2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 14, 2019 11:44:29 GMT
Actually, the majority of votes was against the Conservatives. The seat system is flawed. We now have an outcome that a minority wanted. So it's the seat system and the real public opinion that clashes. This was a final spasm of a disappearing generation. Change will come. Yes, I'm still bitter. Working on it. Next step. Release the IC report into Russian interference. And a decision on the investigation on Johnson and Arcuri and bribery allegations looked into. If referendum is declared invalid, what will the conservative minority have voted for? Brexit and Government are still 2 very different things. There was a larger majority of votes against Labour than there was a majority of votes against the Conservatives, that is why the latter won. First past the post is ridiculous but it does usually reward the vote winner, it just turns pluralities into majorities. On tne problem of the membership, Labour was taken down this dead end by an entryist membership. Change the membership, change the party. Starting a new party rarely works, taking over an existing one is much easier.
|
|
2,206 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Dec 14, 2019 11:46:20 GMT
There is also a fair chance that the left will refuse to cede power. In such a case, what would the centrist MPs do? I doubt they will just wait it out yet again. Several including people of the quality of Chuka jumped ship to the Liberal Democrats or the Soubry party but they all lost their seats or weren't elected, so would starting a new party from scratch even be an option. Plus they would be seen as playing musical chairs with their parties and any further split in Labour would hand the Tories an even stronger chance to stay in power when you also have to factor in that the Brexit Party won't be around in it's current form in the future. Maybe a David Miliband type character is the sort of person who would have the clout and gravitas to form a new party otherwise you are getting into the Tony Blair type figure territory or they ask Mr Farage to suddenly swerve left. Isn't the Labour party a left wing party? Cede to who, you must have noticed the Centrists were wiped out at the election?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2019 11:58:50 GMT
Actually, the majority of votes was against the Conservatives. The seat system is flawed. We now have an outcome that a minority wanted. So it's the seat system and the real public opinion that clashes. This was a final spasm of a disappearing generation. Change will come. Yes, I'm still bitter. Working on it. Next step. Release the IC report into Russian interference. And a decision on the investigation on Johnson and Arcuri and bribery allegations looked into. If referendum is declared invalid, what will the conservative minority have voted for? Brexit and Government are still 2 very different things. You can spin it anyway you want, but the majority of votes were not against the Conservatives. By that logic the majority of votes were against the Brexit Party, meaning the election result was a success. It’s just spin. You can’t claim people are against the Tory party by voting for another. Each party have their qualities and a vote for someone else doesn’t mean people are automatically against the conservatives. It simply means another party was more advantageous to vote for overall. The simple truth is the conservatives won the highest number of votes and seats. They won the populist vote and they are the most supported party in the country. Only twice since 1900 has a single party achieved more than 50% of the votes, so it’s a total rarity for any winning party to claim they have the majority of votes anyway. Coincidentally, on both occasions it was the Tories with more than 50% of votes.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 14, 2019 12:26:05 GMT
Several including people of the quality of Chuka jumped ship to the Liberal Democrats or the Soubry party but they all lost their seats or weren't elected, so would starting a new party from scratch even be an option. Plus they would be seen as playing musical chairs with their parties and any further split in Labour would hand the Tories an even stronger chance to stay in power when you also have to factor in that the Brexit Party won't be around in it's current form in the future. Maybe a David Miliband type character is the sort of person who would have the clout and gravitas to form a new party otherwise you are getting into the Tony Blair type figure territory or they ask Mr Farage to suddenly swerve left. Isn't the Labour party a left wing party? Cede to who, you must have noticed the Centrists were wiped out at the election? Labour centrists suffered because of the manifesto and being run by the left. People like Cooper, Benn, Phillips etc. were all re-elected, though. The more centrist Lib Dems were the party that gained the most votes, up to 3.7 million, but FPTP again smothers that. Tactical voting could have worked much better and I think it’s clear why it didn’t. First, the decision to create a distinction from Labour by revoking rather than referendum stopped that vote crossover, the distinction was unnecessary. Second, the sheer viciousness coming from the Momentumite left against anyone perceived as not left enough stopped much vote crossover. Lib Dems were harangued mercilessly, leading to many refusing to vote for a party that was insulting them, the atmosphere meant that the opposite also became inevitable. Blair kept winning because he realised that the enemy was only the Conservatives, nobody else.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Dec 14, 2019 12:54:44 GMT
If you are in favor of a well-functioning democracy, you have to ask yourself how democratic it is that a party with 43,6 % of the votes achieves such a big parliamentary majority. Labour and LibDems received 43,7 %. We need proportional representation.
FPTP elections became meaningless the moment there were more than two parties. Any system that consistently gives almost unbridled power to the largest minority is not going to work.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2019 12:58:14 GMT
Several including people of the quality of Chuka jumped ship to the Liberal Democrats or the Soubry party but they all lost their seats or weren't elected, so would starting a new party from scratch even be an option. Plus they would be seen as playing musical chairs with their parties and any further split in Labour would hand the Tories an even stronger chance to stay in power when you also have to factor in that the Brexit Party won't be around in it's current form in the future. Maybe a David Miliband type character is the sort of person who would have the clout and gravitas to form a new party otherwise you are getting into the Tony Blair type figure territory or they ask Mr Farage to suddenly swerve left. You are going to have to enlighten me? Chuka was apparently the person the Tories feared when Labour were looking to elect a leader to replace Ed Miliband and he was seen as a frontrunner for that job before he declined to run. The guy has a good media image, good speaker and has a bit of gravitas about him. There was maybe a bit of the British Obama hype but he ticked a lot of boxes for a potential leader in my books. Jumping ship and being in 3 parties in one year has tarnished him but he increased his new parties share of the vote hugely in the seat he contested. Also a lot of the people who left the Labour Party had been deselected, were older and coming towards the end of their political career but Chuka certainly wasn't.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2019 13:04:39 GMT
If you are in favor of a well-functioning democracy, you have to ask yourself how democratic it is that a party with 43,6 % of the votes achieves such a big parliamentary majority. Labour and LibDems received 43,7 %. We need proportional representation. FPTP elections became meaningless the moment there were more than two parties. Any system that consistently gives almost unbridled power to the largest minority is not going to work. We had a referendum on this in 2011 I think. I actually voted for PR as I thought the FPTP system disproportionally favoured Labour over the Tories. This is the first election that I can remember where Labour has done worse seatwise compared to vote %. In both 1983 and 2015 the party won more seats with a lower percentage of the vote than they got on Thursday. Also the overall vote percentage is skewed as both major Parties have safe seats where they can get 60% plus of the vote. If anyone has any data how this or any other election vote would have looked under a PR system as per MP allocation, I'd love to see it to see what the seat allocations would have been.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Dec 14, 2019 13:12:44 GMT
We had a referendum on this in 2011 I think. Really? That's bizarre. I think this is not something the public should vote about. The FPTP approach should be out of the question per definition. It's so undemocratic and separated from the will of the majority of people that voting in favor of it would be totally undemocratic and ironic.
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Dec 14, 2019 13:21:45 GMT
The main problem here is the media and their lies paired with the reinvention of politicians who have absolutely no problem blatantly doing the same without conscience.
They have spent the last 20 years re-weaponising the 2 biggest ways to manipulate the public for centuries, religion and patriotism/nationalism and now it has all finally fallen into place for them.
'Liberal' has now become the same dirty word here it has become in the States where you have half the country who flat out refuse to even say the word Democrat, let alone cast a vote for them.
This isn't going to change for a very long time now as it is too thoroughly engrained in the culture.
For a long time we have falsely thought 'we are better than them', it's now been proven that we aren't.
I don't know what the answer is, I don't think there is one anymore.
The only solution I can see is just giving up on the whole process like the people who live in countries ruled by dictators have to do and just get on with your life and hope the hammer of whatever tomorrows nut jobbery brings doesn't take you out before you eventually die from starvation or a disease you can't afford medication for...
I'm so glad I'm a fag and didn't breed. The guilt of leaving a child to live through whats coming would be enough to kill me.
|
|
2,206 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Dec 14, 2019 13:27:01 GMT
You are going to have to enlighten me? Chuka was apparently the person the Tories feared when Labour were looking to elect a leader to replace Ed Miliband and he was seen as a frontrunner for that job before he declined to run. The guy has a good media image, good speaker and has a bit of gravitas about him. There was maybe a bit of the British Obama hype but he ticked a lot of boxes for a potential leader in my books. Jumping ship and being in 3 parties in one year has tarnished him but he increased his new parties share of the vote hugely in the seat he contested. Also a lot of the people who left the Labour Party had been deselected, were older and coming towards the end of their political career but Chuka certainly wasn't. So popular with the Tory party?
|
|
2,206 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Dec 14, 2019 13:31:21 GMT
Isn't the Labour party a left wing party? Cede to who, you must have noticed the Centrists were wiped out at the election? Labour centrists suffered because of the manifesto and being run by the left. People like Cooper, Benn, Phillips etc. were all re-elected, though. The more centrist Lib Dems were the party that gained the most votes, up to 3.7 million, but FPTP again smothers that. Tactical voting could have worked much better and I think it’s clear why it didn’t. First, the decision to create a distinction from Labour by revoking rather than referendum stopped that vote crossover, the distinction was unnecessary. Second, the sheer viciousness coming from the Momentumite left against anyone perceived as not left enough stopped much vote crossover. Lib Dems were harangued mercilessly, leading to many refusing to vote for a party that was insulting them, the atmosphere meant that the opposite also became inevitable. Blair kept winning because he realised that the enemy was only the Conservatives, nobody else. What part of the manifesto did the centrists in the party suffer for? The manifesto was good. I thought it was abandoning supporters in the Midlands and North East especially that caused the problems with Labour not getting enough MP's elected.
|
|
2,206 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Dec 14, 2019 13:33:03 GMT
Labour centrists suffered because of the manifesto and being run by the left. People like Cooper, Benn, Phillips etc. were all re-elected, though. The more centrist Lib Dems were the party that gained the most votes, up to 3.7 million, but FPTP again smothers that. Tactical voting could have worked much better and I think it’s clear why it didn’t. First, the decision to create a distinction from Labour by revoking rather than referendum stopped that vote crossover, the distinction was unnecessary. Second, the sheer viciousness coming from the Momentumite left against anyone perceived as not left enough stopped much vote crossover. Lib Dems were harangued mercilessly, leading to many refusing to vote for a party that was insulting them, the atmosphere meant that the opposite also became inevitable. Blair kept winning because he realised that the enemy was only the Conservatives, nobody else. What part of the manifesto did the centrists in the party suffer for? The manifesto was good. I thought it was abandoning supporters in the Midlands and North Eat especially that caused the problems with Labour not getting enough MP's elected. Actually there was one problem with the manifesto, it was a broad set of policies across many areas. I'm not sure it would have made a difference in a Brexit election but there needed to be one policy to gather around, push and constantly refer to.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 14, 2019 13:50:47 GMT
We had a referendum on this in 2011 I think. I actually voted for PR as I thought the FPTP system disproportionally favoured Labour over the Tories. Alternative Vote (AV) is not proportional! I voted against it, for that reason.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Dec 14, 2019 13:56:20 GMT
In spite of all this media brainwashing and manipulating, the voting majority still did not vote Conservative. They were just lucky that the FPTP election system gives almost unbridled power to the largest minority. The fact that the majority of people voted for something else is completely overlooked.
I think the minority that did vote conservative will get even smaller in years. I think it is a reaction of fear, fear of the unknown, fear of losing traditions, fear of progressiveness. New generations show that this is quickly changing. It's like a (in some ways understandable), last spasm of powerlessness, resulting in protective behaviour and voting against it, no mater if it costs them £2000,- a year, rips apart the complete UK and starts 10 years of uncertainty.
In 20 years the youth from now will have children of their own and a big part of elderly people with traditions that do not suit this day anymore will be gone. It's nature. Maybe already in 10 years. Change is coming like a landslide. I truly see this as a last spasm. I also think that there is no need for this chauvinism and that excellent trade deals (which are up for grabs now) with EU countries and a good attitude and harmony and forming a front in the world makes you stronger as a country and gives you more (self) respect. It's the future.
It's not a matter of "if" we will rejoin the EU, it's a matter of "when".
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 14, 2019 14:01:15 GMT
Labour centrists suffered because of the manifesto and being run by the left. People like Cooper, Benn, Phillips etc. were all re-elected, though. The more centrist Lib Dems were the party that gained the most votes, up to 3.7 million, but FPTP again smothers that. Tactical voting could have worked much better and I think it’s clear why it didn’t. First, the decision to create a distinction from Labour by revoking rather than referendum stopped that vote crossover, the distinction was unnecessary. Second, the sheer viciousness coming from the Momentumite left against anyone perceived as not left enough stopped much vote crossover. Lib Dems were harangued mercilessly, leading to many refusing to vote for a party that was insulting them, the atmosphere meant that the opposite also became inevitable. Blair kept winning because he realised that the enemy was only the Conservatives, nobody else. What part of the manifesto did the centrists in the party suffer for? The manifesto was good. I thought it was abandoning supporters in the Midlands and North East especially that caused the problems with Labour not getting enough MP's elected. Too much to be credible. To gain a first term, focus on a few deliverables, other stuff can come later if that proves effective. On the voters Labour ‘abandoned’, it is more the case that they ‘abandoned’ labour. They have agency and used it, telling them what to believe rather than asking them what they needed is such a basic error to make.
|
|
2,206 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Dec 14, 2019 14:10:00 GMT
What part of the manifesto did the centrists in the party suffer for? The manifesto was good. I thought it was abandoning supporters in the Midlands and North East especially that caused the problems with Labour not getting enough MP's elected. Too much to be credible. To gain a first term, focus on a few deliverables, other stuff can come later if that proves effective. On the voters Labour ‘abandoned’, it is more the case that they ‘abandoned’ labour. They have agency and used it, telling them what to believe rather than asking them what they needed is such a basic error to make. First sentence I agree with to certain extent, I loved the wide ranging proposals on offer. But this affected Labour centrists? It was vast swathes of voters choosing Brexit party in the Midlands and North East wasn't it?
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 14, 2019 14:20:02 GMT
Too much to be credible. To gain a first term, focus on a few deliverables, other stuff can come later if that proves effective. On the voters Labour ‘abandoned’, it is more the case that they ‘abandoned’ labour. They have agency and used it, telling them what to believe rather than asking them what they needed is such a basic error to make. First sentence I agree with to certain extent, I loved the wide ranging proposals on offer. But this affected Labour centrists? It was vast swathes of voters choosing Brexit party in the Midlands and North East wasn't it? For them. looking at the data, the primary reason was Corbyn and his politics, they'd given him the benefit of the doubt two years ago but no longer. If they had abstained it would have been the same result, if they had voted Labour still there would still be a good working majority for the Conservatives, given how close they were last time. Time and time again they were told to ditch Corbyn and they refused, it's not as though they weren't given the opportunity. Labour only has itself to blame. If they'd had a more credible leader, then the candidates on the doorstep would have had an easier task.
|
|
1,848 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Dec 14, 2019 14:24:13 GMT
55% of 18 to 34 year olds voted for Labour and only 23% of those over 55.
I have been impressed with the engagement of all the young people I have campaigned with over the last few weeks.
A generation who have only known the right to live, love freely and work wherever they choose without the rose tinted glasses for a Britain long gone and most probably never existed.
The future of Labour belongs to this generation, they definitely have a different perspective on society which is doing its best to exclude them from the privileges that my generation were given and subsequently took for granted.
This is the true impact/legacy of Corbyn, couldn’t imagine hundreds of thousands of my peers at eighteen joining a Party let alone participating in Politics and he even got me knocking on doors something I would never have countenanced until the last few years.
The future is theirs and looking forward to coming along for the ride.
|
|
2,206 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Dec 14, 2019 14:29:20 GMT
First sentence I agree with to certain extent, I loved the wide ranging proposals on offer. But this affected Labour centrists? It was vast swathes of voters choosing Brexit party in the Midlands and North East wasn't it? For them. looking at the data, the primary reason was Corbyn and his politics, they'd given him the benefit of the doubt two years ago but no longer. If they had abstained it would have been the same result, if they had voted Labour still there would still be a good working majority for the Conservatives, given how close they were last time. Time and time again they were told to ditch Corbyn and they refused, it's not as though they weren't given the opportunity. Labour only has itself to blame. If they'd had a more credible leader, then the candidates on the doorstep would have had an easier task. I think choosing a remain policy was far more telling, a policy led by the centrists. Policy had to be to respect the referendum, as soon as Labour became remain it was going to be very difficult in the North
|
|
2,206 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Dec 14, 2019 14:31:34 GMT
55% of 18 to 34 year olds voted for Labour and only 23% of those over 55. I have been impressed with the engagement of all the young people I have campaigned with over the last few weeks. A generation who have only known the right to live, love freely and work wherever they choose without the rose tinted glasses for a Britain long gone and most probably never existed. The future of Labour belongs to this generation, they definitely have a different perspective on society which is doing its best to exclude them from the privileges that my generation were given and subsequently took for granted. This is the true impact/legacy of Corbyn, couldn’t imagine hundreds of thousands of my peers at eighteen joining a Party let alone participating in Politics and he even got me knocking on doors something I would never have countenanced until the last few years. The future is theirs and looking forward to coming along for the ride. Did you ask who they would elect as the next leader?
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 14, 2019 14:44:00 GMT
For them. looking at the data, the primary reason was Corbyn and his politics, they'd given him the benefit of the doubt two years ago but no longer. If they had abstained it would have been the same result, if they had voted Labour still there would still be a good working majority for the Conservatives, given how close they were last time. Time and time again they were told to ditch Corbyn and they refused, it's not as though they weren't given the opportunity. Labour only has itself to blame. If they'd had a more credible leader, then the candidates on the doorstep would have had an easier task. I think choosing a remain policy was far more telling, a policy led by the centrists. Policy had to be to respect the referendum, as soon as Labour became remain it was going to be very difficult in the North The policy was referendum, not remain, wasn't it? :confused: I was a supporter of a similarly powerless Labour party throughout the eighties. High ideals and zero reward. Whilst I was promoting the unattainable in my twenties my father lost his job twice and my mother had to work three jobs at one point. I'm ashamed of it now but I reasoned that it was worth the high of 'being right', rather than having a government that would go further towards helping them. I'm hoping that people don't make a similar mistake.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2019 16:42:58 GMT
In spite of all this media brainwashing and manipulating, the voting majority still did not vote Conservative. They were just lucky that the FPTP election system gives almost unbridled power to the largest minority. The fact that the majority of people voted for something else is completely overlooked. I think the minority that did vote conservative will get even smaller in years. I think it is a reaction of fear, fear of the unknown, fear of losing traditions, fear of progressiveness. New generations show that this is quickly changing. It's like a (in some ways understandable), last spasm of powerlessness, resulting in protective behaviour and voting against it, no mater if it costs them £2000,- a year, rips apart the complete UK and starts 10 years of uncertainty. In 20 years the youth from now will have children of their own and a big part of elderly people with traditions that do not suit this day anymore will be gone. It's nature. Maybe already in 10 years. Change is coming like a landslide. I truly see this as a last spasm. I also think that there is no need for this chauvinism and that excellent trade deals (which are up for grabs now) with EU countries and a good attitude and harmony and forming a front in the world makes you stronger as a country and gives you more (self) respect. It's the future. It's not a matter of "if" we will rejoin the EU, it's a matter of "when". We aren't even out of the EU yet. Imagine the fun and games if we wanted to rejoin. How different things would have been if we hadn't had the referendum.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2019 16:45:00 GMT
Chuka was apparently the person the Tories feared when Labour were looking to elect a leader to replace Ed Miliband and he was seen as a frontrunner for that job before he declined to run. The guy has a good media image, good speaker and has a bit of gravitas about him. There was maybe a bit of the British Obama hype but he ticked a lot of boxes for a potential leader in my books. Jumping ship and being in 3 parties in one year has tarnished him but he increased his new parties share of the vote hugely in the seat he contested. Also a lot of the people who left the Labour Party had been deselected, were older and coming towards the end of their political career but Chuka certainly wasn't. So popular with the Tory party? They were worried that he'd become leader as they saw him as a potentially formidable foe.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2019 16:48:05 GMT
If the younger voters hugely supported Labour then they must have hemorrhaged votes amongst the older people to be down 8% and lose 2.5 million votes. The Marxists in Russia couldn't even make that many people disappear under Stalin.
|
|
1,848 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Dec 14, 2019 17:15:53 GMT
For clarification and minimise the risk of spreading misinformation here is where I got my numbers from.
How Britain voted and why: My 2019 general election post-vote poll Friday, 13 December, 2019 in Elections by Lord Ashcroft Polls
I surveyed over 13,000 people on election day who had already cast their vote, to help understand how this extraordinary result came about. The results show who voted for whom, and why.
The demographics:
Labour won more than half the vote among those turning out aged 18-24 (57%) and 25-34 (55%), with the Conservatives second in both groups. The Conservatives were ahead among those aged 45-54 (with 43%), 55-64 (with 49%) and 65+ (with 62%).
|
|
5,593 posts
|
Post by lynette on Dec 14, 2019 18:01:31 GMT
The voice of experience eh?
|
|
311 posts
|
Post by olliebean on Dec 14, 2019 20:48:59 GMT
We had a referendum on this in 2011 I think. I actually voted for PR as I thought the FPTP system disproportionally favoured Labour over the Tories. Alternative Vote (AV) is not proportional! I voted against it, for that reason. It's a lot better than FPTP, though, not least because it means a candidate cannot win if the majority of voters in their constituency are against them. But I understand the reasoning, that we're more likely (if still not very, especially with the Tories in power) to get a shot at true PR in the foreseeable future than we would be had we already switched to a different new system relatively recently.
|
|
2,536 posts
|
Post by n1david on Dec 14, 2019 22:35:19 GMT
If you lump votes together and dish out a number of seats, how do you keep that link with each local group? My favoured system is Single Transferable Vote in multi-member constituencies. So you'd have larger constituencies - somewhere around the size of EU constituencies - which would have several MPs. That means that in most constituencies you'd have the opportunity to approach an MP who aligns with your point of view. If you want help with a welfare problem, you might go to a Labour MP in your constituency. If you want help about legislation that's affecting your small business, you may prefer to approach your Conservative MP. It gets away from the problem with FPTP that potentially a minority of constituents get exactly who they want, and the others don't. If you live in Islington North and want to lobby for more relaxed employment laws, where do you go to lobby Parliament? I'm not a fan of PR systems like those in Scotland and Wales where there are two classes of representatives, constituency reps and "top up" reps - I think that introduces a two-tier system. As for looking at evidence, well we're no good at coalition government because it was clear in 2010 that it was only for one term, so both member parties were quietly positioning themselves for the next election, they had no incentive to build long-term relationships where they could work together on initiatives over a longer period of time, so you can't really compare an enforced coalition in a FPTP system with a true PR coalition. And yes, they can hit stalemate, but what's happened in the UK since 2017? The ultimate hope - for me - in a PR system is for a realignment of the UK system into more parties, which better reflect the multiple opinions of the electorate. So many people this time said that they felt unrepresented - with PR in due course we'd have had a right-wing pro-Europe party, a left-wing party that supported more federalism or independence... yes, there would be a period of realignment and change, but I think more people would feel connected to politicians.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Dec 14, 2019 23:09:11 GMT
STV with multiple member constituencies is not an option as far as I am concerned.
Firstly, constituencies the size of the current EU ones means that none of the MPs would have a real grip on the area they were elected to serve. They couldn't run local surgeries. They wouldn't have the contacts with the relevant local councils. They would be divorced from the reality of life in the whole of their constituencies.
Secondly, it puts all the power in hands of the party machines - it immediately removes the ability of the vote to vote for a particular candidate. You can only vote for a party and so the party gets to decide who is where on the list and who gets to be your representative. If a member resigns, you don't get a by-election, the party managers just appoint the next person down on the list. If there is a MP who underperforms, you can't vote against them personally next time round - you can only vote against their party.
We would be destroying the link between the MP and a specific geographic area. We would be removing the ability of voters to choose their representative.
Neither of these things enhance democracy
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Dec 14, 2019 23:10:35 GMT
If the younger voters hugely supported Labour then they must have hemorrhaged votes amongst the older people to be down 8% and lose 2.5 million votes. The Marxists in Russia couldn't even make that many people disappear under Stalin. Actually they did, the voting majority was just ignored by the FPTO system that lets the biggest minority win.
|
|