If you could change the voting system what would you do?

DonDaddyD

Lets rewind time a bit.

Local and General Election looms. Despite my general election leanings the Lib Dem candidate for Wimbledon seemed really good for the area (plus she promised to end permit parking for residents). The Labour guys appeared to be Tories but ten years younger, the Tory candidate (who won) I wasn't 'feeling' so I voted Lib Dem.

This was fine in terms of the General Election because at the time I really didn't want to vote Labour or Tory. However when the results came out I quickly realised that no matter what or who I voted for my vote could not impact either the Local election or the General election.

The Tory candidate was always going to win and this was shown in the results.
Stephen Hammond Conservative 23,257 49.1 +7.7
Shas Sheehan Liberal Democrat 11,849 25.0 +6.8
Andrew Judge Labour 10,550 22.3 -13.4

After seeing the above I honestly felt that voting was about as effective as not voting.

So I ask, what would you do to change the current election system?

Agent57

Musical chairs.

Gussio

Last man standing in the fighting cage wins.

jonginge

Move to a marginal seat

t0pc4t

I'd rejig so that my vote counted and nobody else's did

Ginjafro

As Ken Livingstone once wrote, "If Voting Changed Anything They'd Abolish It".

asprilla

So you live in an affluent area of London and are surprised to have a Tory MP and Council?

In other news all bears are catholic and the pope shits in the woods.

Or something like that.

The only change I would make would be a move to proportional representation of some kind.

EKE_38BPM

After a coup d'etat install myself as Supreme Dictator.
No more voting after that.

Who wants to be transport minister?

alfablue

In all my (many) years of voting, I have never lived in a constituency where my preferred vote would count (I left Merton Park before 18, then Sutton, Epsom, Carshalton, then Bath). I have sometimes voted on principle, and more recently tactically - unfortunately my latest tactical vote, whilst electing the candidate I voted for, not only failed to keep the Tories out, indeed, he helped to get the Tories in!!!

One benefit of the current coalition is the proposed electoral reform vote - there are 2 problems however: AV is not a proportional system, and the Lib Dems failed to get an agreement from the tories to support the proposal, it will therefore fail.

I would like a system that preserves a local link, preserves the ability to vote for named candidates, yet reflects the views of people such as myself who live in areas where there is an almost permanent single political colour on the electoral map.

I think such a system would need larger constituencies that returned several representatives on a proportional basis, reflecting both the largest vote and significant minority votes.

Jay dubbleU

Exclude anybody who didn't own property worth more than £10 and a goat

saltski

Russian Roulette

EKE_38BPM

alfablue wrote:

I would like a system that preserves a local link, preserves the ability to vote for named candidates, yet reflects the views of people such as myself who live in areas where there is an almost permanent single political colour on the electoral map.

I think such a system would need larger constituencies that returned several representatives on a proportional basis, reflecting both the largest vote and significant minority votes.

+1

If my coup d'etat didn't work I'd go with Alfablue's proposal.

DonDaddyD

EKE_38BPM wrote:

alfablue wrote:

I would like a system that preserves a local link, preserves the ability to vote for named candidates, yet reflects the views of people such as myself who live in areas where there is an almost permanent single political colour on the electoral map.

I think such a system would need larger constituencies that returned several representatives on a proportional basis, reflecting both the largest vote and significant minority votes.

+1

If my coup d'etat didn't work I'd go with Alfablue's proposal.

Named candidates and larger constituencies.

Named candidates:

I don't agree with, people (business psychology lecture) tend to vote for (i) the younger and (ii) more attractive candidate. I really don't think it should be about names, Cameron told his more posh Tories to drop their double barrelled last names as it seperates them from working class England. All of this I don't agree with you vote for the political position and policy not the name or image or preference of the person.

It's like all those people who said they didn't vote for Gordon Brown, they didn't and they didn't vote for Blair either. They voted for labour.

Larger constituencies
This runs the risk of drowning out the socio-economically deprived areas. as long as it doesn't do that so that the less affluent aren't marginalised then I'm all for it.

SmellTheGlove

As well as a vote for named candidates, also allow voting for "none of the above". If "none of the above" wins, all candidates are invited back to try harder in two weeks time until an outcome is reached.
If "none of the above" continues to rule the roost then organised parties can sod off and leave it to the "big society" to sort stuff out. That is the point isn't it?

neiltb

red button on your TV remote on a Sat night instead of the lottery.

alfablue

Named candidates: I have sympathy with your view here, but this is overridden by the fact that there will be occasions when there will be candidates from my preferred party who I will think are utterly unsuitable / undesirable. A "no name" vote would allow dreadful / corrupt mp's to have a life-long career in a safe constituency with little ability for the voter to influence their selection, as this will be done by the party.

There are also candidates that may have a special interest or experience that voters will value and wish to vote for, regardless of party. A "no name" system also would have the undesirable effect of removing all independence of mp's in parliament (okay, arguably there is little at the moment, but some mp's do vote with their convictions and retain the party whip).

Larger constituencies: I tend to agree here, but in order to get proportionality on a local basis there is no alternative that I can see (other than increasing the total number of MP's many times), maybe there is a minimal increase in constituency size that will allow this that will be acceptable.

BTW, the Tories are proposing to enlarge constituencies - Labour see this as a way of removing some safe seats from them.

spen666

alfablue wrote:

In all my (many) years of voting, I have never lived in a constituency where my preferred vote would count (I left Merton Park before 18, then Sutton, Epsom, Carshalton, then Bath). I have sometimes voted on principle, and more recently tactically - unfortunately my latest tactical vote, whilst electing the candidate I voted for, not only failed to keep the Tories out, indeed, he helped to get the Tories in!!!

One benefit of the current coalition is the proposed electoral reform vote - there are 2 problems however: AV is not a proportional system, and the Lib Dems failed to get an agreement from the tories to support the proposal, it will therefore fail.

I would like a system that preserves a local link, preserves the ability to vote for named candidates, yet reflects the views of people such as myself who live in areas where there is an almost permanent single political colour on the electoral map.

So you want a system where the views of the majority are ignored in favour of your views??????????????????????????????????????????????????


The reason there is a single colour on the electoral map where you live is because the majority of the local people who vote have done so for the same party.

Are you seriously objecting to the most popular candidate/ party winning?

I think such a system would need larger constituencies that returned several representatives on a proportional basis, reflecting both the largest vote and significant minority votes.

Big Wib

SmellTheGlove wrote:

As well as a vote for named candidates, also allow voting for "none of the above". If "none of the above" wins, all candidates are invited back to try harder in two weeks time until an outcome is reached.
If "none of the above" continues to rule the roost then organised parties can sod off and leave it to the "big society" to sort stuff out. That is the point isn't it?

+1 (with my second vote going to + lots)

alfablue

spen666 wrote:

alfablue wrote:

In all my (many) years of voting, I have never lived in a constituency where my preferred vote would count (I left Merton Park before 18, then Sutton, Epsom, Carshalton, then Bath). I have sometimes voted on principle, and more recently tactically - unfortunately my latest tactical vote, whilst electing the candidate I voted for, not only failed to keep the Tories out, indeed, he helped to get the Tories in!!!

One benefit of the current coalition is the proposed electoral reform vote - there are 2 problems however: AV is not a proportional system, and the Lib Dems failed to get an agreement from the tories to support the proposal, it will therefore fail.

I would like a system that preserves a local link, preserves the ability to vote for named candidates, yet reflects the views of people such as myself who live in areas where there is an almost permanent single political colour on the electoral map.

So you want a system where the views of the majority are ignored in favour of your views??????????????????????????????????????????????????


The reason there is a single colour on the electoral map where you live is because the majority of the local people who vote have done so for the same party.

Are you seriously objecting to the most popular candidate/ party winning?

I think such a system would need larger constituencies that returned several representatives on a proportional basis, reflecting both the largest vote and significant minority votes.

No, I do not want the majority view ignored in preference to mine :roll:

In many constituencies (and in the country as a whole) the winner does not have a majority, they will have the largest share of the vote (but not necessarily a majority share of the vote). Often, as many as 60% of voters are unrepresented. At the moment the majority view IS ignored.

You are clearly a first-past-the-post person, you will not agree with someone who favours a system that represents the voters in a more proportionate way.

alfablue

Bath 2010

Liberal Democrat
45.4%
Conservative
31.9%
Labour
14.4%
Others
8.3%

So 54.6% (i.e. the majority) are NOT represented. There are some much more striking examples than this.

t0pc4t

EKE_38BPM wrote:

After a coup d'etat install myself as Supreme Dictator.
No more voting after that.

Who wants to be transport minister?

I'd like to be chief of secret police if you don't mind. I have my own baton

cjcp

All London constiutuencies to be decided by an SCR-style showdown. Start from the ramp down from Blackfrairs and first one to Battersea Bridge wins.

This would get everyone involved in the GE - it could be like the prologue in the Giro a few years ago, which was held at night, or like a Nocturne. There could be fireworks and riverboat parties all the way along to BB.

cjcp

t0pc4t wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

After a coup d'etat install myself as Supreme Dictator.
No more voting after that.

Who wants to be transport minister?

I'd like to be chief of secret police if you don't mind. I have my own baton

greg66_tri_v2.0

The FCN index goes to what, 20?

Here goes:

1. Take your FCN number.
2. Multiply it by 50. Call that Z
3. Calculate 1000-Z. Call that V
4. V is the number of votes you have.

This will ensure those who appreciate fine equipment get the biggest say in life, which is plainly and obviously correct.

It will also ensure that the hybrid-riding pannier-lugging secret Trotskyite sympathisers are consigned to the waste bin of electoral muteness.

Addendum: you get an extra 1000 votes per car you own. About time the lentil-feasting tree huggers were put back in their boxes.

jonginge

cjcp wrote:

t0pc4t wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

After a coup d'etat install myself as Supreme Dictator.
No more voting after that.

Who wants to be transport minister?

I'd like to be chief of secret police if you don't mind. I have my own baton

And given your avatar you also have a Magnum.




mmmm, Magnum

gtvlusso

No women or ethnic minorities.......



As we have evolved from vile prejudice and discrimination, thankfully, I would make everyone wear a microchip that could read your thoughts and translate them into a vote.......i.e. what you thought about picked the party for you and made the appropriate vote.

#vote Playboy!

spen666

alfablue wrote:

spen666 wrote:

alfablue wrote:

In all my (many) years of voting, I have never lived in a constituency where my preferred vote would count (I left Merton Park before 18, then Sutton, Epsom, Carshalton, then Bath). I have sometimes voted on principle, and more recently tactically - unfortunately my latest tactical vote, whilst electing the candidate I voted for, not only failed to keep the Tories out, indeed, he helped to get the Tories in!!!

One benefit of the current coalition is the proposed electoral reform vote - there are 2 problems however: AV is not a proportional system, and the Lib Dems failed to get an agreement from the tories to support the proposal, it will therefore fail.

I would like a system that preserves a local link, preserves the ability to vote for named candidates, yet reflects the views of people such as myself who live in areas where there is an almost permanent single political colour on the electoral map.

So you want a system where the views of the majority are ignored in favour of your views??????????????????????????????????????????????????


The reason there is a single colour on the electoral map where you live is because the majority of the local people who vote have done so for the same party.

Are you seriously objecting to the most popular candidate/ party winning?

I think such a system would need larger constituencies that returned several representatives on a proportional basis, reflecting both the largest vote and significant minority votes.

No, I do not want the majority view ignored in preference to mine :roll:

In many constituencies (and in the country as a whole) the winner does not have a majority, they will have the largest share of the vote (but not necessarily a majority share of the vote). Often, as many as 60% of voters are unrepresented. At the moment the majority view IS ignored.

You are clearly a first-past-the-post person, you will not agree with someone who favours a system that represents the voters in a more proportionate way.

Interesting how you have managed to jump to an assumption about my views. The fact you are completely wrong shouldn't be a bar to your assumption.

How about having a truly proportionate system where say in a constituentcy you get a result as follows

Conservative 40%
Labour 30%
Lib Dems 20%
BNP 2%
SWP 2%
Al Quaeda Party 1%
Spoilt Ballots 5%

Should we have Conservative MP on 2/5 days per week.
Labour 1.5 days per week
Lib Dems 1 day per week

BNP for 1/10th of a day
SWP 1/10th of a day
etc


What happens if the 1/20th of the day the Al Quaeda chap is your MP is the day they vote on the terrorism legislation and he votes against it so his mates can carry on bombing (guest starring Sid James, Barbara Windsor and Hattie Jacques)

Stupid scenario? But if you do not allow the BNP etc their fraction of a day you are denying their supporters democractic view

DonDaddyD

I think all the MPs and the Prime Minister should be put on 12month contracts!

Can't see why they would complain a 12 month contract is better than 3 months notice.

12 being bigger than 3 you see.



Still makes no sense to me.

DonDaddyD

On a serious note, how do you go about voting the local MPs in without that translating into the party getting into power.

The thing is I'd vote for the Wimbledon Lib Dem candidate again, but I don't actually want Nick Clegg in power or the Lib Dems to lead the Country.

Paulie W

alfablue wrote:

Bath 2010

Liberal Democrat
45.4%
Conservative
31.9%
Labour
14.4%
Others
8.3%

So 54.6% (i.e. the majority) are NOT represented. There are some much more striking examples than this.

It's actually much worse than this because turnout was only around 70% so the winner had the vote of less than a third of eligible voters in the constituency (which is not of course counting those who didnt register to vote which has been suggested might be as high as 25% of the eligible voters).

spen666

DonDaddyD wrote:

I think all the MPs and the Prime Minister should be put on 12month contracts!

Can't see why they would complain a 12 month contract is better than 3 months notice.

12 being bigger than 3 you see.



Still makes no sense to me.

Not after you have served 9 months its not