2010 General Election: The Cable Forum Exit Poll

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

How can I keep my MP when the decision whether they are elected or not doesn't belong to this constituency alone?

We could vote Lib Dem and end up with a BNP MP - you want to tell a constituency that they just inherited the first BNP MP?

In a "democracy" this is the price you might have to pay. Better everyone has a fair vote and you get the odd aberration, than continuing with a few dictating to the many.

With some form of PR chances are there would be more than 1 Conservative MP in Scotland.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Hang on, I think I've got it, there might be more Lib Dem MPs and that's why it's so good, right?

Look if your going to patronise people then why bother asking? The topic is emotive enough without provoking people which such misrepresentation's of their argument. I haven't accused those against of trying to protect a system so that a minority of people (say, 38%) can impose a government on the rest of us because that's not what your advocating.

It's not good because their are more Lib Dem MP's, it's good because the make up of Parliament is more representative of the electorate. I have shown the disparity between the popular vote and the make-up of Parliament and at the last election Labour wielded a large majority, a lot of power, with a 38% mandate. A lot of people find that a joke. I understand the worry that without any one party having a large majority they may form a weak government beset by arguing and indecision but a look across the world with the numerical countries with collation governments shows they do ok (Germany as an example).

The odd uBNP MP here and there is a price worth paying to give a minority party more of a say.

So be it. If it's representative of the population.

Or at least that seems to be the logic behind it (well ok, a more accurate one would be "Waaaaaaaaah! I wanna run the country but people don't like me enough. It's not fair, I'm going to stamp my feet and cry")

I am not asking for 23% to run the country, I am asking for them to be represented rather than winner takes all)

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Angua

In a "democracy" this is the price you might have to pay. Better everyone has a fair vote and you get the odd aberration, than continuing with a few dictating to the many.

With some form of PR chances are there would be more than 1 Conservative MP in Scotland.

It would appear that even with FPTP we will have a situation of the many getting their voice heard, it may not be in the way you want but it's what's happening.

Sadly we can't all have our vote count for something regardless of the system used. I can imagine your frustration not voting Tory and being in a very strong Tory seat but that's how it's turned out.

It could be a very, very interesting bit of progress with what the Tories and Lib Dems come up with if they do go down this route though. I agree the current system doesn't work, but it may have by accident gotten something right this time around, albeit in a round about way

---------- Post added at 18:10 ---------- Previous post was at 18:09 ----------

Originally Posted by danielf

I agree about it being good to have a link to local areas, but frankly that is just about the only thing that FPTP has going for it, and as pointed out, that has its drawbacks as well. As you said a hybrid system would be good, but I'm not sure if such a system exists.

Per my previous comment it'll be interesting to see what Tories / Lib Dems come up with. It does have serious potential for a Liberal Conservative moment which would suit me rather well.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

How can I keep my MP when the decision whether they are elected or not doesn't belong to this constituency alone?

We could vote Lib Dem and end up with a BNP MP - you want to tell a constituency that they just inherited the first BNP MP?

I suspect you'd need to replace constituencies with administrative areas similar to County / Borough Council boundaries. Don't think PR of any kind is really compatible with current constituencies.

No. Other constituencies don't change your vote. The PR system is implemented in how you vote for your MP. That's the system I am talking about anyway, there are others. Such as the one used in Scotland (i think) which has the current system and then top-up lists to redress an unbalances in the popular vote.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Damien

No you can select runners up. Let's take the French Presidential Elections, they must get 50% because they don't think a President can claim a mandate without 50% of the vote. If 50% fails to materialist they have a run off where the person with the lowest share of the vote is eliminated (it might actually be all candidates below a certain %, I forget) and people vote again.

This system does that but all in one go. You don't have to provide runners up, you can just vote for one person and decide you don't want your vote to go to anyone else in the event your candidate doesn't get in.

The effect is that over 50% of the population should be slightly happier with their MP, even if it wasn't their first choice. So that 35% of the area hasn't chosen the mp for the entire 100% of the constituency for example.

Example.
Favourite party has 2 candidates. One is good, one is not worth voting for in your opinion.
So the choice is, either vote for the one you don't want, or don't vote for a second choice and don't get the candidate you do want elected.
That is not an improvement.
We need the best people in the commons, not the most representative of the diversity of the nation.
For instance, would you really say that a Monster Raving Loony or CURE MP would be of benefit to the running of the nation?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Per my previous comment it'll be interesting to see what Tories / Lib Dems come up with. It does have serious potential for a Liberal Conservative moment which would suit me rather well.

I can't see the Tories conceding too much on electoral reform. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot. Labour and Lib Dem combined get more than 50% of the vote, so PR would likely lock the Tories out for quite some time. The Tory offer would more likely be to reduce the number of constituencies somewhat and gerrymander a bit.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by danielf

I can't see the Tories conceding too much on electoral reform. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot. Labour and Lib Dem combined get more than 50% of the vote, so PR would likely lock the Tories out for quite some time. The Tory offer would more likely be to reduce the number of constituencies somewhat and gerrymander a bit.

The Lib Dems may be open to playing a longer game. As I mentioned previously it would be potentially far more damaging to them to prop up a Labour government especially given the concessions SNP/PC/ NI parties want in return for their required support to that coalition.

I suspect they'll suck it up, get as much as they can out of it, and run with it for a while in the hope of establishing something of a record and improving their standing in a future election.

If the Lib Dems just stamp their feet and demand PR it is potentially harmful to them if there's another election in the near future as it opens up a huge angle of attack - the Tories can say that they were ready to co-operate for the good of the country but Lib Dem's 'selfish' demands for electoral reform delayed progress and pushed the country back to the polls.

The aims can stay but a healthy dose of pragmatism, especially in the context of previous comments from Nick Clegg and his reputation as an 'honourable politician'. The electorate seems to respond well to the parties working together.

I've seen some comments from a Labour MP in Glasgow South regarding the disdain for the idea of Nick Clegg dictating to the Labour party that Gordon Brown has to go - for my money though that's exactly what would have to happen. For the Lib Dems to support Gordon Brown would be political suicide, to support Labour and several others without Brown is merely rather distasteful.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Example.
Favourite party has 2 candidates. One is good, one is not worth voting for in your opinion.
So the choice is, either vote for the one you don't want, or don't vote for a second choice and don't get the candidate you do want elected.
That is not an improvement.
We need the best people in the commons, not the most representative of the diversity of the nation.
For instance, would you really say that a Monster Raving Loony or CURE MP would be of benefit to the running of the nation?

You might need to clear the example up because it's confused me but it's the same system as we have now. Only if one person doesn't get 50% then those voters who did not get their candidate in the led can transfer their vote, if they wish, to another candidate they like. If they like the monster raving loony party then there we go. Oh wait,think I semi-got the example. Why would the party put two candidates up?

By the way the current system doesn't elect the best people, it's elects the party who is most popular but disproportionately represents to the popular vote because of the nature of winner takes all in each seat. If it were about the person then we would see far more independents in the house of commons.

---------- Post added at 18:25 ---------- Previous post was at 18:20 ----------

Here is the Wiki article on STV: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote

There are others forms as as AV+.

[SlackDad]

Find out how much your vote is really worth here: http://www.voterpower.org.uk/. If you're unlucky enough not to live in a marginal you may be surprised.

In the 2005 election more than half of all voters voted against their winning MP.

The reason people favour FPTP system is that it ensures the powerful stay in power.

What we can say is that the 2010 election will be the last of the FPTP system and I for one am thankful for that.

[saabmania2]

i'd like to ask how many people decided not to vote conservative after the lies labour told about losing the tax credits system, i've spokern to loads of people in my area and they quite a few said they didn't vote conservative due to the tax credits (being cut )
of course it wasn't true unless you earn't 45k or above, but that didn't stop labour spouting rubbish and frightening the public

just interested to see how much this affected different areas

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

The Lib Dems may be open to playing a longer game. As I mentioned previously it would be potentially far more damaging to them to prop up a Labour government especially given the concessions SNP/PC/ NI parties want in return for their required support to that coalition.

I suspect they'll suck it up, get as much as they can out of it, and run with it for a while in the hope of establishing something of a record and improving their standing in a future election.

If the Lib Dems just stamp their feet and demand PR it is potentially harmful to them if there's another election in the near future as it opens up a huge angle of attack - the Tories can say that they were ready to co-operate for the good of the country but Lib Dem's 'selfish' demands for electoral reform delayed progress and pushed the country back to the polls.

The aims can stay but a healthy dose of pragmatism, especially in the context of previous comments from Nick Clegg and his reputation as an 'honourable politician'. The electorate seems to respond well to the parties working together.

I've seen some comments from a Labour MP in Glasgow South regarding the disdain for the idea of Nick Clegg dictating to the Labour party that Gordon Brown has to go - for my money though that's exactly what would have to happen. For the Lib Dems to support Gordon Brown would be political suicide, to support Labour and several others without Brown is merely rather distasteful.

It's a difficult one to call. I agree that Clegg should insist on Brown going, but the argument for that has been weakened since Labour did not come third in the popular vote. (Clegg didn't outright say Brown had to go, he said he couldn't see Brown staying on if Labour came third). The choice for the Lib Dems (from my perspective) is electoral reform with continued stalinism, or limited political reform and greater civil liberties. Not a choice I'd like to make...

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by saabmania2

i'd like to ask how many people decided not to vote conservative after the lies labour told about losing the tax credits system, i've spokern to loads of people in my area and they quite a few said they didn't vote conservative due to the tax credits (being cut )
of course it wasn't true unless you earn't 45k or above, but that didn't stop labour spouting rubbish and frightening the public

just interested to see how much this affected different areas

Politicians. Lies? Now there's a thought.

And for the record, I didn't vote Conservative because I'm old enough to remember Thatcher and just in case by some strange anomaly that isn't enough, the Tories will only ever put the needs of the privileged first.

[Hom3r]

[rant]
Why oh why are people moaning about not having enough time to vote.

It 15 hours for godsake, its never been a problem before (that I know of), and if your too lazy or stupid to get there on time, perhaps you shouldn't have a vote in the first place.
[/rant]

I'm sorry but I don't mean to offend, but only a small number have a genuine problem with these hours, and thats why there is a postal vote.

Originally Posted by Hom3r

[rant]
Why oh why are people moaning about not having enough time to vote.

It 15 hours for godsake, its never been a problem before (that I know of), and if your too lazy or stupid to get there on time, perhaps you shouldn't have a vote in the first place.
[/rant]

I'm sorry but I don't mean to offend, but only a small number have a genuine problem with these hours, and thats why there is a postal vote.

i agree ,that was the thing that struck me yesterday ,how come some many people turned out just before the polls closed ?

[Ignitionnet]

FYI:

1810: A bit more detail on the talks between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. There was a conversation between Nick Clegg and David Cameron on the phone this afternoon. The BBC was told it was very constructive but there was no real discussion of detail and it was very much the start of the process. There will now be further talks starting tonight with a meeting between George Osborne, William Hague, Oliver Letwin and Ed Lewellyn, David Cameron's chief of staff. The Lib Dem team will be Chris Huhne, Danny Alexander, Andrew Stunnell and David Laws.