UK General Election (Poll Results in OP)

[Robin]

Ed's election stone is on eBay

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/EdStone-8ft-Limestone-Obelisk-Unwanted-Present-/291457433121

 

[Maccer_42]

Ed's election stone is on eBay

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/EdStone-8ft-Limestone-Obelisk-Unwanted-Present-/291457433121

"For the avoidance of doubt - you are bidding on a picture of the item. The real obelisk is available from one Mr Ed Millband, c/o Her Majesty's Official Opposition (still!)"

 

[Touring Mars]

The Cabinet Reshuffle so far:

Liberal Democrats out.

That is all.

 

[ExigeEvan]

The Cabinet Reshuffle so far:

Liberal Democrats out.

That is all.

She's probably just regretting getting dressed in the dark...

 

[TenEightyOne]

How people actually voted, "no votes" not included (I'll do another chart with it shown). Although personally I'm glad that UKIP didn't get a good foothold it's easy to see why Farage (and many others) are annoyed with the system. Look at UKIP's share of the vote compared to the SNP, and then consider that UKIP took one seat to their 57.

The chart colours screwed up (cos Excel-linking) but I didn't bother fixing it for the smaller sections, you can't see them anyway

 

[KSaiyu]

Yeah system needs a change. Whilst I wanted a Tory majority I wanted more UKIP representation to keep them honest on policies regarding the NHS.

We now have the prospect of a party pulling over 1 in 10 of the votes being largely ignored.

 

[Famine]

We now have the prospect of a party pulling over 1 in 10 of the votes being largely ignored.

As usual.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Do people that complain about FPTP actually understand what they're voting for in a general election? Because it seems to be that everyone is forgetting how that works. If you change to proportional or AV then you're not just changing the voting mechanism, but the entire mechanics of representation.

Now, if you wanted to introduce proportional representation into the upper house, well, I'll happily support that.

 

[Famine]

Do people that complain about FPTP actually understand what they're voting for in a general election?

Yes. Yes I do.

 

[jackargent]

Do people that complain about FPTP actually understand what they're voting for in a general election? Because it seems to be that everyone is forgetting how that works. If you change to proportional or AV then you're not just changing the voting mechanism, but the entire mechanics of representation.

Now, if you wanted to introduce proportional representation into the upper house, well, I'll happily support that.

Yes, absolutely. I detest Ukip & pretty much everything they stand for but it is a travesty that they get 4 million votes & 1 mp.

Equally I voted Snp but it is equally ridiculous that their 1.6 million votes got 56 mp's.

Can you justify that?

(i'm quoting numbers from memory so forgive me if I'm a few thousand out)

 

[ExigeEvan]

Yes. Yes I do.

Off to the UK Alternative Vote thread, brb.

Yes, absolutely. I detest Ukip & pretty much everything they stand for but it is a travesty that they get 4 million votes & 1 mp.

Equally I voted Snp but it is equally ridiculous that their 1.6 million votes got 56 mp's.

Can you justify that?

Yes.

They didn't win at a constituency area. They were consistently second or third across many areas. The candidate with the greatest vote in that constituency won the seat.

 

[jackargent]

Off to the UK Alternative Vote thread, brb.


Yes.

They didn't win at a constituency area. They were consistently second or third across many areas. The candidate with the greatest vote in that constituency won the seat.

You're explaining how the current system works. We know that.

You have not explained how that is fair.

 

[ExigeEvan]

You're explaining how the current system works. We know that.

You have not explained how that is fair.

Because each constituency elected a candidate that represents the majority of voters in that region? Am I teaching you to suck eggs here?

I'm not convinced by this idea that we should firstly break the connection between constituent and elected MP, and that we could be 'assigning' MPs from a pot of 'proportionally' elected members. I'd have no issue with that happening in the upper house, but the lower house, in my opinion, needs that very short link between constituent and parliament.

 

[polysmut]

This is an honest question, not designed with any particular point in mind. I've spoiled many ballot papers in the past. Does this mean that I've genuinely contributed? I've thought that it adds to the stats of how many people care enough to want to vote but didn't support any of the candidates or parties who were standing.
Is there a case to say that I effectively didn't bother with the nation's democratic process? Should I have looked harder for a representative? Should I have made myself available for public office in order to provide representation for at least one more citizen (even if it was only myself)?
In this election, as I occasionally do, I did cast a vote for a candidate. That is both rare for me & irrelevant to my question.

 

[Lizard]

FPTP is an idea that has it's problems and its advantages. I am studying Germany next year for uni so I will give you a thoroughly thought out view of whether we should move to PR then.

I wonder how the makeup of MPs would be now if the AV stuff was passed?

 

[Carbonox]

Sadly, I'm actually dead serious when I tell you Labour got through from Rotherham.

Some voters just flat out don't learn...

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Yeah system needs a change. Whilst I wanted a Tory majority I wanted more UKIP representation to keep them honest on policies regarding the NHS.

Probably proof that the system works. We might be a bunch of convicts at the arse-end of the world - that never gets old; thanks, Mr. Keating - but even we know that UKIP is a bunch of fringe lunatics who make our own motley crew of dangerous, unstable, inefficient, belligerent, childish and nasty politicians look reasonable.

 

[jackargent]

Because each constituency elected a candidate that represents the majority of voters in that region? Am I teaching you to suck eggs here?

I'm not convinced by this idea that we should firstly break the connection between constituent and elected MP, and that we could be 'assigning' MPs from a pot of 'proportionally' elected members. I'd have no issue with that happening in the upper house, but the lower house, in my opinion, needs that very short link between constituent and parliament.

Ok, now I understand - apologies if I was slow on the uptake.

Yes, you are right, the one thing that FPTP has going for it is the direct link between constituency and MP.

If you go for "pure" PR you cannot avoid losing that, which is why there are a number of variations on PR which try & combine the two. The Scottish Parliament uses the Additional Member System which works like this...

"Elections for the Scottish Parliament were amongst the first in Britain to use a mixed member proportional representation (MMS) system.[66] The system is a form of the additional member method of proportional representation (PR), and is better known as such in Britain. Under the system, voters are given two votes: one for a specific candidate and one for a political party.

Of the 129 MSPs, 73 are elected to represent first past the post constituencies and are known as "Constituency MSPs".[6] Voters choose one member to represent the constituency, and the member with most votes is returned as a constituency MSP. The 73 Scottish Parliament constituencies shared the same boundaries as the UK Parliament constituencies in Scotland, prior to the 2005 reduction in the number of Scottish MPs, with the exception ofOrkney and Shetland which each return their own constituency MSP. Currently, the average Scottish Parliament constituency comprises 55,000 electors.[67] Given the geographical distribution of population in Scotland, this results in constituencies of a smaller area in the Central Lowlands, where the bulk of Scotland's population live, and much larger constituency areas in the north and west of the country, which have a low population density. The island archipelagos of Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles comprise a much smaller number of electors, due to their dispersed population and distance from the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh.[67] If a Constituency MSP resigns from Parliament, this triggers a by-election in his or her constituency, where a replacement MSP is returned from one of the parties by the plurality system.[66]

The remaining 56 MSPs, called "List MSPs", are elected by an additional members system, which seeks to make the overall results more proportional, countering any distortions in the constituency results. Seven List MSPs are elected from each of eight electoral regions, of which constituencies are sub-divisions "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament

I like it - it doesn't give perfect proportionality but it does come much closer than FPTP whilst still letting me have a constituency MP (MSP actually) I also like the fact that I get two votes. I pretty much always use them to vote for different parties.

 

[jackargent]

This is an honest question, not designed with any particular point in mind. I've spoiled many ballot papers in the past. Does this mean that I've genuinely contributed? I've thought that it adds to the stats of how many people care enough to want to vote but didn't support any of the candidates or parties who were standing.
Is there a case to say that I effectively didn't bother with the nation's democratic process? Should I have looked harder for a representative? Should I have made myself available for public office in order to provide representation for at least one more citizen (even if it was only myself)?
In this election, as I occasionally do, I did cast a vote for a candidate. That is both rare for me & irrelevant to my question.

There is no right or wrong answer to your question. In my opinion, making the effort to tirn up at the polling station to spoil your paper is much preferable to not turning up at all. Because of the FPTP system which I have just been discussing above, most of our votes are pretty meaningless anyway.

I've never spoilt my paper although I did vote communist in a local election once because the rest of the candidates were complete numpties whcih is kind of similar.

 

[KSaiyu]

Bleh

For example, she says the SNP will be prepared to vote on issues concerning the English NHS — even though English MPs have no say in the running of the Scottish NHS, which is devolved to Holyrood. Her aim to interfere with the English health service is, she claimed, 'to restore and protect it as a proper public service, rejecting the pernicious impact of privatisation. We will vote on nominally 'English' matters at each and every opportunity when Scotland's national and economic interests are directly affected'.

Plus, is it too late to change my vote?

 

[DK]

Funnily enough, Ireland tried to introduce FPTP twice, both times during a Fianna Fáil (aka the guys who wrecked our economy) majority.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Because each constituency elected a candidate that represents the majority of voters in that region? Am I teaching you to suck eggs here?

I'm not convinced by this idea that we should firstly break the connection between constituent and elected MP, and that we could be 'assigning' MPs from a pot of 'proportionally' elected members. I'd have no issue with that happening in the upper house, but the lower house, in my opinion, needs that very short link between constituent and parliament.

In the PR as proposed there would still be constituencies with voters still voting for a constituency representative. The difference is that constituency boundaries would b redefined to get as close as possible to the same-number-of-voters-per-constituency. It wouldn't be mathematically-true PR but it would certainly yield a much closer idea to opinions given in the vote.

 

[Dotini]

The talking heads over here are clack-clacking over the SNP and its surging numbers. They think it means scary things for the UK and the EU, things that would diminish the economic and war making powers of the UK and the EU, things that are important us, nevermind mind you.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

In the PR as proposed there would still be constituencies with voters still voting for a constituency representative. The difference is that constituency boundaries would b redefined to get as close as possible to the same-number-of-voters-per-constituency. It wouldn't be mathematically-true PR but it would certainly yield a much closer idea to opinions given in the vote.

I think constituency boundary reform is set to happen in 2018 to do just that.

This is an honest question, not designed with any particular point in mind. I've spoiled many ballot papers in the past. Does this mean that I've genuinely contributed? I've thought that it adds to the stats of how many people care enough to want to vote but didn't support any of the candidates or parties who were standing.
Is there a case to say that I effectively didn't bother with the nation's democratic process? Should I have looked harder for a representative? Should I have made myself available for public office in order to provide representation for at least one more citizen (even if it was only myself)?
In this election, as I occasionally do, I did cast a vote for a candidate. That is both rare for me & irrelevant to my question.

I believe you (and myself) contribute when you spoil because spoilt votes are counted and announced - it's known how many people have rejected all the representatives available to them. (assuming the number of people who messed up their vote is low ) So it's absolutely taking part in the process - it'd nicer if there was an actual None of the Above option, but there you go.

I've always stuck to the idea that no matter how ignorant or naive a voter you are, it's always the politicians job to convince the voter that they can represent them. If you're in the polling station and can't decide, then none of the candidates have succeed in convincing you - and that's on them, not you. You can't 'blame' the public for coming to a conclusion, I'd say.

The point about making yourself available is interesting though, I hadn't thought of it that way. The only thing I could say is that rejecting all candidates is a way of forcing them to come back to the voter and rethinking how they can represent them, with the potential to accommodate/convince them for next election - although if that comes as the expense of other voters then I suppose you still have the same problem.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The talking heads over here are clack-clacking over the SNP and its surging numbers. They think it means scary things for the UK and the EU, things that would diminish the economic and war making powers of the UK and the EU, things that are important us, nevermind mind you.

It could well mean the end of the UK, not a bad thing in my opinion. Northern Ireland is already almost autonomous, the Welsh are heading that way too, full autonomy for Scotland would also be good.

The shame for us Northern English is that, Union or not, there's a feeling of disenfranchisement and separation from Westminster. The Scots are lucky in having a chance to escape, in my opinion.

 

[jackargent]

It could well mean the end of the UK, not a bad thing in my opinion. Northern Ireland is already almost autonomous, the Welsh are heading that way too, full autonomy for Scotland would also be good.

The shame for us Northern English is that, Union or not, there's a feeling of disenfranchisement and separation from Westminster. The Scots are lucky in having a chance to escape, in my opinion.

I'd happily take the North of England with us but there is no mechanism for that to happen. So we'll just have to invade you once we get independence!

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'd happily take the North of England with us but there is no mechanism for that to happen. So we'll just have to invade you once we get independence!

Have you seen Hull?

 

[jackargent]

Have you seen Hull?

Gotta draw the line somewhere!

 

[TenEightyOne]

Gotta draw the line somewhere!

Quite right. Might I recommend "somewhere north of Hull"?

I reckon if you draw the line at around Beverley I'll be able to get on the last deportation trucks to the New Northern State of Alba.

 

[Famine]

There's a tl;dr at the end of this...

Right. *cracks knuckles*

There are about 47 billion problems with just about any voting system when you apply it to our political process and structure - and that alone should tell you that it's our country that needs the reforming, not the voting system. This is, in part, why the AV referendum failed to replace FPTP - we went for the devil we know.


As @ExigeEvan points out, when we vote we are selecting someone to represent the interests of our particular group of 68,000ish people living in roughly the same area at a national level. On the one hand I agree that this is a necessary job, but I also don't on a much more significant scale.

Some of you know I live up on the North Yorkshire coast and to be entirely honest I'm not sure what potential problems our group of 68,000ish have that need addressing on a national level day in, day out*. I couldn't even tell you what our MP did at Westminster every day* for the last five years that required them to be paid more than £300,000 in that period. That may not be true of some people - I imagine that if you live near where HS2 is going, your MP has been quite busy either doing what you want or not doing what you want because he's following the wishes of the people that own his tie not the local people who he represents.

That last part right there is another problem all by itself. The 68,000ish of us who put the MP there aren't as scary as the Chief Whip is to our MPs - largely because 23,000ish of us couldn't be arsed enough to vote for them and of the 45,000ish who did, only 16,000ish of us voted for him. There's 52,000ish of us already against him whatever he does and the 16,000ish who like him only get a chance to change our mind in five years - but the Chief Whip is on his case every single day*. Do you think he'd rather do what the locals think (when they can express a thought beyond "I dunno really") or what the Chief Whip orders?

So back to the first part of that. What local issues are MPs needed for to represent local people at a national level? I mean it's all well and good knowing that if you get locked up in an Indonesian prison for drug smuggling your local representative will talk about you in the green padded cell (with about 8 of the other 649 representatives present) to general murmurs, but frankly that's a pretty poor return on investment.

Indeed what the MPs should be doing is what they are known for doing. Creating national level legislation, managing national level taxation and budgeting, organising national level civil engineering projects, directing national level defence (domestic and national) and representing the country itself at international level. We don't need 650 local representatives for that - and indeed what we need local representation for is local issues at the local level. Up here we all elected people to the councils too... has anyone checked to see how their local council elections turned out or are you all more concerned by what colour tie the guy in London who says he lives in your town is wearing?


So what's the solution?
First of all we need to redefine what our levels of government are and do - and constitutionally limit them to this with an equivalent to the US Bill of Rights. As the scope of governance increases the powers should decrease and vice versa so that individuals have the most power over their own life - for a crude example, a national government can decide where buildings don't go by protecting land, a county government can do the same but with more restriction if they wish, the city government can decide which bit of available land builders can put houses on (zoning), a housing association can decide what type of shrubs you have in the garden of your house and your wife tells you where to plant it.

With local government now the defining power for local matters (and frankly it already is, but no-one cares about council elections whatsoever), we then need to radically reform the Houses of Parliament. Firstly the Commons...

There should not be 650 MPs in a country this size. While any number I could choose would be a pretty arbitrary one, I'd probably plump for somewhere between 100-200, each covering a town or authority with larger cities returning two or three MPs (Greater London can be divided up into authorities much as it is now, but my cigarette-paper calculations say no more than 16 MPs). With local officials representing people at local government, the MPs will be returned not to represent local people at a national level, but to represent local governments at a national level.

With the Commons now operating as it ought, the Lords needs a far more serious look. It should work as oversight to veto non-constitutional legislation and it should both be elected and smaller than the Commons - I think that around 50 members would do it, so one for every two to four MPs. Their job would be not to represent anyone, but to ensure that legislation is constitutional. In the case of a split vote, the casting vote would go to the Prime Minister.


But I haven't addressed actually polling yet... So let's start at the most important part of the structure - local government.

Typically local government elections are made up of multiple people in 'wards', some representing the same party, with more than one councillor per ward but council control belonging to whomever has the most councillors across the ward (my ward is Lib Dem, but it looks like my council is NOC at the moment). This multiplicity of candidates in such a small area with so few votes available necessitates the Alternative Vote method as FPTP in will often result in winning candidates with tiny vote percentages or with a handful of votes between election and failure. Checking my local results again, it looks like the top candidate (of three elected) scored TWELVE percent of the available votes, while top six were separated by just 400 votes...

Moving to the national level now, I think - controversially perhaps - we should retain FPTP to elect the severely reduced number of MPs, but with one key change. All uncast votes should be included (along with any rejected ballots) and in any constituency where the total number of votes not cast for any candidate exceed the total number of votes attained by the leading candidate, a no result should be declared and a further by-election triggered.

Now for the biggest change up there in the ex-Lords. Candidates should be fielded by the parties just as they are for the Commons but they should be elected by PR. We see one of the big problems about PR with all the comments about "under PR UKIP would have n seats" - exactly who would they be and how would they be chosen? By UKIP? That's about as democratic as having an unelected Prime Minister is. We don't have that problem here, as the upper house represents no-one but the constitution, but still I would suggest that the parties should field their candidates prior to the election.

Speaking of unelected Prime Ministers... In the UK we have no actual say in who our Prime Minister is. He is elected by being elected by his party to be the leader of it and then by his party returning the majority of FPTP seats - and we have had three Prime Ministers from the last five who didn't even manage that. John Major became PM by winning a private leadership election rather than a general election (though he did go on to win one), while Gordon Brown became PM by the existing PM personally deciding he should take over from him - subsequently losing his own general election as leader. David Cameron who has been PM for the last five years failed to win the 2010 general election, becoming leader of an unelected coalition of parties by private negotiation, though has now won an election outright.

This should change, as should the role of Prime Minister. He (or she) should no longer be the individual who is the leader of his party and effectively in control of the lower house, but directly elected by the population, by AV, and serve as the lead overseer of the constitution and defender of the realm. His main legislative power ought to be as the casting voter in split decisions in the upper house, but still command the armed forces in offensive actions (unless overruled by the upper house) and represent the UK in negotiations.


Now, some of you might point out that having four elections in one (Local AV, Lower House FPTP, Upper House PR, Prime Minister AV) might confuse and serve to exclude stupid people who'd do it wrongly.

I say "Good".


Teal Deer

• Introduce a constitution to limit powers as the breadth of governance increases
• Local government: Change polling to AV due to small numbers of voters and high numbers of candidates
• National government: Reduce number of MPs to less than or equal to 200, representing local governments and authorities at a national level
• Elect MPs by FPTP, with uncast votes included; Re-election required in any constituency where uncast votes exceed total by "winning" candidate
• Elected upper house acting as constitutional oversight
• Elect these representatives by PR
• Prime Minister to be directly elected by the people with a separate AV poll

*Definitions of working days may differ significantly from expectations - and that's a problem too