shoud seats for partys be based on votes not on constituencys.

When making a post, please ensure it complies with this site's Main Rules at all times.
  • the people's votes should be counted not the areas. when the Labour Party gets 9.6 million votes 410seats and the Reform Party gets 4.07million votes and only gets 4 seats. that is not what the people have voted for. in my view, the voting the voting here is a farce. what do you think

  • Tangible evidence shows that FPTP has served this country well. We have become a very rich country and remained a world force for hundreds of years. We won two world wars. We were a major influence in the world, to the extent that Muslims strive to live here despite it being a Christian Country.

    So, I am loathe to criticize FPTP when in fact we have been so successful as a country.

    The "winner" never opposes FPTP. I would prefer that Farage and Reform Party become the main opposition party and springboard to a position as the Government under FPTP.

    I do not want the greens to have a whole bunch of MPs based on their number of voters. I want the Greens to fade away.

    8| "If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change".

  • FPTP is an uncannily good system in its way. Yes, the Lib Dems have done much better than Reform UK, but then the Lib Dems are an established party with respectable prospective MPs in place.

    Reform UK is a relatively new party, and while you may have some good people at the top, they also have more than their fair share of what David Cameron called 'swivel eyed loons'.

    What we have now is Farage and his small band of men in the Commons arguing for radical change. If they persuade enough people of the veracity of their arguments, MPs will start crossing the floor and more people will vote for them next time around, and the Reform candidates who are not representative of the leadership objectives will be swept away in favour of more respectable people, thus gaining more public acceptance.

    It's a strange old system, but it works.

  • If we based votes on national vote numbers you have just elected a president. What we have is a system whereby local people vote for their representative and that representatives winning a seat, that seat goes into deciding which party goes on to form the government.

    Can you really imagine us being in a situation where for example,Farage was given the position as the countries President but either labour or the Tories had landslide victories like last week?

    We would end never getting anything done, he'd be a lame duck. Watering down almost ever policy in the hope he could achieve something. Each working against the other, conspiring to remove them.

    Middle age is when your old classmates are so grey and wrinkled and bald they don't recognise you.

  • The war time government was a coalition

    The years surrounding said wars whereby we produced an economy - wealth, ships, planes, Tanks etc weapons, and brave men and women is the substantive period.

    8| "If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change".

  • If we based votes on national vote numbers you have just elected a president. What we have is a system whereby local people vote for their representative and that representatives winning a seat, that seat goes into deciding which party goes on to form the government.

    100% correct it isn’t very representative but it does produce a government that can act

  • A system like PR will give an even bigger chunk of seats to areas like London, Birmingham and Manchester all of which have more MPs than my county altogether.

    As I said in the other thread, remove the large cities from the equation per se, make them be represented once by their metro mayors. But it's worthy of note that even in big cities certain parts do not follow the trends other other areas. London, has it's rather affluent areas which don't tend to vote labour, whereas ethnic areas tend to do so. But I am Iam not at all knowledgeable on exactly how PR is set up, but I can envisage rural areas get left by the wayside as in other systems.

    It's about time someone woke up to the fact that we need not just farming, but more farming. But it's not getting the best of representation imo.

    Middle age is when your old classmates are so grey and wrinkled and bald they don't recognise you.

  • Tangible evidence shows that FPTP has served this country well. We have become a very rich country and remained a world force for hundreds of years. We won two world wars. We were a major influence in the world, to the extent that Muslims strive to live here despite it being a Christian Country.

    So, I am loathe to criticize FPTP when in fact we have been so successful as a country.

    The "winner" never opposes FPTP. I would prefer that Farage and Reform Party become the main opposition party and springboard to a position as the Government under FPTP.

    I do not want the greens to have a whole bunch of MPs based on their number of voters. I want the Greens to fade away.

    Agree with most of that.

    FTTP works and if Farage is not happy with it, then the way to deal with the situation is to persuade more people to vote Reform next time around and if he wins a majority in seats, then he'll pick more up.

  • 100% correct it isn’t very representative but it does produce a government that can act

    We would probably be better off with a government that was paralysed

    Celebrate it, Anticipate it, Yesterday's faded, Nothing can change it, Life's what you make it

  • We would probably be better off with a government that was paralysed

    That would be a good recipe for chaos and actually, it would damage our security ultimately.

    I think governments should be given greater freedom to pass legislation in line with the mandate they have received. No wonder governments can never achieve what they promise under the existing system! They have introduced so many ‘checks and balances’, they have painted themselves into a corner and implementing manifesto commitments is nigh on impossible!

  • That would be a good recipe for chaos and actually, it would damage our security ultimately.

    I think governments should be given greater freedom to pass legislation in line with the mandate they have received. No wonder governments can never achieve what they promise under the existing system! They have introduced so many ‘checks and balances’, they have painted themselves into a corner and implementing manifesto commitments is nigh on impossible!

    You realise what you are saying OB?

    Labour have a massive majority which was secured with a smaller vote than they achieved when they lost last time.

    You want them to have the freedom to pass whatever the hell they like totally unchallenged and immovable for five years.

    Have you learned nothing in your time on this planet?

    Celebrate it, Anticipate it, Yesterday's faded, Nothing can change it, Life's what you make it

  • What is the point in electing a government if it can’t actually govern?

    I don’t like the prospect of 5 years+ of a Labour government any more than you do, but the electorate must be able to have their say, even if it is at variance with what you and I would want.

    It’s the same with the Brexit argument. You have to abide by the result of the vote.

  • What is the point in electing a government if it can’t actually govern?

    They can govern, but in a way that takes account of a wider range of views.

    I don’t like the prospect of 5 years+ of a Labour government any more than you do, but the electorate must be able to have their say, even if it is at variance with what you and I would want.

    And once again I repeat, the electorate did not have their say. 67% of the electorate did not vote Labour and they are getting no say.

    Celebrate it, Anticipate it, Yesterday's faded, Nothing can change it, Life's what you make it

  • Yes, it’s perverse to reward small minority parties while cutting the legs off the one securing the most seats.

    We need checks and balances, but they need to be devised more intelligently than this. Easier said than done, though.

  • Yes, it’s perverse to reward small minority parties while cutting the legs off the one securing the most seats.

    Small minority parties like the Lib Dems with 2.3 million votes and 71 parliamentary seats?

    Or Reform with 4.1 million votes and 5 parliamentary seats?

    Which minority party were your talking about?

    Celebrate it, Anticipate it, Yesterday's faded, Nothing can change it, Life's what you make it

  • Small minority parties like the Lib Dems with 2.3 million votes and 71 parliamentary seats?

    Or Reform with 4.1 million votes and 5 parliamentary seats?

    Which minority party were your talking about?

    As I've already said, it depends where those votes exist. Would it be fair to allocate seats to those. Not really with any presence in a given area. 4 million votes spread over the UK isn't alot in each area, so by your reckoning the Tories should have how many ?

    Middle age is when your old classmates are so grey and wrinkled and bald they don't recognise you.

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!