Britain, the 7th of May, and First Past the Post.

[Fibh]

Untrue. We're told it's the case, but the reality is that coalitions work just fine in countries where adversarial practices don't predominate. Scotland is a prime example.

And then take a look at Belgium. It might be an extreme example since we are billingual, but still: 1 region will pretty much always see a federal government without the biggest party from that region.

Coalitions are about stacking small parties on top of each other to avoid the party you dislike the most, and then you make so much concessions to the centrist/small parties you had to drag along that nothing real actually gets done.

[Pua]

The worst part about it though is that there are obviously better systems and that we haven't moved to them.

Ultimately, that's my complaint. The fact that the US and UK like to sell themselves as the bastions of democracy, really sticks in my craw considering we're stuck with the worst voting system in existence.

Single transferable vote seems like the best system to me.

I'm a fan of using STV in place of FPTP in a mixed-member assembly.

And then take a look at Belgium. It might be an extreme example since we are billingual, but still: 1 region will pretty much always see a federal government without the biggest party from that region.

Coalitions are about stacking small parties on top of each other to avoid the party you dislike the most, and then you make so much concessions to the centrist/small parties you had to drag along that nothing real actually gets done.

I don't know enough about the Belgian system, Fibh. I'll need to read up on it, but it certainly doesn't seem as if the country is struggling either economically or culturally. I'm happy to be corrected, of course.

[Nadiru]

Ultimately, that's my complaint. The fact that the US and UK like to sell themselves as the bastions of democracy, really sticks in my craw considering we're stuck with the worst voting system in existence.

The US and UK portray themselves as bastions of democracy not because they have "the best" voting system but because democracy is incredibly heavily enshrined within both those countries.

[Fibh]

I don't know enough about the Belgian system, Fibh. I'll need to read up on it, but it certainly doesn't seem as if the country is struggling either economically or culturally. I'm happy to be corrected, of course.

Our coalition system works so well that 20 years from now Belgium might not actually exist as 1 country anymore.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-541-days.html

And every year the south votes more left, while the north votes more right. And the 2 winning parties outright say they can't be in a government with each other.

[Deleted]

STV wouldn't magically solve anything in UK politics. The only way it would really have an effect is if people were actually engaged in politics and didn't vote based on party-lines, otherwise there would be no difference. Large constituencies elected through STV, with multiple candidates from each party, and no information about the candidate's party on the ballot paper, would provide the best representation for these constituencies by every measure. The problem is that in such a case only the truly politically engaged would be able to choose their ideal candidates, and therefore voter turnout would likely decrease dramatically. That might be a reasonable outcome if you are willing to accept that ~20% voter turnout can still be considered a democratic election, which it probably could be given people have the choice of voting.

The main problem with UK politics is simply the party discipline within parliament.

[Independent voter]

You cant claim to have a working democracy if half the population isnt voting. Its a fundemental failure in education, engagement and acknowledgement of your basic rights, its a thorough joke.

Not voting is tacit acceptance of the system as is, it's essentially a vote.

You want to get people to vote? We've had high turnout in local elections in the US, all of these elections were either emergency situations or news worthy like when the KKK leader ran for governor of Louisiana against a convicted felon.

Low voter turn out means people are more or less happy.

[Deleted]

Maybe a single party system would work better for you. At least it saves you getting off your arse to vote.

YOu don't even have to get off your arse. It's not a laziness thing, I'm registered to vote and it would take 5 minutes to request a postal vote. I just don't believe in the voting system we have. Hell I'd probably be okay with it if you had to pass some sort of test to vote. Just like a really basic thing showing that you understand what each party is, what they stand for and plan to do, and some bits about the history of british politics in general. Just so that the people casting votes are actually casting educated votes, but I'm not going to take part in a voting system I don't believe in.

People always say "if you don't vote you have no right to complain" but it's the opposite. If you vote, you are taking part in that system and agreeing to it. Part of that system is the fact that you can lose and things you don't want will happen, because it's what the greatest number of people want. Greater good etc.

[Deleted]

The alternative is kind of like loot council–when it's well run, there is nothing better; when it's not, there's nothing worse.

Loot council is great tho cause everyone always gives me the shiny things.

[TheTaurenOrc]

Should have read "Voters remorse as idiot throws away vote on 4th rate party" more news at 11

- - - Updated - - -

You cant claim to have a working democracy if half the population isnt voting. Its a fundemental failure in education, engagement and acknowledgement of your basic rights, its a thorough joke.

Like when 85% of the voting population turned out for the referendum? Or are you just not counting those who didn't vote your way?

[Raldazzar]

Meh, I have NO clue what my area is, but I'll be voting UKIP.

I do not agree with everything they say/do. but they are the only party who seems to say..'shits fucked...' whereas Cameron is b usy telling us it's all ok.. there is no class divide/wage gap etc etc etc.. and Ed milliband looks like a pale imitation of what a labour leader should be..

I'm fairly sure mine will be a 'wasted' vote, but hey, i vote. I've done my bit to say 'I'm not happy with the main 2 parties.. ' what they do with the vote beyond that is up to them.

[Deleted]

Meh, I have NO clue what my area is, but I'll be voting UKIP.

I do not agree with everything they say/do. but they are the only party who seems to say..'shits fucked...' whereas Cameron is b usy telling us it's all ok.. there is no class divide/wage gap etc etc etc.. and Ed milliband looks like a pale imitation of what a labour leader should be..

I'm fairly sure mine will be a 'wasted' vote, but hey, i vote. I've done my bit to say 'I'm not happy with the main 2 parties.. ' what they do with the vote beyond that is up to them.

UKIP are the tories on steroids. If you aren't happy spoil your ballot. Spoiled ballots are counted. I cant decide whether to go with writing fuck off or drawing a fierce penis, proper vieny like. Maybe i'll keep it casual and write my name on it.

[Deleted]

My area has and always will be Labour. A lot of South Wales is, no matter how bad the Assembly fuck up. Still a lot of old people around merely passing their voting habits on out of tradition rather than which is the best to vote for. I'll probably still vote, but it will be a wasted one... or maybe I'll just draw a picture instead.

[Reeve]

I'm not for mandatory voting, but I am for making major election days national holidays. Make a festive atmosphere out of it and maybe people will look forward to it and actually think about who they're going to vote for ahead of time. Plus, it means no one has to worry about having to work on voting day. Or if they work anyway, they make time and a half or double time, so they can work fewer hours and still come out ahead.

[Revi]

How does this work in effect?

If party 1 has 51% support and party 2 has 49% of the support, does party 1 get 100% of the power?

[Pua]

The US and UK portray themselves as bastions of democracy not because they have "the best" voting system but because democracy is incredibly heavily enshrined within both those countries.

I don't dispute that concept, I dispute the actual result. For example, Princeton University actually drew the conclusion that the United States isn't actually a democracy at all anymore; it's an oligarchy. Britain is largely the same, because FPTP is anti-democratic.

Our coalition system works so well that 20 years from now Belgium might not actually exist as 1 country anymore.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-541-days.html

And every year the south votes more left, while the north votes more right. And the 2 winning parties outright say they can't be in a government with each other.

Mmm, I see. It strikes me that separation is probably the best thing for Belgium's north and south. It's not too dissimilar to Scotland and the rest of the UK, really.

STV wouldn't magically solve anything in UK politics. The only way it would really have an effect is if people were actually engaged in politics and didn't vote based on party-lines, otherwise there would be no difference.

I wouldn't personally sell anything as "the" solution, but it's interesting that there's no law against political parties flat-out lying to their electorate (at least in the UK, I assume America is the same). I wonder why not?

UKIP are the tories on steroids.

Ultimately, that's the issue with UKIP. They're just Conservatives who want Britain dragged out of Europe. They inhabit the same part of the political compass, are largely ex-tories in party membership, and they believe in and promote exactly the same broken, neoliberal nonsense that the entire planet needs to move away from.

How does this work in effect?

If party 1 has 51% support and party 2 has 49% of the support, does party 1 get 100% of the power?

Effectively, yes.

[Deleted]

How does this work in effect?

If party 1 has 51% support and party 2 has 49% of the support, does party 1 get 100% of the power?

FPTP? Not really. On a constituency level you could say this is the case: you only need a simple majority (more than any other candidate) to achieve the win. Therefore you could theoretically win with only 2% support - if everyone else has only 1% support. If this was replicated in many constituencies for the same party then it would result in a parliament full of MPs with very little real support. This is an extreme example, but it is essentially what happens; many MPs have very little "real" support within their constituencies, but merely win because the vote on the other side is split. Take for example a constituency with 3 parties running: the Conservatives (right-wing), Labour (left-wing*), SNP (left-wing), if the left-wing split their vote 32/32, and the remaining share of the vote (36) goes to the Conservative candidate he will win, despite essentially being the most disliked candidate of the bunch. This being replicated over and over means the parliament is filled with candidates who shouldn't really have won. There's more to it than this, and it gets worse due to UK party power, but this is essentially the problem with FPTP.

*May not reflect real political positions

[Kalis]

I like FPTP, it keeps out the extremists and, as our politicians are useless cunts who couldn't agree on the colour of the sky between them, it means we usually get a clear majority for one party - I'd rather have a Labour Party in power than the the current coalition and I'm a Tory, the ability to plan based on knowing what the party in power will do is better than not having a clue what they'll decide to do next.

[Reeve]

I like FPTP, it keeps out the extremists and, as our politicians are useless cunts who couldn't agree on the colour of the sky between them, it means we usually get a clear majority for one party - I'd rather have a Labour Party in power than the the current coalition and I'm a Tory, the ability to plan based on knowing what the party in power will do is better than not having a clue what they'll decide to do next.

It also keeps in the establishment, so politicians can get a bit comfortable and less responsive to their constituencies because they know they live in a Republican District or a Labor District or whatever.

[TheTaurenOrc]

It's the same system the US uses. It's all or nothing elections.

Its not quite the same, effectively in the US their are only two candidates so one is absolutely going to get the 270 electoral votes.

In the UK there are three very strong parties, four if you count UKIP (and a bunch of others who can command up to 10% of the votes themselves). So in the 2010 election no one made it to the 326 seats needed to win, which meant parties could bid for collisions and combine votes with another party. Which is the government we have now.

Which gets to the OP's point; voting for UKIP which means traditionally you are a Conservative, is good for Labour because you are taking a vote away from Conservatives. Same goes for SNP the other way. The idea is that using popular vote is better, even though we would have a government that only had 35% of the vote in that case.

[Deleted]

FPTP Is utter garbage. Honestly If I had to go with a voting system it would be something like this: (keep in mind folks I havent written out a massive plan so dont break it down like its going into effect tomorrow)

1) Mandatory Voting (stemming from Education throughout schooling).

You should be fined if you dont vote or worse, no excuse nowadays.

2) Majority Rule

The majority wins, each individual vote counts, your vote shouldnt be discarded because its not popular within an area.

3) Multiple Voting System

Lets say 3 votes per ballot, you vote for the 3 top parties you want to see, that way the chance of dissapointment is lessened and the populations will is easier felt. (if your top option doesnt get in then your second might)

---

Literally anything but FPTP would be an improvement for me.

Mandatory voting just increases the amount of random non thought out votes... some people just aren't interested and would just pick at random or whatever someone "advised" them.