And so, the bribery begins

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Herrumph, Feb 1, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Gordon Brown has announced that he will be offering MPs the chance to vote on changing the first past the post election process.

    Despite having been at the heart of government for 13 years and never having seen the need before, now it is vital that this change in legislation is rushed through in the final days of a dying government.

    Gordon's argument is that such a change is the most important step in claiming back the public's confidence following the expenses scandal. Most people might argue that jailing a few MPs and clawing back every single penny might be the first step in restoring confidence.

    The LibDems will of course welcome this change and when push comes to shove will back Gordon Brown if there is a hung parliament. Peter and Gordon's master plan to avoid a Tory government is becoming clear. Would the British public ever forgive Nick Clegg if he puts Gordon back in charge with a minority government?
     
  2. Have you got a linky please H?
     
  3. Never in history has a Prime Minister been so intent on the wholesale destruction of this country and its way of life, and spiking the next government's agenda before being hounded out at the polls (hopefully). The man is clearly off his rocker and unfit to run a whelk stall.

    Linky

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8492272.stm
     
  4. This is the classic way of splitting your enemy ... give multiple choice voting . It will confuse the voters and lots of votes will become void . Further a lot of results will be based on counting second choice votes to give second choice Members of Parliament . Example if I vote for my first and second choice to be the same person ... will my second vote be counted .... I do not think so . I do not want a second choice .

    Edited to add I think the prince of darkness is involved with this ploy .
     
  5. Well lets be fair, the LibDems have been in favour of PR for decades now. (Interestingly their spokesman is quoted on the BBC as calling out Labour's "motives" for this epiphany!)
    As to confusion, I would imagine that the Chav's will be the ones up the proverbial creek. More likely to hurt Labour than the Tories is that.

    IMHO Labour a discredited, disreputable and should pack themselves and their traps up now!
     
  6. So with this PR thingy, like in the Euro election. Will Nick have a seat in Westminster as well as Brussels!

    Dave
     
  7. Wouldve thought Labour would get a worse kicking via PR than via FPTP , given how marginal alot of thier seats are
     
  8. What seems to be proposed is NOT “proportional representation”, which is where you vote for a party. Then, in the proportions of the total votes cast (supa-constituency level, regional level, and/or national level), the party “managers” then “stuff” parliament with anonymous “lobby fodder” they can rely on to obey the Party Whips. The electorate has no say over which individuals are elected i.e. which identifiable, named, individual - who can be help to account.

    What is now been described, is what I understand to be the “Single Transferable Vote” . . .

    The result being that a majority, over 50% of the electorate, must have voted POSITIVELY, for a named, identifiable, individual candidate, for him/her/it to be elected. Only a minority of the electorate will feel disgruntled that they are not represented.

    I don’t know where to begin "Border_Reiver" . . .

    That is exactly what happens now! Candidates with a minority of votes are elected, because the electorate, who do not like them, split their votes between any number of other candidates on the ballot paper.

    A rather simplistic turn-of-phrase, but maybe one that can be utilised to educate/inform the masses, as to how the system works.

    You infer that this does not happen now!

    Not quite a fair representation of what will happen.

    The elected candidate will be the first choice, or second choice, of the majority of the electorate who voted. It is suggested that such a system, would be a great improvement on what we have been lumbered with all these years.
     
  9. It is NOT “PR” (Proportional Representation), that is been proposed.

    Proportional Representation is even worse than first-past-the-post !!
     
  10. So in the vast majority of seats where the fight is a straight one between Labour and Conservatives. If the Conservatives don't get over 50% then the votes of the LibDems will get added to the labour vote. Just how many Svens will put the conservatives as their second choice?

    This isn't PR as the LibDems know and want it - but it is their opportunity to share power. They may not like it but they will take it - to hell with the principle of it.
     
  11. Dave, does however provide an opportunity to better describe an "alternative vote" system, or “Single Transferable Vote” if you studied the same course as myself.

    The Europeans do have complicated/sophisticated voting systems. The candidates with the least number of votes are eliminated, in subsequent, successive, rounds of voting (spread over weeks of electioneering), until only two candidates are left on the ballot paper. Of the remaining two candidates, the candidate who wins the most votes is the winner and is elected.

    The "alternative vote" system, or “Single Transferable Vote” system, is effectively the same process - but condenses the whole process into one election.

    However, the proposed system does expect you to be able to decide whom you would vote for if your first choice did not obtain over 50% of the votes at the first count. Fortunately, the proposed system, does not require you to come back in a week/fortnight’s time to vote a second time.
     
  12. It is a two-edged-sword "Herrumph", that will cut-both-ways, if you will allow me to mix my metaphors?!

    There are many supporters of numerous other minority, fringe, parties, who would not want to be represented by someone who would be elected by the first-past-the-post system, but who’s votes when added together could well propel into parliament the candidate who (on the first count) came in second.

    I look forward to, and hope, this story has “legs” and will be fully explored in the newspapers/BBC.

    All the constituency votes are a matter of public record, and yer man Peter Snow with his “swing-ometer”, and/or the Sunday Times (other broadsheets are available), should be able to tell us what would have been the make-up of Parliament at the last election - under this proposed system.
     
  13. Quite. As seemingly most of the electorate find it difficult to motivate themselves to vote every five years as it is, it'd probably be orders of magnitude worse if they had to vote multiple times.

    Of course, there's always the Australian approach...
     
  14. eeeeeeeer it says this isn't going to happen until next year, IE after the election (if he hasn't thought up a way of cancelling it)

    Trotsky
     
  15. STV works just fine all over the place including the council elections. "List the candidates in order of preference..." If you can't get that you probably would have got lost on the way to the polling station in any case. Should the votes of thicko's (ESN in old parlance) be counted?

    Put a "1" against your candidate, fold the ballot slip, and stick it in the box. simples.