Reply to: is it fair

[SimonMac]

The people who will lose the most are the people who have the ability to change it, you can guess how that is going to turn out

[mudskipper]

We had a vote on this in 2011. Not quite sure why anyone voted to keep the current system.

But that was the vote so it should be lived with.

Did we? Was it a CUK poll?

[BrilloPad]

We had a vote on this in 2011. Not quite sure why anyone voted to keep the current system.

But that was the vote so it should be lived with.

[Zero Liability]

Petition here if anyone is that bothered:

https://www.change.org/p/david-camer...eatsmatchvotes

And another here:

The Electoral Reform Society | Campaigning to make politics better

[mudskipper]

Petition here if anyone is that bothered:

https://www.change.org/p/david-camer...eatsmatchvotes

[Gumbo Robot]

I thought she was constituency MSP for Govan, rather than list, like, for example, all the Tory MSPs.

edit - The tories actually have three constituency MSPs out of their 15.

My sympathies were always with Ian.

I waited and waited for the episode of Crackerjack when he finally flipped and battered seven shades of sh!te out of the little prick

[Batcher]

Interesting way of looking at it - but completely wrong.

You do not vote against everyone else, you vote for someone.

This is where people get confused and upset - because they think a negative vote should have some power - but it does not - you can only bring about change with positive voting.

But it is a good parody of Britain at the moment - it seems it is not about being the best that you can be but trying to make out the everyone else is worse than you - which when you think about it is not going to end well is it?

I've seen plenty of people asking to vote for someone to keep someone else out rather than vote for who you want. Most of the campaigning is negative about why the other side is bad rather than why we are good.

[DodgyAgent]

Interesting way of looking at it - but completely wrong.

You do not vote against everyone else, you vote for someone.

This is where people get confused and upset - because they think a negative vote should have some power - but it does not - you can only bring about change with positive voting.

But it is a good parody of Britain at the moment - it seems it is not about being the best that you can be but trying to make out the everyone else is worse than you - which when you think about it is not going to end well is it?

Very well put ..

Just 6 seats to go. Tories could end up with 100 more MPs than labour

[original PM]

You forget - the SNP, PC, Greens, etc were all campaigning on a promise of "We'll all gang up to keep the largest party out of power". It appears their supporters have a similar ideology.

Anyone who has kids will have heard the phrase

"Well if I cannot have it no one can have it"

But I was hoping that most politicians did not have the view of a 6 year old....

Ha who am I kidding they care not about what is best for the country they only care about their political careers.

[Ticktock]

Interesting way of looking at it - but completely wrong.

You do not vote against everyone else, you vote for someone.

This is where people get confused and upset - because they think a negative vote should have some power - but it does not - you can only bring about change with positive voting.

But it is a good parody of Britain at the moment - it seems it is not about being the best that you can be but trying to make out the everyone else is worse than you - which when you think about it is not going to end well is it?

You forget - the SNP, PC, Greens, etc were all campaigning on a promise of "We'll all gang up to keep the largest party out of power". It appears their supporters have a similar ideology.

[original PM]

The big guns are parachuted into safe seats at the moment so it's just the same. You would hope that the parties would choose the most talented individuals to top their lists in a PR system.

Once the make-up of the parliament is decided it could go to a vote to pick the PM. Obviously the party with the most MPs would get one of their guys in. The voters would feel that their vote counted though as at the moment it's possible for around 70% of a constituency to have voted against the guy who wins.

Interesting way of looking at it - but completely wrong.

You do not vote against everyone else, you vote for someone.

This is where people get confused and upset - because they think a negative vote should have some power - but it does not - you can only bring about change with positive voting.

But it is a good parody of Britain at the moment - it seems it is not about being the best that you can be but trying to make out the everyone else is worse than you - which when you think about it is not going to end well is it?

[shaunbhoy]

That UKIP could get 14-18% of the votes yet only get 2-3 seats and SNP may poll around 5% and get 50+ seats?

Surely now we must have electoral reform

Who said anything about it being "fair"?

[Flashman]

Germany is a rich and peaceful country for 70 years now. No wars against Argentina, Iraq, Korea or Afghanistan in that period.

Think that might have more to do with Germany being blown to **** in WW2 than any electoral system!

[TykeMerc]

In the Netherlands you can still give preferential votes so someone on the list that you like, quite often people get directly elected this way even when they were on a so called unelectable place.

The way you describe that is you vote for a preferred candidate and then second choice candidate, it's not a vote for a Party, but for an individual which is reasonable as at least folk are voting for a representative.

I'm not comfortable with a Party vote system at all.

[Batcher]

Is there a system where one can vote for their local MP, AND for which party they want to be in power? I'm not sure how the logistics would work out... if your local MP doesn't make the PR 'cut' then they aren't allowed to vote in the Commons or something like that?

Does this exist?

Yes it does exist.

The Scottish Parliament elections use this system. You put a cross against the person you are voting for and, on another list, the party you wish your list vote to go to.

Most people, I assume, choose both the person and the party they represent but I know voters who split it. It's been mentioned that to get more pro-indy MSPs we should vote for the person representing the party we want to win and then give the list vote to one of the other pro-indy parties. There was a graph showing how it would work if all pro-indy supporters picked SNP first and then either Greens, SSP, etc. which would mean Lab/Con/Libs having very few MSPs.