|
Post by Boogaloo on Feb 9, 2011 9:31:22 GMT
Agreed. If all those who didn't vote got off their fat arses and voted someone else then we could well have a different government. I think if you’re a Tory or lib in a marginal then you should definitely vote because the constituency borders are so massively, massively stacked in labours favour its ridiculously unjust. I mean, last election labour got a lower percentage of the vote than the Tory’s did this time around but won with landslide majority of nearly 100 seats! Tory’s got a grater share of the votes but were forced to create a coalition. Stats: This election: consv: 36.1% = 306 seats labour: 29.0% = 258 seats Last election labour: 35.2% = 355 seats consv: 32.4% = 198 seats I’m no proponent of PR, but I really don’t get why there isn’t more outrage over this. If it was in an African country we’d be all be mocking them but its right under nose and there’s little interest in it. I know what you mean. It should be a simple case of highest number of votes win. It's far too tactical with the current situation. You get cases where for example, Tory candidates don't even bother canvasing properly in say Burnley, because they have such a Labour stronghold, it's not worth the effort. Hopefully with the coalition government, Nick Clegg can get a fairer system pushed through, although as you suggested, I can't see Labour liking it.
|
|
|
Post by yellowhoods on Feb 9, 2011 9:48:29 GMT
I know what you mean. It should be a simple case of highest number of votes win. Surely it is? Within a given constituency the party with the highest number of votes wins the seat. Unless you mean we should do away with constituencies and have one big nationwide vote? But then how do we decide which MP looks after the interests of which set of voters?
|
|
|
Post by dannyc on Feb 9, 2011 11:05:06 GMT
I know what you mean. It should be a simple case of highest number of votes win. Surely it is? Within a given constituency the party with the highest number of votes wins the seat. Unless you mean we should do away with constituencies and have one big nationwide vote? But then how do we decide which MP looks after the interests of which set of voters? well after a party is voted in the people can decide which politicians can run each area .
|
|
|
Post by yellowhoods on Feb 9, 2011 12:15:33 GMT
Surely it is? Within a given constituency the party with the highest number of votes wins the seat. Unless you mean we should do away with constituencies and have one big nationwide vote? But then how do we decide which MP looks after the interests of which set of voters? well after a party is voted in the people can decide which politicians can run each area . How? Each individual has already expressed a political preference by voting.
|
|
|
Post by Boogaloo on Feb 9, 2011 12:18:19 GMT
I know what you mean. It should be a simple case of highest number of votes win. Surely it is? Within a given constituency the party with the highest number of votes wins the seat. Unless you mean we should do away with constituencies and have one big nationwide vote? But then how do we decide which MP looks after the interests of which set of voters? Yes, that's what I mean - an overall nationwide vote would be a better representation of public opinion.
|
|