Unfair voting?
 

Ukip win only one seat so far despite racking up millions MORE votes than Lib-Dems OR SNP
Nigel Farage appeared to be heading for defeat in South Thanet today
Mr Farage has pledged to resign as leader if he fails to win the Kent seat
Party has got more votes than Lib Dems and SNP but 'hardly any seats'
He said: 'The system is bust. You've got a first past the post system where we clearly become the third party in Britain but get hardly any seats.'
Douglas Carswell wins Ukip's first seat, taking Clacton with 19,642 votes
Ukip deputy leader says current electoral system is 'affront to democracy'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz3ZXHi2UAI
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Is this a fair system or does UKip have a point?

I think he has a point.

Yes Valid Point


UKIP helped get Ed Balls to no longer be a MP


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/...1072191374.jpg

Yes he has a very valid point, but I think people who were considering a UKIP vote feared the prospect of labour winning even more and decided this time to ensure labour did not get into power by the back door

The problem with what he suggests is population being condensed into small areas; i.e. if it was a straight "vote percentage" then London and the South of England (with a high density population) would be disproportionally represented in politics. The political requirements of different areas vary wildly and so, being blunt, some votes have to be "worth more" in terms of seats than others.

The only way it could work otherwise, is with massive devolution across the UK, devo-max for Scotland, and England being split into several "devo-max" areas with their own elected parliaments, with each area having representatives in London for "global affairs" with very little interference from the wider UK government when it comes to the day-to-day running of each region.

Otherwise you would have a few cities dominating the entire country simply because that's where "most people live". It's arguably the "purest" form of democracy but it's also completely unrepresentative of regional variation of needs and therefore, also broken.

Not to sound stupid here, but how would PR actually work in terms of representing constituencies. In a way so what if Ukip got a high national vote share if all but 2 areas did not want to be represented by a Ukip MP?

Sorry MTVN i have no idea, politics aren't my strong point:laugh:

I feel there are going to be a lot of angry people who could be bothered to get up off their bums to vote only to find they are going to be unrepresented in parliament.

It's like coming third, then being told the person who came last got bronze!

Exactly. It assumes that all areas have the same needs... which is just not the case. It would give London and surrounding areas a huge sway over Westminster, for example, when the needs of the City are completely different to almost anywhere else.

Or in terms of Scotland, almost the entire vote would be down to the Glasgow/Edinburgh central belt which obviously has completely different needs in terms of representation to more rural towns, the highlands and the various islands.

No its not unfair, it makes complete sense, people are only questioning it right now because UKIP are being bad losers.

Because each constituency have completely different opinions, this is the only logical way to hold a vote, if it was fairly consistent throughout the country then perhaps a change would be necessary but its not. Each constituency has a different opinion and this needs to be reflected with the MP's.
18 year olds have the choice to take more responsibility when they're old enough to vote and old enough to move out if they want their political stance to be accounted for.
A UKIP voter can move to Rochdale and a Green voter can move to Brighton, I have no sympathy for the the UKIP voters who feel like they are not personally being represented because their constituency is being represented, they knew this day was coming and they were outvoted, it's that simple.

Any single person right now has the choice to move to a town which match their political thoughts and if they don't feel that there is then thats probably because your political opinions are unpopular and that is not a reason to change the voting system.

I think Cameron will be the last UK prime minister. They either hold on to some form of union in a form similar to devo max, or it breaks up. I can't see any other outcome now

I just can't see the alternative? People really want to hold onto the idea of a union and being together but it's just a fact that political philosophies North and South of the border are very different. I can't see that ever changing and, if anything, the South is moving right and Scotland is moving left. There's no way to properly represent both socially. The "colour map" for yesterday's voting across the UK is startling.

The country voted on the Alternative Vote a couple of years ago, where voters rank the candidates in order, and voted against it. First past the post, for all its faults, is the best system available in my view.

I agree, from now until the end of this year, Scotland will now be furious it has a Conservative govt; ruling it again.

Then early next year,the problem will likely come to a further head, when they start the new austerity cuts,the 56 SNP MPs will kick off bigtime when they present that bill for Scotland too.
David Cameron would face problems, likely even in his own party too, were he to try to avoid implementing austerity measures in Scotland but still try to inflict them on England and Wales.
Nicola Sturgeon has said, Scotland has voted strongly against more austerity.

With his also looming referendum on the EU too, if he can get it through at all that is, this may well be the 'trigger' for Nicola Sturgeon to include an independence referendum again,possibly as soon as next year in her holyrood manifesto.

I think you are right that he could be the last PM of the UK.
No way are the SNP going to sit back for 5 years and just take all this govt; throws at them.
If he throws too much to them as well, then his party and the English will not stand for that either.

I really don't envy at all David Cameron's task in even trying to begin to placate Scotland now.

britain needs to change the boundary, because a party that will get nearly 4 million votes, and get one seat, when the snp get 56 seats, it is a joke really, it is a wake up call that england needs to change the boundary map, because of what has happend,

It is as bad in Northern Ireland too, with only 0.6% of the vote, the DUP get 8 seats.