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

alfablue

DonDaddyD wrote:

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.

Well, you can't, but it is about what is the better of two evils; Tory v Lib Dem, I would say Lib Dem is the lesser, however they were a far clearer better of two evils before the sell-out of their policies to get into power.

greg66_tri_v2.0

alfablue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

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.

Well, you can't, but it is about what is the better of two evils; Tory v Lib Dem, I would say Lib Dem is the lesser, however they were a far clearer better of two evils before the sell-out of their policies to get into power.

Another Commie reveals himself. Tsk tsk.

EKE_38BPM

I think that if any party is in power for more than 2 parliaments they get a bit up themselves and things go pear-shaped.
After 8-10 years the party in power can't blame any mistakes/issues on the previous party so they run out of excuses anyway.

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

12 being bigger than 3.

Excellent work, glad you've grasped it. Take the rest of the day off, my treat.

essexian

I would introduce IQ tests: any one with an IQ of less than 110 would not be allowed to vote.

That would count most BNP voters out.

DonDaddyD

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I think that if any party is in power for more than 2 parliaments they get a bit up themselves and things go pear-shaped.
After 8-10 years the party in power can't blame any mistakes/issues on the previous party so they run out of excuses anyway.

After 2 Parliaments society moves on IMO and the person in office should move on to give someone with a new perspective a chance.

EKE_38BPM

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

12 being bigger than 3.




Excellent work, glad you've grasped it. Take the rest of the day off, my treat.

Public sector, all of our treats!

Edited for clarity.

DonDaddyD

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

12 being bigger than 3.

Excellent work, glad you've grasped it. Take the rest of the day off, my treat.

Yes but a Contract is the period of employment. Notice can be an provision within the contract. The two are not directly comparable. You do not apply to work 'notice'.

I would introduce IQ tests: any one with an IQ of less than 110 would not be allowed to vote.

Great that means I'm a candidate.

DonDaddyD

EKE_38BPM wrote:

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

12 being bigger than 3.




Excellent work, glad you've grasped it. Take the rest of the day off, my treat.

Public sector, all of our treats!

Edited for clarity.

I don't get it?

EKE_38BPM

DonDaddyD wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

12 being bigger than 3.




Excellent work, glad you've grasped it. Take the rest of the day off, my treat.

Public sector, all of our treats!

Edited for clarity.

I don't get it?

W1 wouldn't pay for your day off. As a public sector employee, we all would.

110IQ you say?

greg66_tri_v2.0

essexian wrote:

I would introduce IQ tests: any one with an IQ of less than 110 would not be allowed to vote.

That would count most BNP voters out.

I like this idea.

I would be in charge of administering the IQ tests.

Those being tested would be required to indicate their likely voting preference before they are told the result of the test.

You know, for monitoring purposes. That sort of thing.

rml380z

I know the Electoral Reform Society has an agenda to push, but until this changes, there's little reason for most of us to vote; http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/news.php?ex=0&nid=461

I don't think a candidate I voted for has ever got in. Until I read that report, I thought I was unique, but it turns out I could be in the majority (for once).

bails87

I was lucky enough to live in a place where 'my' candiate won by less than 200 votes, so I felt important. Then they used those 200 votes to get into bed with the very people I'd wanted to keep out of power! :roll:

As for voting systems, I think we should come up with a system where the country does the exact opposite of what the Daily Mail wants.

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

12 being bigger than 3.

Excellent work, glad you've grasped it. Take the rest of the day off, my treat.

Yes but a Contract is the period of employment. Notice can be an provision within the contract. The two are not directly comparable. You do not apply to work 'notice'.

*yawn* - you must be boring even yourself now. Or perhaps not.

There's only so far that I can simplify things for you. If you still don't get it (as evidenced by your post above) I'm not sure I can stoop any lower. Sorry.

DonDaddyD

Greg66 wrote:

essexian wrote:

I would introduce IQ tests: any one with an IQ of less than 110 would not be allowed to vote.

That would count most BNP voters out.

I like this idea.

I would be in charge of administering the IQ tests.

Those being tested would be required to indicate their likely voting preference before they are told the result of the test.

You know, for monitoring purposes. That sort of thing.

Haven't IQ tests been successfully disputed as favouring the affluent and actually not a measure of brain processing power..

Well, you can't, but it is about what is the better of two evils; Tory v Lib Dem, I would say Lib Dem is the lesser, however they were a far clearer better of two evils before the sell-out of their policies to get into power.

So if you can't have a voting system where you can vote for your local Council seperately from the party ruling the Country are then driven to live in areas with strong ties to our political leanings?

Thing is most of the areas that I like tend to be Tory...

CiB

Back OT, why on earth should any one single vote count, or 'make a difference'? It's a democracy, where the biggest group wins; it works for elections, for what sort of cake to have after tea, what to watch on TV, which country to invade etc. The idea that a vote is nullified unless it's a vote for the winning candidate is wrong. We all get an opportunity to state our preference, but the majority wins.

How would I change it? I'd return to the days when only fine upstanding members of the community voted. Women & madmen need not apply etc. It worked; we had an empire the size of the globe, the country was at the forefront of technological invention and we didn't have all these foreign jonnies coming over herre taking our jobs & womenfolk etc. You tell me I'm wrong eh?

Rambles on in similar vein [cont'd p94...]

wulfhound

How about instead of IQ, which discriminates against people who through no fault of their own were denied a decent education, or who simply aren't good at problem-solving - give voters a simple 20 questions current affairs sort of thing.. "who is the shadow chancellor", "what is the legal age to buy cigarettes", "who is current president of the EU".. with peoples' votes weighted according to how many right answers they give. Even people not naturally gifted with intelligence would have no problem answering if they took half an hour to watch the News instead of Big Brother, or bought one of newspapers that doesn't feature t*ts.

DonDaddyD

I can only answer one of those questions.

You can buy cigarettes at 15 right?

greg66_tri_v2.0

wulfhound wrote:

How about instead of IQ, which discriminates against people who through no fault of their own were denied a decent education, or who simply aren't good at problem-solving - give voters a simple 20 questions current affairs sort of thing.. "who is the shadow chancellor", "what is the legal age to buy cigarettes", "who is current president of the EU".. with peoples' votes weighted according to how many right answers they give. Even people not naturally gifted with intelligence would have no problem answering if they took half an hour to watch the News instead of Big Brother, or bought one of newspapers that doesn't feature t*ts.

General knowledge. Not a forte of the Great British Public. See Dumb Britain column in Private Eye (Eyes passim). My recent favourite:

"In America, what is the liquid that comes out of a faucet?"
"Cheese?"

wulfhound

DonDaddyD - couldn't do much better myself, & can't imagine why anyone in their right minds would want to give a lazy ill-informed git like me any say on how things are run

lost_in_thought

DonDaddyD wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

essexian wrote:

I would introduce IQ tests: any one with an IQ of less than 110 would not be allowed to vote.

That would count most BNP voters out.

I like this idea.

I would be in charge of administering the IQ tests.

Those being tested would be required to indicate their likely voting preference before they are told the result of the test.

You know, for monitoring purposes. That sort of thing.

Haven't IQ tests been successfully disputed as favouring the affluent and actually not a measure of brain processing power..

I nearly just laughed red wine out of my nose.

When I was 11 I did a barrage of IQ tests, never having done one before, and scored an average of 178, which I gather is pretty high.

It should also be noted that when I was 11 we were nearing the end of a 7-year court case, and had bugger all money, lived in a mobile home. We had some other assets, sure, but couldn't sell them.

So has my IQ gone up as we've sorted ourselves out? 'Cause I'd really like those other 2 points...

greg66_tri_v2.0

lost_in_thought wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

essexian wrote:

I would introduce IQ tests: any one with an IQ of less than 110 would not be allowed to vote.

That would count most BNP voters out.

I like this idea.

I would be in charge of administering the IQ tests.

Those being tested would be required to indicate their likely voting preference before they are told the result of the test.

You know, for monitoring purposes. That sort of thing.

Haven't IQ tests been successfully disputed as favouring the affluent and actually not a measure of brain processing power..

I nearly just laughed red wine out of my nose.

When I was 11 I did a barrage of IQ tests, never having done one before, and scored an average of 178, which I gather is pretty high.

It should also be noted that when I was 11 we were nearing the end of a 7-year court case, and had bugger all money, lived in a mobile home. We had some other assets, sure, but couldn't sell them.

So has my IQ gone up as we've sorted ourselves out? 'Cause I'd really like those other 2 points...

Y'know, if you were that clever, you wouldn't have put red wine in your nose in the first place.

It goes in your mouth.

warthog562

please forgive me for not knowing the ins and outs of the system here.

In oz we have three votes every three years. one for federal, one for state and one for local council. it seems a lot but it does stop this problem of liking the local candidate but not liking the state or federal member and or party.

This does create extra politicions and who wants that. on the plus side you can have an mp who is focused on the issues that matter in there department.

I have voted for party a for local and then party b for state and again for party a for federal.

we also have the named canditates thing and yes some people do vote for the picture without knowing any policys.

seems to work as well as any other.

lost_in_thought

Greg66 wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

essexian wrote:

I would introduce IQ tests: any one with an IQ of less than 110 would not be allowed to vote.

That would count most BNP voters out.

I like this idea.

I would be in charge of administering the IQ tests.

Those being tested would be required to indicate their likely voting preference before they are told the result of the test.

You know, for monitoring purposes. That sort of thing.

Haven't IQ tests been successfully disputed as favouring the affluent and actually not a measure of brain processing power..

I nearly just laughed red wine out of my nose.

When I was 11 I did a barrage of IQ tests, never having done one before, and scored an average of 178, which I gather is pretty high.

It should also be noted that when I was 11 we were nearing the end of a 7-year court case, and had bugger all money, lived in a mobile home. We had some other assets, sure, but couldn't sell them.

So has my IQ gone up as we've sorted ourselves out? 'Cause I'd really like those other 2 points...

Y'know, if you were that clever, you wouldn't have put red wine in your nose in the first place.

It goes in your mouth.

You're so behind the times, old boy.

EKE_38BPM

lost_in_thought wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

essexian wrote:

I would introduce IQ tests: any one with an IQ of less than 110 would not be allowed to vote.

That would count most BNP voters out.

I like this idea.

I would be in charge of administering the IQ tests.

Those being tested would be required to indicate their likely voting preference before they are told the result of the test.

You know, for monitoring purposes. That sort of thing.

Haven't IQ tests been successfully disputed as favouring the affluent and actually not a measure of brain processing power..

I nearly just laughed red wine out of my nose.

When I was 11 I did a barrage of IQ tests, never having done one before, and scored an average of 178, which I gather is pretty high.

It should also be noted that when I was 11 we were nearing the end of a 7-year court case, and had bugger all money, lived in a mobile home. We had some other assets, sure, but couldn't sell them.

So has my IQ gone up as we've sorted ourselves out? 'Cause I'd really like those other 2 points...

An IQ of 178 is bloody high. For comparison, Stephen Hawkin's IQ is, according to t'internet, 160, as was Albert Einstein.

Had any ideas to change the world, LiT? Follow them through, you may be a genius!

downwardslide

STV would be my prefered option of any form of PR as it eliminates safe seats, and should in theory most closely produce a balance of mp's that reflects the votes cast.
What i definitely don't want is any kind of system that includes closed party lists.
The second thing I would like to see is a fully elected second house (I believe this is something that is due to be addressed during this parliament). Again I would prefer that any kind of PR system used for this house does not involve any form of closed party list.
Thirdly I would like to see some reform of party funding and regulation of the amounts that can be spent on election campaigns (this must be based on a per constituency level).
Fourthly, and this is perhaps a little leftfield, but I would like to see us abandon the current houses of parliamnet and all the archaic ceremonial b*llox that goes with it. In my opinion, this country is to wedded to its past and for a real progressive society to emerge we must entirely abandon links with our feudalist past.

And to all those who see the lib dems going into coalition as a betrayal, they really had very little choice. The kind of electoral reform that the libdems are pushing for would make this kind of government the norm from now on so it is imperative that it is seen by the elctorate to be a strong and stable coalition. It also needs pointing out that the libdems have less than 1/5 of the seats the tories have, so gaining the compromises they have in terms of policy is a great achievment itself.

Mr Sworld

wulfhound wrote:

or bought one of newspapers that doesn't feature t*ts.

Hey! What's wrong with t!t's? :x

wgwarburton

lost_in_thought wrote:

...When I was 11 I did a barrage of IQ tests, never having done one before, and scored an average of 178, which I gather is pretty high.
It should also be noted that when I was 11 we were nearing the end of a 7-year court case, and had bugger all money, lived in a mobile home. We had some other assets, sure, but couldn't sell them....

Yeah.. that's not the point though, is it?

There's a mother at our local school who ticks a pile of boxes that would usually be associated with "social deprivation": Unmarried/single mother, kids by different fathers (both absent), rented accomodation, on benefits etc...

She's still "middle class"...

The ones who do tend to score lower than they should on IQ tests generally don't have seven-year court cases or assets... "affluence" is a proxy for other social conditons.

But then, you know this, don't you? :-)

Cheers,
W.

lost_in_thought

WGWarburton wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

...When I was 11 I did a barrage of IQ tests, never having done one before, and scored an average of 178, which I gather is pretty high.
It should also be noted that when I was 11 we were nearing the end of a 7-year court case, and had bugger all money, lived in a mobile home. We had some other assets, sure, but couldn't sell them....

Yeah.. that's not the point though, is it?

There's a mother at our local school who ticks a pile of boxes that would usually be associated with "social deprivation": Unmarried/single mother, kids by different fathers (both absent), rented accomodation, on benefits etc...

She's still "middle class"...

The ones who do tend to score lower than they should on IQ tests generally don't have seven-year court cases or assets... "affluence" is a proxy for other social conditons.

But then, you know this, don't you? :-)

Cheers,
W.

Well, what I was trying to say (nicely) is it's bunkum. People who are stupid don't do as well on IQ tests.

The 'oh it's 'cause you're affluent/middle class/whatever' is just an excuse.

But y'know, Buns, call a spade a spade... :P

W1

spen666 wrote:

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

This is what I don't understand about the PR - do we just have a shedload more MPs (and costs)? Do they split the role?