|
Bongo
|
 |
« Reply #90 on: April 21, 2008, 04:27:35 PM » |
|
Given that it is hard to change anything substantial in a PR created hung parliament and that we would have no choice about what coalitions get formed (a party with 1% of the vote could end up as part of the Government for example) then the current system (with some tweaks) seems like the best option.
They could end up in a coalition, but with 1% of the vote they won't be able to influence much! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Do you think it's dangerous to have Busby Berkeley dreams?
|
|
|
|
thediceman
|
|
« Reply #91 on: April 21, 2008, 04:29:39 PM » |
|
Also, is it fair that you potentially have one party that wins with a substantially greater % of the vote and than finds itself at the mercy of a coalition of two lesser parties???
Is it fair to have a party that got 35% of the votes to have all the power? What the largest vote wins. It's a fairer system when compared to the above scenario. FACT I use to advocate PR but really think it has many flaws and isn't the obvious alternative that so many seem to suggest. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
thediceman
|
|
« Reply #92 on: April 21, 2008, 04:34:55 PM » |
|
Given that it is hard to change anything substantial in a PR created hung parliament and that we would have no choice about what coalitions get formed (a party with 1% of the vote could end up as part of the Government for example) then the current system (with some tweaks) seems like the best option.
They could end up in a coalition, but with 1% of the vote they won't be able to influence much! If any party has a defining % in a decision they hold a considerable amount of influence. Not sure how you can state the absolute "they won't". |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bongo
|
|
« Reply #93 on: April 21, 2008, 04:35:15 PM » |
|
Even though it leads to 78% of the country being ruled by a party they didn't vote for?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Do you think it's dangerous to have Busby Berkeley dreams?
|
|
|
|
Bongo
|
|
« Reply #94 on: April 21, 2008, 04:35:45 PM » |
|
Given that it is hard to change anything substantial in a PR created hung parliament and that we would have no choice about what coalitions get formed (a party with 1% of the vote could end up as part of the Government for example) then the current system (with some tweaks) seems like the best option.
They could end up in a coalition, but with 1% of the vote they won't be able to influence much! If any party has a defining % in a decision they hold a considerable amount of influence. Not sure how you can state the absolute "they won't". They could hold that influence outside a coalition and under the current system  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Do you think it's dangerous to have Busby Berkeley dreams?
|
|
|
|
Jon MW
|
|
« Reply #95 on: April 21, 2008, 04:38:04 PM » |
|
Given that it is hard to change anything substantial in a PR created hung parliament and that we would have no choice about what coalitions get formed (a party with 1% of the vote could end up as part of the Government for example) then the current system (with some tweaks) seems like the best option.
They could end up in a coalition, but with 1% of the vote they won't be able to influence much! They would have considerably more than 1% of the say in the running of the country. And as diceman suggested, if a party needed them to form a majority they could insist on a policy or a few policies that 99% of the country haven't voted for - and they couldn't really do that under the current system unless there was a formal coalition, which is so much less likely under the current system. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield
2011 blonde MTT League August Champion
2011 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain - - runners up - -
5 Star HORSE Classic - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
|
|
|
|
boldie
|
|
« Reply #96 on: April 21, 2008, 04:39:43 PM » |
|
Given that it is hard to change anything substantial in a PR created hung parliament and that we would have no choice about what coalitions get formed (a party with 1% of the vote could end up as part of the Government for example) then the current system (with some tweaks) seems like the best option.
They could end up in a coalition, but with 1% of the vote they won't be able to influence much! If any party has a defining % in a decision they hold a considerable amount of influence. Not sure how you can state the absolute "they won't". That's an interesting arguement but other than Israel I can not think of any country where it is actually the case that a small party has a big influence in a coalition. The only thing that happens more when you have PR and a coalition govt is that the govt can fall apart and you have to hold another election. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world.
|
|
|
|
Bongo
|
|
« Reply #97 on: April 21, 2008, 04:41:26 PM » |
|
And as diceman suggested, if a party needed them to form a majority they could insist on a policy or a few policies that 99% of the country haven't voted for - and they couldn't really do that under the current system unless there was a formal coalition, which is so much less likely under the current system.
Presently we have a situation where 78% of the population didn't vote for government and it's policies. I fail to see how this is preferable. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Do you think it's dangerous to have Busby Berkeley dreams?
|
|
|
|
Acidmouse
|
|
« Reply #98 on: April 21, 2008, 04:44:17 PM » |
|
For gods sake don't make all the council estate trash vote.
Ohh and back to the original point, I am sad to see Labour go down this path. It's the final nail in the coffin for me in terms of them keeping my support, very hard to argue for this change.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
thediceman
|
|
« Reply #99 on: April 21, 2008, 04:48:13 PM » |
|
Given that it is hard to change anything substantial in a PR created hung parliament and that we would have no choice about what coalitions get formed (a party with 1% of the vote could end up as part of the Government for example) then the current system (with some tweaks) seems like the best option.
They could end up in a coalition, but with 1% of the vote they won't be able to influence much! If any party has a defining % in a decision they hold a considerable amount of influence. Not sure how you can state the absolute "they won't". They could hold that influence outside a coalition and under the current system They could. Hence my point about to lesser supported parties working together against the elected party thus creating an ineffective Government. Surely this is not a very desireable situation. Scenario, a Government purposes new legalisation for it's full term in office and it's always gets voted out by the smaller parties. Another answer to your point is not if the elected party, even with just a 35% held a majority of seats. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jon MW
|
|
« Reply #100 on: April 21, 2008, 04:48:35 PM » |
|
Even though it leads to 78% of the country being ruled by a party they didn't vote for?
I think it's better than policy being decided by a party that over 90% of the country didn't vote for. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield
2011 blonde MTT League August Champion
2011 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain - - runners up - -
5 Star HORSE Classic - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
|
|
|
|
Claw75
|
|
« Reply #101 on: April 21, 2008, 04:49:01 PM » |
|
For gods sake don't make all the council estate trash vote.
 I could be described thus, and I certainly intend to vote. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon....no matter how good you are the bird is going to shit on the board and strut around like it won anyway"
|
|
|
|
taximan007
|
|
« Reply #102 on: April 21, 2008, 04:49:29 PM » |
|
council estate trash ?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
humbled to be included alongside such esteemed people - thank you
|
|
|
|
Acidmouse
|
|
« Reply #103 on: April 21, 2008, 04:56:16 PM » |
|
Yes anyone in this country who's basically a fukwit / thick, not able to think for themselves (believing paper headlines as gospel), making them all vote would be badddddddddddd. Whatever side the papers took that month would get them elected.
It's really worrying how little the normal person on the street comprehends the issues beyond the headlines.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Claw75
|
|
« Reply #104 on: April 21, 2008, 04:58:04 PM » |
|
Yes anyone in this country who's basically a fukwit / thick, not able to think for themselves (believing paper headlines as gospel), making them all vote would be badddddddddddd. Whatever side the papers took that month would get them elected.
It's really worrying how little the normal person on the street comprehends the issues beyond the headlines.
I believe you may find that some of these people don't live on council estates. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon....no matter how good you are the bird is going to shit on the board and strut around like it won anyway"
|
|
|
|
Author