-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Tory or Labour?
- Thread starter yinyang
- Start date
What quiet ? Boris got only 43% of the votes but 56% of the seats.
If there was another referendum, boris knew he would lose. Only way to get brexit is for another GE.
Pro remsiners got 55% after you deduct ulster unionist and farage's brexit party
Tat why I advocate preference voting system. And the 45% can be misleading because there are votes for the other parties too.
That's why the US electoral college system is so wonderful. Your politics won't be dominated by the libtards in the big cities.
That was how umno dominated politics for so long. It took a mega scandal to bring them down with the help of ex umno veterans.That's why the US electoral college system is so wonderful. Your politics won't be dominated by the libtards in the big cities.
In 2011 the citizens of the UK were given an opportunity to dump the "first past the post" system and replace it with some convoluted alternative.
The result of the referendum was a resounding NO to any changes.
68% (almost as good as the PAP) voted to retain the "first past the post" system so the electorate has spoken unequivocally.
Any calls for change are invariably from the sore losers looking for excuses as to why they have lost.
I am currently personally experiencing the horrors of proportional representation and I can assure you it is not a pretty sight. It has resulted in a party that only had 38% of the vote being in power while the party which garnered 46% of the vote is in opposition.
In addition the PM of NZ is beholden to an old fart who could only manage less than 6% of the popular vote. He makes the decisions and she has no choice but to implement them.
Anyone who thinks that proportional representation is a fairer system obviously does not understand how it works.
Proportional representation should bar any coalition formed after election. That should be fare. All it needed is a little tweek.
If coalitions are made illegal then it becomes impossible to govern because laws cannot be passed by parliament.
Every single piece of legislation would be embroiled in turmoil with the various parties jostling to inject their own brand of politics into the mix.
By the time any sort of agreement was reached it would be time for a new election and the process would repeat itself.
Yes proportional representation bad... however a better system is preference voting system. That way Brexit party would have contested In the conservative seats. And the conservatives won because Brexit party did not contest conservative seats
What is even more horrendous about the proportional representation system is that there are MPs in Parliament who wouldn't have a hope in hell of winning a seat on their own merit.
They get into parliament by ranking as high as they can on the party list and the way to rank highly is to be in the good books of the party elite. In other words its "jobs for the boys" or, as is currently the case in NZ, jobs for "the girls and the gays".
These list MPs represent nobody, were not voted in by any constituency and in most cases would not stand a chance of winning a seat but have entered parliament pretty much by the back door, not unlike the GRC system where clowns have an opportunity to sprout their dubious wisdom in the chamber because they were chosen to be a member of a "team".
This will ensure that all laws passed will not trample anyone. It has to be agreeable to all.
But this will prevent party hopping prevalent in malaysia.
This happens in first past the post system too. Theresa may had to appease her coalition partner, the ulster unionist preventing her from creating a border across the irish sea between northern ireland and rest of UK in order to keep the good friday agreement intact. Good friday calls for abolishment of border checks and post between ireland and northern ireland. That is possible if UK is in the EU.
Yes it can happen with any system but the first past the post system is far more likely to return a party with an absolute majority in parliament compared to the proportional representation system that hardly ever produces an outright winner.
You can have a law that prevents party hopping in conjunction with a first past the post system. Singapore is a prime example.
But this will not happen if party hopping benefits the big party.
Voices of minorities are more likely to be heard in a proprtional representation.
I am against a pure proportional representation system. However there should be some reforms to better represent the views of the electorate. The singkie NCMP system with full voting rights is a start.
Being heard is one thing but in many proportional representation systems the tail ends up wagging the dog as is the case in NZ.
No system is perfect the first past the post system is simple, easy to understand and produces stable governments far more likely to last a full term so that the country can actually progress instead of being stuck in gridlock.
You should get a downvote for that. Non voting MPs are aplenty elsewhere in the world. It is call the free press, no need what convoluted system design what NCMP then go POFMA nonsense.
Similar threads
