic". Sir John Slessor GCB, DSO, MC, DL AOC-in-C Coastal Command RAF ___________________________________________

10-17-07, 08:12 AM	#4
Chock Sea Lord Join Date: May 2005 Location: Under a thermal layer in chilly Olde England Posts: 1,842 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Personally, I have lost interest in the forthcoming general election now that the Lib Dem leader has 'resigned'. I was looking forward to seeing Gordon do battle with Ming, purely for the comedy value. Now that's gone:rotfl: If only the Tories would get a leader called Doctor Zharkov, I'd regain my interest. Chock __________________

10-17-07, 08:19 AM	#5
STEED Lucky Jack Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Down Town UK Posts: 27,695 Downloads: 89 Uploads: 48	Chock, sound like the fourth option is for you, none of the above. :hmm: __________________ Dr Who rest in peace 1963-2017. To borrow Davros saying...I NAME YOU CHIBNALL THE DESTROYER OF DR WHO YOU KILLED IT!

10-17-07, 03:01 PM	#9
XabbaRus Navy Seal Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 5,330 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	We have list system in Scotland for the Scottish parliament. You choose your consituency member and then vote for who you want as your regional member. And guess what we have the SNP in power with a minority government. Yep works great. __________________

10-17-07, 03:30 PM	#10
jumpy Admiral Join Date: May 2003 Location: Midlands, UK Posts: 2,139 Downloads: 22 Uploads: 0	Hehe, I think it's a dangerous thing for everyone between the ages of 18 & whatever, to be compelled to vote. How can you be sure that they will vote the right way?! Seriously though, given the collective ignorance showed by many citizens of this country an ignorant voter is worse than no vote at all imo. On the other hand, were compulsory voting to be, it would at least prevent people like tony 'things can only get better' blair from announcing a 'landslide victory' in the last general election when the figures clearly show that less than half of the electorate turned out to vote. It's exactly that kind of rhetoric that fools the ignorant section of the people that I was talking about before... Another thing that occurs to me is this: If the election result is based on the number of votes having to be a high enough percentage to unquestionably show that one party or candidate was a clear winner, the situation of having the majority marking the ballot paper with 'none of the above' would lead to no-one being elected and so the whole situation would perpetuate itself with a series of failed votes, resulting in election after election and no government would be chosen to run the country. Whilst this may seem to be the most even means of choosing a government in terms of what the people actually want, in reality I think it would stall any choice for leadership before the race had even begun. Plato had it right insisting on only those who were educated enough to make logical and informed decisions could vote, having served their time for the state. Leaving aside some of Plato's other ideas regarding the 'perfect society' as ridiculous, I believe true democracy to be a failure when looking at the numbers of people in today's society when compared with the original Greek city state model of two or three thousand years or so ago, for which it was designed. __________________ when you’ve been so long in the desert, any water, no matter how brackish, looks like life

10-17-07, 03:43 PM	#11
Chock Sea Lord Join Date: May 2005 Location: Under a thermal layer in chilly Olde England Posts: 1,842 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Although it very often gets slammed as right wing, I quite like the idea perpetuated in Robert Heinlein's Starships Troopers, whereby only people who have served the state in some form or other for a set number of years earn the right to vote. That way, one could instill a sense of duty and pride in citizens, and they would feel that voting was a privelege and something to be guarded and used for a purpose. If that were the case, politicians would have to work hard to earn something that people really valued. Not to mention the added bonus that all the freeloaders and junkies would get stuffed over and receive no help whatsoever:rotfl: Chock __________________

10-17-07, 04:58 PM	#13
Chock Sea Lord Join Date: May 2005 Location: Under a thermal layer in chilly Olde England Posts: 1,842 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Sure did. The political aspects of the book are somewhat glossed over in the movie version, but there is some info about its dealings with a meritocracy on the Wikipedia page about the book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers If you've never read it, you should, it's an entertaining read with some quite likeable pronouncements about common sense politics, as is most of Heinlein's stuff, with even his 'juvenile' novels being more adult than a lot of stuff that is genuinely written for teenagers these days, see 'Starman Jones' for a good example of this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starman_Jones Chock __________________

10-17-07, 07:21 PM	#14
CB.. Ace of the Deep Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: UK Posts: 1,278 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	it's all just a circus anyway..you got your government...and you got two other parties trying desperately to appear like they have different polices from the government ..so..they can get to be the government..and implement all the same policies that the government implements.. why bother??? it's not democracy ...it's a pantomime It's BEHIND you!!! lol let them play act at being seperate political parties all they like...they are like three polars bears in a snow storm argueing over who has the blackest nose..the country is run by McDonalds as far as i can tell..:p __________________ the world's tinyiest sh3 supermod- and other SH3/SH2 stuff http://www.ebort2.co.uk/ The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity. W.B.Yeats

10-19-07, 10:22 AM	#15
Hakahura Grey Wolf Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Posts: 785 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Flame prevention bump __________________ Sir Humphey Appleby, GCB, KBE, MVO and MA. Britain's Greatest Orator, well bar that Churchill fellow.