[JoshBB]

Surely "small extremist parties being elected" by people I may add, is entirely what democracy is about. While I definitely do not agree with most (although all that I know of, I disagree with strongly) extremist parties, especially since they are mostly far-right organisations.. if people are voting them then they should be represented.

1% voted for them? 1% of the seats should go to that party. FPTP is not fair because it always goes back to the main two, which creates political apathy caused by people feeling disengaged with the 'main two' which they are stuck with since a vote for another party can mean that they are stuck with the worse of two evils.

We have had no electoral reform since women getting the vote, around a hundred years ago. I think we seriously need to look at the way elections work.

[bots]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

Surely "small extremist parties being elected" by people I may add, is entirely what democracy is about. While I definitely do not agree with most (although all that I know of, I disagree with strongly) extremist parties, especially since they are mostly far-right organisations.. if people are voting them then they should be represented.

1% voted for them? 1% of the seats should go to that party. FPTP is not fair because it always goes back to the main two, which creates political apathy caused by people feeling disengaged with the 'main two' which they are stuck with since a vote for another party can mean that they are stuck with the worse of two evils.

We have had no electoral reform since women getting the vote, around a hundred years ago. I think we seriously need to look at the way elections work.

Its hardly democracy when the person chosen to represent the extremist group is guaranteed a seat based on number of votes that a party received and their position on a list of candidates.

Extremest small parties have been the ruin of many governments including Italy for many years. Take a look around, it doesn't work.

There is a reason that the UK is a successful country and always responds and recovers quicker than other countries - it is our system of government. It has proven to be a winning formula for many years. The only reason the likes of the lib dems want it is to artificially raise their profile. No other reason.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

Surely "small extremist parties being elected" by people I may add, is entirely what democracy is about. While I definitely do not agree with most (although all that I know of, I disagree with strongly) extremist parties, especially since they are mostly far-right organisations.. if people are voting them then they should be represented.

1% voted for them? 1% of the seats should go to that party. FPTP is not fair because it always goes back to the main two, which creates political apathy caused by people feeling disengaged with the 'main two' which they are stuck with since a vote for another party can mean that they are stuck with the worse of two evils.

We have had no electoral reform since women getting the vote, around a hundred years ago. I think we seriously need to look at the way elections work.

I think first past the post has in the past made for strong govt; to be elected but not always the best govt; to be.
I do agree with you as to your post above.

More younger people are now open to a change in the voting system and would support same at the right time, when Clegg and the Lib Dems were pushing the AV referendum in 2011,they were at a very low rating due to the things they ahd supported already in this coalition.

However, if this election is a hung parliament and the enxt one lookes like being too, it could well be,were it Labour to be leading the govt; from May, could think changing the system will be of benefit to them long term now.
They have flirted with the idea of pr before and the one thing pr could mean is that the Conservative party would never be able to get an overall majority again and therefore govern freely.

That could be very attractive to Labour and with the right leader, the Lib Dems are a party of moderation normally.
I do think it is coming and if the turnout figures stay well under 70% for general elections and the 2 main parties cannot get comfortably at least two thirds of the votes cast between them,the call to change could get too big to be ignored and not addressed anymore.

[lostalex]

I've always said this kizzy. the fact that Gordon Brown was at the highest level of government for years but was never subjected to a general election as leader, well it doesn't feel very democratic does it.

Theoretically any party could just vote a new leader the day after a leader won a general election, and there's nothing the public could do about it.