[Mystic Mock]

I don't know what I would change it too as I'm not the brightest in this area lol.

But it does seem unfair to me that if you're right wing in Birmingham for example that your vote will be a waste of time because Birmingham will always vote for Labour, and vice versa for if there was a left wing person in Essex, give up because it's a Tory driven area and they will constantly outnumber you in the votes for every election so why bother voting?

I want a system where everybody's vote counts, does anyone agree with me?

[Livia]

The system we have is flawed... but I believe it's the best and the fairest right now.

[Kizzy]

That's democracy I guess, you could move to an area where you feel you have more political affinity or you may change your mind depending on how you personally or as a community are impacted by policies.
Or you could just like it or lump it

[joeysteele]

I don't like the system we have now, we now have a virtual one party state across the whole lenth of the far South of England.
Near 200 seats for the Conservatives come from that area alone.

I was always open to a change in the electoral system but felt as long as parties got at least 40% of the votes cast in election that the current system was tolerable.

We now have a govt as in 2005 where almost two thirds of those who voted, voted against it,that has to be unacceptable that in such scenarios a party can govern with a majority and implement unpopular policies,even rotten, unjust and heartless ones.

So I would support a pr system now,it is something the Lib Dems should have insisted on as to at least a referendum for their support and votes between 2010 and 2015 in the coalition.
However they should have insisted on having what was offered by labour in 2010,which was AV implemented without a referendum.

This winning elections with barely just over a third of the votes cast in the election, is not to m,e and should not be, acceptable now.

[smudgie]

It does the trick.
You vote for your MP locally so they represent you in parliament, only fair then that those with the most local votes get in to represent you.
No problem.

[user104658]

A "majority" government that received less than 37% of the vote is frankly a bit ludicrous. There has to be a better system than that, especially when that 37% is mainly grouped into very specific areas of the country. It's not really "democracy" at all, is it.

[JoshBB]

I like the german "top-up" system, where you elect MPs as usual.. but then, let's take UKIP for example..

They received 12.7% of the votes but only 0.1% of the seats. They would be awarded an extra 83 national seats so that they are receiving a fair amount of seats for their votes. I wouldn't like to see a UKIP block like that, but it's democracy and must be respected. Greens would have gotten an extra 24 seats under this system.

There's more to it than that, but that's a more simplified version of it. I think it's the best .

[joeysteele]

I find it really rotten that the far South of only England,one of the countries that make up the whole of the UK, gets to dictate policy and govt on the rest of England and the UK overall.

This is the 3rd election in a row now where the party with the most seats,has got less than 37% of all the votes cast.
Meaning that over 60% of those voting get a govt and policies they rejected.
That is totally wrong in this day and age and for me, this system needs to go.

Under pr, the Conservatives would have been the largest party and it would have likely been that we would have had a Conservative/UKIP coalition,'if' in that pr system people voted as they did in May under the first past the post.

That however would have still been more reflective of votes and as to govt than this one now being able to govern, without any restraint on its more extreme and heartless policies.
It is why I would vote for a change to the voting system now.

[Calderyon]

The UK should really adopt the d´Hondt method.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Hondt_method

Or the Sainte-Laguë method:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sainte-Lagu%C3%AB_method

In these ways, every vote counts and your candidate has a better chance to go through. In these system however, you basically have to form coalitions, since it´s very unlikely that only one party gets the needed majority.

[DemolitionRed]

The people in power won't change a system that keeps them in power.

[MTVN]

I think we have quite a confused relationship with the voting system in this country. On the one hand people lament parties governing with <40% of the vote, yet on the other hand when no party did get a majority in 2010 the country responded to five years of a coalition government (that had nearly 60% of the vote between them) by wiping the junior partner off the political map. If we see things purely in terms of national vote share then that government was, theoretically, the most representative one in modern British history. Yet of course it's not quite as tidy as that in coalition governments: parties are often more cynical in their tactics and strategy, they can be less accountable because they have excuses for not implementing their pre-election pledges, they can find themselves crippled by inaction and compromises can have to be made which end up satisfying no one. I don't buy that the Lib Dems were uniquely awful coalition partners who just followed the Tory line. They did achieve some good - much more than had they shunned the coalition and just stayed a protest party - and they did have a liberalising effect on the government but the reality was that their potential was seriously restricted in their role as the minor party.

My other gripe with PR is that it takes away the MP's ties to his local area, and regions don't have as much choice over who represents them: it will often be imposed on them instead. The good thing with FPTP is the power it gives to localities to choose their own representative in parliament.

[Northern Monkey]

I don't think the current system is fair but i'm not clever enough to think of a better one

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by MTVN

I think we have quite a confused relationship with the voting system in this country. On the one hand people lament parties governing with <40% of the vote, yet on the other hand when no party did get a majority in 2010 the country responded to five years of a coalition government (that had nearly 60% of the vote between them) by wiping the junior partner off the political map. If we see things purely in terms of national vote share then that government was, theoretically, the most representative one in modern British history. Yet of course it's not quite as tidy as that in coalition governments: parties are often more cynical in their tactics and strategy, they can be less accountable because they have excuses for not implementing their pre-election pledges, they can find themselves crippled by inaction and compromises can have to be made which end up satisfying no one. I don't buy that the Lib Dems were uniquely awful coalition partners who just followed the Tory line. They did achieve some good - much more than had they shunned the coalition and just stayed a protest party - and they did have a liberalising effect on the government but the reality was that their potential was seriously restricted in their role as the minor party.

My other gripe with PR is that it takes away the MP's ties to his local area, and regions don't have as much choice over who represents them: it will often be imposed on them instead. The good thing with FPTP is the power it gives to localities to choose their own representative in parliament.

you say it so much better than I ever could.

[empire]

britain's voting system, is a joke, but the public have to take their share of the blame, because they vote the same old parties, and they stay in the same place, there is far too much loyal voting from the public, even if the labour and tory party are both useless, people where so naive into voting the same parties after the expenses scandal, it shows how much of a spineless nation we are, both parties will never deliver 98 percent of their promises before the election, and people should of caught on to this years ago.

[bots]

I keep returning to the fact that all this was discussed during the previous administration, the public were given the chance to change the system and responded with a resounding no thanks. All sorts of reasons/excuses have been given for that rejection like other things were more important at the time or it wasn't the right type of system, but the voting public could have signalled they wanted change by voting yes, and chose not to.

[Livia]

We had a vote a couple of years ago on whether we wanted to adopt the Alternative Vote. People overwhelming voted no.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Livia

We had a vote a couple of years ago on whether we wanted to adopt the Alternative Vote. People overwhelming voted no.

That was the start of a backlash against the Lib Dems however in part, who had started to support some unbelievably extreme polices in the coalition and who were left to steer this referendum through.

I voted no to it too.
I feel I was wrong to do so now, however the problem with AV is that it would have changed things only slightly.
Were there to be a proper in depth campaign as to pr, explaining how each vote would then make a difference, I think a lot of people who didn't even bother to vote in the AV fiasco, would look at things differently.

It may well be that a rejection would come of pr but AV was a very poor concession as to changing the voting system which probably would not have inspired those really wanting change now to an electoral system.

What system there could be, I am not sure which one I prefer of the possibilities but I am now firmly of the mind that we need more accountability and representation of peoples votes in elections, something we are not getting at all now really.

In 2005, we got a Labour govt with an overall majority taking less than 36% of the votes cast.
Here in 2015,we have the Conservatives with less than 37% also now in govt with a majority.
In the multi party system we have and for people to feel their vote really matters and they can change things, that is not acceptable anymore now, in my opinion.

Even moreso now with the regional differences across the UK too, so I being one who voted no to AV before, would not vote against it again and certainly would now support a better form of pr for general elections.

It is really ridiculous for govts to repeatedly get under 37% of all votes cast and then be able to govern unchecked as to all policies being implemented, if they have an overall majority.

[Kizzy]

Are they still attempting the gerrymandering? That might be a way of manipulating the votes.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

That was the start of a backlash against the Lib Dems however in part, who had started to support some unbelievably extreme polices in the coalition and who were left to steer this referendum through.

I voted no to it too.
I feel I was wrong to do so now, however the problem with AV is that it would have changed things only slightly.
Were there to be a proper in depth campaign as to pr, explaining how each vote would then make a difference, I think a lot of people who didn't even bother to vote in the AV fiasco, would look at things differently.

It may well be that a rejection would come of pr but AV was a very poor concession as to changing the voting system which probably would not have inspired those really wanting change now to an electoral system.

What system there could be, I am not sure which one I prefer of the possibilities but I am now firmly of the mind that we need more accountability and representation of peoples votes in elections, something we are not getting at all now really.

In 2005, we got a Labour govt with an overall majority taking less than 36% of the votes cast.
Here in 2015,we have the Conservatives with less than 37% also now in govt with a majority.
In the multi party system we have and for people to feel their vote really matters and they can change things, that is not acceptable anymore now, in my opinion.

Even moreso now with the regional differences across the UK too, so I being one who voted no to AV before, would not vote against it again and certainly would now support a better form of pr for general elections.

It is really ridiculous for govts to repeatedly get under 37% of all votes cast and then be able to govern unchecked as to all policies being implemented, if they have an overall majority.

What confuses me joey, is that, although the vote was a resounding no to AV (I voted no too) it is still used for some elections. For instance... the Police and Crime Commissioner election. I spoke to an agent friend a while ago about this. I did the last PCC election and he's doing the next's year's. The last PCC election was not won on the first choice votes, it was won on the second choice. I can't see how that can be reflective.

Anyhoo, I would vote against AV again. Unless someone comes up with a better alternative then I would be happy to stick with what we have.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Livia

What confuses me joey, is that, although the vote was a resounding no to AV (I voted no too) it is still used for some elections. For instance... the Police and Crime Commissioner election. I spoke to an agent friend a while ago about this. I did the last PCC election and he's doing the next's year's. The last PCC election was not won on the first choice votes, it was won on the second choice. I can't see how that can be reflective.

Anyhoo, I would vote against AV again. Unless someone comes up with a better alternative then I would be happy to stick with what we have.

Perhaps you and I could devise a new system Livia.

I do like the idea of strong govt that comes from first past the post, even if I disagree with the govt at the time but I do think we need a threshold of acceptable percentage of votes needing to be gained to form a majority govt now.
Something to further endorse that would get my vote for sure.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Perhaps you and I could devise a new system Livia.

I do like the idea of strong govt that comes from first past the post, even if I disagree with the govt at the time but I do think we need a threshold of acceptable percentage of votes needing to be gained to form a majority govt now.
Something to further endorse that would get my vote for sure.

Sadly, I can't see a different way that everyone could agree on. Even if we had a huge upheaval of the political structure. Even then some people would think it was a conspiracy!

[Kizzy]

Hmmm PCCs, that's just what the police need more political influence :/
There's a reason why there was no great hooha and ad campaign surrounding those elections, the PCCs have the power to hire and fire chief constables who won't cut man hrs and staffing levels... there is no 'thin blue line' anymore there's a trail of dots.