If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
elections
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
in 2000, al gore officially gained 51,003,926 votes while g w bush gained 50,460,110. but the winner was declared to be bush.
this 'winner takes all' style doesnt seem to always get the most popular candidate. there are other formats, such as second rounds of voting like used in france and for choosing the venue for the olympic games. would you prefer these?
another point is that in 2005, labour received 9,562,122 votes (35.3%), while conservative got 8,772,598 (32.3%).
of the 646 constituencies (and thus seats), labour won 356 (55.12%), and conservative won 198 (30.66%). these percentages of seats in parliment are quite different to the percentages of votes for each party in the country as a whole, and although each constituency is represented, do you think this is an issue?
what are your views?
this 'winner takes all' style doesnt seem to always get the most popular candidate. there are other formats, such as second rounds of voting like used in france and for choosing the venue for the olympic games. would you prefer these?
another point is that in 2005, labour received 9,562,122 votes (35.3%), while conservative got 8,772,598 (32.3%).
of the 646 constituencies (and thus seats), labour won 356 (55.12%), and conservative won 198 (30.66%). these percentages of seats in parliment are quite different to the percentages of votes for each party in the country as a whole, and although each constituency is represented, do you think this is an issue?
what are your views?
0
Comments
That this proves that we don't live in a system of one man one vote with each vote having the same value.
My area has had a Tory MP for over 100 years and I can't see that changing, hell even in the 1997 debacle he still had a majority measured in thousands, so what value does any vote against actually have?
PR has problems, but at least each vote matters.
Bollocks it is, a party who gets 35% percent of the vote gets total control? That's not democracy.
Well, it's more democratic surely. Also, it's not like the major parties have to squabble with numerous smaller parties over policy decisions. Most coalition government only have 2 or 3 parties in them.
And there is only one reason that the party with 35% gets control, and that is because there are too many people in this country who don't bother to vote. If everyone voted, then it wouldn't be such an issue.
That's because they didn't get a full mandate from the electorate.
Huh?
35% of votes cast, not voting public. So even if everyone voted the current system means that you would still have the same problem.
It means that the coalition government has to adapt to represent the views of a larger demographic. 50-60% of the electorate being represented in a coalition government is much better than 35% being in a one party one.