[UK] New questions emerge about Cameron's missing £72.000 - Polidicks

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50115282]Well, have fun losing elections then I guess. People hate this tax.[/QUOTE] Conservatives only won that majority due to the fucked rules of First-Past-The-Post.

I think the biggest factor is who the leaders of the party's are. Cameron is a great public speaker, even if he is a shit bag. Miliband wasnt able to stand up to him. Miliband took Scotland for granted as well and the conservatives let the SNP snatch it right up. I don't think Corbyn can stand up to Cameron either.

[QUOTE=MissZoey;50115589]Conservatives only won that majority due to the fucked rules of First-Past-The-Post.[/QUOTE] Conservatives would have won with the alternative vote too, they would have even had a larger majority iirc. Even if a proportional system was used, they won more votes than Labour to the extent that the Conservatives would still be in government (albeit in a coalition) anyways.

He spent it all on pigs.

[QUOTE=sb27;50116593]Conservatives would have won with the alternative vote too, they would have even had a larger majority iirc. Even if a proportional system was used, they won more votes than Labour to the extent that the Conservatives would still be in government (albeit in a coalition) anyways.[/QUOTE] It's hard to call how a pr/stv system would have gone because they tend to fix gerrymandering, which would probably increase turnout, and remove the need for tactical voting, so you'd likely see the main parties lose votes if it happened. That said, with the voting we had a coalition was the right option because that means that 50%+ actually negotiate rather than 30-40% just being able to run the country.

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;50117034]It's hard to call how a pr/stv system would have gone because they tend to fix gerrymandering, which would probably increase turnout, and remove the need for tactical voting, so you'd likely see the main parties lose votes if it happened. That said, with the voting we had a coalition was the right option because that means that 50%+ actually negotiate rather than 30-40% just being able to run the country.[/QUOTE] You do have a point. But another point I was implying was that it's not the fault of the electoral system for putting the Conservatives in power, but rather because a lot of people want to see the Conservatives in power. Chances are, even with a purely proportional system, Conservatives would still be the largest party in the Commons.

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;50117034]It's hard to call how a pr/stv system would have gone because they tend to fix gerrymandering, which would probably increase turnout, and remove the need for tactical voting, so you'd likely see the main parties lose votes if it happened. That said, with the voting we had a coalition was the right option because that means that 50%+ actually negotiate rather than 30-40% just being able to run the country.[/QUOTE] There isn't really gerrymandering of any relevance in the UK. The end result would have been UKIP as the junior partner in a Conservative-led coalition.

[QUOTE=sb27;50118250]You do have a point. But another point I was implying was that it's not the fault of the electoral system for putting the Conservatives in power, but rather because a lot of people want to see the Conservatives in power. Chances are, even with a purely proportional system, Conservatives would still be the largest party in the Commons.[/QUOTE] Well one of the alternative systems proposed was where people could vote for their first and second choice. Not sure how much of a difference it would make but with Labour losing voters to SNP and UKIP it mighta given labour more votes. Probably trivial difference there. Perhaps people believing their vote actually matters (having a the opportunity to vote for who they want and who they would want in the case that their primary one fails) more might vote and elections might better reflect the desires of the country. Rather than ~30% of the country having voted for the party in power. Not sure how such a system might divide how MPs are distributed or indeed even if its something they could put into practice. Or want to since it might mean less power to the major parties. I wonder how much extra elections would cost.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50118276]Well one of the alternative systems proposed was where people could vote for their first and second choice. Not sure how much of a difference it would make but with Labour losing voters to SNP and UKIP it mighta given labour more votes. Probably trivial difference there. Perhaps people believing their vote actually matters (having a the opportunity to vote for who they want and who they would want in the case that their primary one fails) more might vote and elections might better reflect the desires of the country. Rather than ~30% of the country having voted for the party in power. Not sure how such a system might divide how MPs are distributed or indeed even if its something they could put into practice. Or want to since it might mean less power to the major parties. I wonder how much extra elections would cost.[/QUOTE] I've always thought that would make it even more impossible for smallier parties to be in government. It'll just end up Conservatives with Labour as their second choice or vice versa.

[QUOTE=Shadow801;50118281]I've always thought that would make it even more impossible for smallier parties to be in government. It'll just end up Conservatives with Labour as their second choice or vice versa.[/QUOTE] I suppose if there was some big problem in that constituency which only 1 smaller party acknowledge and if both labour voters and tory voters put that smaller party as their second option it might be possible for that smaller party to get in. Or maybe that's my optimistic view that people would overcome party politics and vote for who they actually agree with.

Still flogging this dead horse then? Fundamental misunderstanding of tax laws - check. Complaint about FTFP and the 36% - check. Mention of a pig - check. What else will surface I wonder?

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50118318]I suppose if there was some big problem in that constituency which only 1 smaller party acknowledge and if both labour voters and tory voters put that smaller party as their second option it might be possible for that smaller party to get in. Or maybe that's my optimistic view that people would overcome party politics and vote for who they actually agree with.[/QUOTE] The system you're talking about is the system we use for elections here. It's not designed to facilitate minority representation, and in fact, it does a worse job of it than the system used in the UK. Think about it. As long as no candidate has at least 50% of the vote, the worst-performing candidate is eliminated, and the votes for that candidate are distributed according to preferences on each ballot. Who is the worst-performing candidate? Usually a small party or independent candidate. And those votes are gradually distributed up to the major party candidates. The only times a small-time, small party candidate can leap past the major party candidates is if all of the supporters of all of the small party candidates get together and carefully plan how they're going to preference every candidate. Something similar has happened in the past in votes for the Australian Senate, and it allowed micro-party candidates to be elected on less than 0.5% of first preference votes.