Go on, get your fat ass out and vote

dhope

TimothyW wrote:

If you want to change things vote, petition, protest, riot. Apathy is not going to change anything.

Indeed, don't be upset with the results you didn't get from the work you didn't do, or summat.

But anyway. We disagree. You see not voting as action, we see it as inaction. I expect by this time next election we'll both have done sod all to change anything bar a little whinging.

veronese68

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

A sad day for democracy with turnout actually increasing.

You do know that nobody gets to vote in a dictatorship?

I would say that any increase in turnout is a very good day for democracy. In my constituency we had 75%, that's really not bad at all.

Exactly. I couldn't be bothered to reason with that kind of logic so I took the mick instead.
Our voting system is a veeerry long way from being perfect but it's all we've got and it's infinitely preferable to being in a dictatorship.

veronese68

dhope wrote:

TimothyW wrote:

If you want to change things vote, petition, protest, riot. Apathy is not going to change anything.

Indeed, don't be upset with the results you didn't get from the work you didn't do, or summat.

But anyway. We disagree. You see not voting as action, we see it as inaction. I expect by this time next election we'll both have done sod all to change anything bar a little whinging.

But in going to vote you have at least got a right to whinge, people that don't bother voting and then moan really irritate me.

surrey_commuter

Just to clarify I will not be whinging about the Govt

The options aren't limited to FPTP and dictatorship

You will be pleased to know I will be voting in the EU referendum

veronese68

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Just to clarify I will not be whinging about the Govt

Sorry, that bit wasn't aimed at you. I was thinking of a couple of people in this place that do that. Too lazy and feckless to do anything, but moan about everything.

Stevo_666

Based on the election result, it would appear that not enough people with fat asses got out and voted

tailwindhome

Would PR not kill off independents?

0.04% of the national vote got 1 MP elected in North Down

62nn old geezer

I told you, that OLD gits always vote, in another post, ( some where, some where ??? )
that's why you have got, what you all deserve.

62 now 66

roger_merriman

TailWindHome wrote:

Would PR not kill off independents?

0.04% of the national vote got 1 MP elected in North Down

doesn't have to, but clearly its much more focused on the parties, rather than Independents and does weaken the link between MP and local area.

which is why I'm unconvinced for this role at least, and if one casts memory back so was the general public

seajays

roger merriman wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

which is why I'm unconvinced for this role at least, and if one casts memory back so was the general public

Well not necessarily. People voted against "AV" (Alternative Vote), which was what was being offered at the UK referendum. This is like proportional representation "lite". It isn't true proportional representation at all. Why? As each constituency still only gets one winner, so smaller parties will still be ignored and won't be represented at parliament.

If you want to see proportional representation then you need something like "STV" (Single Transferrable Vote). This is true proportional representation. Constituencies (which are made larger) get multiple MPs, and they are shared out in proportion to the votes cast. This allows smaller parties to have representation. This video explains it simply: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI

So the referendum didn't actually reject proportional representation, as it wasn't actually on offer. AV was.

surrey_commuter

Seajays wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

which is why I'm unconvinced for this role at least, and if one casts memory back so was the general public

Well not necessarily. People voted against "AV" (Alternative Vote), which was what was being offered at the UK referendum. This is like proportional representation "lite". It isn't true proportional representation at all. Why? As each constituency still only gets one winner, so smaller parties will still be ignored and won't be represented at parliament.

If you want to see proportional representation then you need something like "STV" (Single Transferrable Vote). This is true proportional representation. Constituencies (which are made larger) get multiple MPs, and they are shared out in proportion to the votes cast. This allows smaller parties to have representation. This video explains it simply: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI

So the referendum didn't actually reject proportional representation, as it wasn't actually on offer. AV was.

this system would allow people to cling to their irrational love of constituency MPs. The excitement created by 4 million UKIP voters being represented by one MP whereas it takes 22,000 voters to elect one SNP will soon dissipate.

elbowloh

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Seajays wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

which is why I'm unconvinced for this role at least, and if one casts memory back so was the general public

Well not necessarily. People voted against "AV" (Alternative Vote), which was what was being offered at the UK referendum. This is like proportional representation "lite". It isn't true proportional representation at all. Why? As each constituency still only gets one winner, so smaller parties will still be ignored and won't be represented at parliament.

If you want to see proportional representation then you need something like "STV" (Single Transferrable Vote). This is true proportional representation. Constituencies (which are made larger) get multiple MPs, and they are shared out in proportion to the votes cast. This allows smaller parties to have representation. This video explains it simply: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI

So the referendum didn't actually reject proportional representation, as it wasn't actually on offer. AV was.

this system would allow people to cling to their irrational love of constituency MPs. The excitement created by 4 million UKIP voters being represented by one MP whereas it takes 22,000 voters to elect one SNP will soon dissipate.

What's irrational about someone representing your community actually coming from/live in that constituency? Someone who, theoretically, understands fully the needs of that community? It's just a shame that often candidates are "dropped in" by parties who come from elsewhere in the country.

surrey_commuter

elbowloh wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Seajays wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

which is why I'm unconvinced for this role at least, and if one casts memory back so was the general public

Well not necessarily. People voted against "AV" (Alternative Vote), which was what was being offered at the UK referendum. This is like proportional representation "lite". It isn't true proportional representation at all. Why? As each constituency still only gets one winner, so smaller parties will still be ignored and won't be represented at parliament.

If you want to see proportional representation then you need something like "STV" (Single Transferrable Vote). This is true proportional representation. Constituencies (which are made larger) get multiple MPs, and they are shared out in proportion to the votes cast. This allows smaller parties to have representation. This video explains it simply: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI

So the referendum didn't actually reject proportional representation, as it wasn't actually on offer. AV was.

this system would allow people to cling to their irrational love of constituency MPs. The excitement created by 4 million UKIP voters being represented by one MP whereas it takes 22,000 voters to elect one SNP will soon dissipate.

What's irrational about someone representing your community actually coming from/live in that constituency? Someone who, theoretically, understands fully the needs of that community? It's just a shame that often candidates are "dropped in" by parties who come from elsewhere in the country.

maybe I have never felt part of a clearly defined community so it just seems alien to me (irrational was an overly emotive term).

tgotb

Surrey Commuter wrote:

elbowloh wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Seajays wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

which is why I'm unconvinced for this role at least, and if one casts memory back so was the general public

Well not necessarily. People voted against "AV" (Alternative Vote), which was what was being offered at the UK referendum. This is like proportional representation "lite". It isn't true proportional representation at all. Why? As each constituency still only gets one winner, so smaller parties will still be ignored and won't be represented at parliament.

If you want to see proportional representation then you need something like "STV" (Single Transferrable Vote). This is true proportional representation. Constituencies (which are made larger) get multiple MPs, and they are shared out in proportion to the votes cast. This allows smaller parties to have representation. This video explains it simply: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI

So the referendum didn't actually reject proportional representation, as it wasn't actually on offer. AV was.

this system would allow people to cling to their irrational love of constituency MPs. The excitement created by 4 million UKIP voters being represented by one MP whereas it takes 22,000 voters to elect one SNP will soon dissipate.

What's irrational about someone representing your community actually coming from/live in that constituency? Someone who, theoretically, understands fully the needs of that community? It's just a shame that often candidates are "dropped in" by parties who come from elsewhere in the country.

maybe I have never felt part of a clearly defined community so it just seems alien to me (irrational was an overly emotive term).

If your constituency MP is any good, you can turn up to one of their surgeries and discuss local or national issues with them face-to-face. You can also write to them or email them, and they will take the time to consider what you're saying and respond. Good constituency MPs take the views and issues of their constituents into Parliament, and speak and vote accordingly. It's not hard to see why many people are in favour of this arrangement...

seajays

TGOTB wrote:

If your constituency MP is any good, you can turn up to one of their surgeries and discuss local or national issues with them face-to-face. You can also write to them or email them, and they will take the time to consider what you're saying and respond. Good constituency MPs take the views and issues of their constituents into Parliament, and speak and vote accordingly. It's not hard to see why many people are in favour of this arrangement...

You still get constituency MPs under PR such STV - in fact you'll get more than one to choose from. The downside is that the constituency will be larger. For many this probably won't have a massive effect, however in sparsely populated areas like the Scottish Highlands, this could lead to very large constituency areas, which is unfortunately one of the drawbacks of PR systems.