Secret Squirrel first here examines outlined ideas on changing the electoral system and expounds why these ARE unsuitable........he will then go on to explain First Past The Post system in use, and why..........it IS good, but also what the problem with it is.
So without further ado here are proposed system changes and why they are...........utterly and completely and for all time, ridiculous and utterly and completely UNACCEPTABLE.
* Party-list proportional representation (party-list PR). Under this system, parties would list candidates they are standing for election. The public would then vote for a party and the number of candidates elected would depend on the percentage share of the vote the party received across the area. The idea is that the party?s representation in Parliament would reflect the level of support it has across the country.This is interesting, a form of dictatorship as it were, the people have no choice of a candidate up front,the candidate elected thence becomes unseen......does it matter then..................yes it does, it is a dictatorial format of system......the candidates themselves then have no format of own policy nor thought with respect to government whatsoever.The party leader will pick whomever he wants willy nilly.
* Alternative Vote (AV) Under AV candidates are ranked by preference, and those preferences would be counted where no candidate had won 50% of the vote. However, we have already voted against introducing AV after a referendum in 2011 when 67.9% people rejected it and, as a result, we kept FPTP.This is useless, if I choose, say the conservatives, I want the conservatives to win, to be Prime Minister also, NOT a say Labour candidate,nor UKIP etc.
* Alternative Vote Plus (AV+) This would see the voting system described above brought into use, but with an additional regional vote, which could force parties to campaign in places other than marginal seats.This is useless, if I choose, say the conservatives, I want the conservatives to win, to be Prime Minister also, NOT a say Labour candidate,nor UKIP etc
* Single Transferable Vote (STV) Under STV each person gets one vote which they can transfer from their first-preference to their second-preference.So, if your preferred candidate has no chance of being elected or has enough votes already, your vote is transferred to another candidate in accordance with your instructions.This is useless, if I choose, say the conservatives, I want the conservatives to win, to be Prime Minister also, NOT a say Labour candidate,nor UKIP etc,I don't want my vote transferred to a Labour, or UKIP or whatever.
What's wrong with first past the post, as in example
Candidate Party A 4000votes
Candidate Party B 3500votes
Candidate Party c 1000votes
Candidate Party D 50votes
So, sanely the will of the majority in that constituency is clearly Party A candidate, and he wins. Tell me why should Party B matter at all, so what they got 3000votes(which tallies in the total popular vote).Sanely UKIP got 4 million votes,one seat BECAUSE in one constituency the majority of voters selected UKIP,and only there, in others they came close, but lost, but added to the total of popular votes as they were spread so round and about....but face it, sanely, a loss is a loss, a looser is a looser.The popular vote is a direct reflection of the popularity of the winning Prime Minister.There have been elections in Canada and America, using the First Past The Post system, as in the will of the majority in any constituency, where the sum total of the winning leadership(example we shall call it Prime Minister), where the seats totalled the MAJORITY for government, BUT the popular vote numbers were greater for the loosing party (parties)....why.. Well quite simply it means the constituencies are NOT equally balanced with respect to the numbers of voters in a given constituency,there is no balance as in Constituency A has 5000 voters, whilst constituency B has 2000 voters constituency 3 has 1000 voters,as examples, so obviously, here if all vote the same,yet differently, B&C can elect 2 conservatives,exampled, A will vote and place Labour, BUT Conservatives win due to numbers, not of voters BUT seats, due to constituency,voter imbalance with respect to representation by population NOT being equal,(recall they vary in size between 21,837 to 89,519 voters) as in constituencies vary wildly in terms of NUMBERS OF VOTERS IN EACH! Therein you see, lies the rub, NOT having representation by population and so there is this imbalance in voter representation by population. There it is explained, and you know the cure, the voting constituencies must be redrawn in terms of a certain stated population of voters in each, being equal in all.There it is, the problem,why there is a problem, and the solution to the problem. Squirrel has the answers,electoral reform, redraw the electoral maps such that all constituencies have equal voter numbers in each and every one,and so it becomes, representation by population, as it was intended to be.
Secret Squirrel,
MRL,
MP,Dunny On The Wold,
Minister For Re-Deranged Re-Engineering.
Sunday, May 10, 2015
Saturday, May 9, 2015
Secret Squirrel On UKIPS Election Complaint.
Secret Squirrel has heard of UKIP , which was totally kippered and filleted in the past election,getting only 1 seat and not yet being able to have it's party leadered voted in to office. Indeed, they got 4 million votes, and only 1 seat, which meant that UKIP had a smattering of support scattered about merely thither and yon across the length
and breadth of England but not concentrated in any one place enabling it to get a seat.
That's how the system works, so many voters in any particular constituency will vote one lad in from the party the majority choose, coming close doesn't count you see. This IS the system which is employed world wide in democracies, and no cry baby party, nor cry baby party leader can and should be able to change it...........it is THE system and it works,that is how it works.UKIP’s Nigel Farage called for an end to first-past-the-post elections after the party was left with one elected MP despite a 13% share (the UK’s third-highest) of the vote.
The Green Party also had a 3.8% share of the national vote and just one seat and the
Lib Dems were left with 8 seats with a 7.9% share.
Meanwhile, other smaller parties benefited from FPTP(First Past The Post--majority wins). The SNP secured 56 seats with just 4.7% of the national vote share.
There's nothing wrong with the system of voting, just that the distribution of voters versus constituencies is not correct, rather it is not representation by a specific number of population......as is self evident in the Scottish ratio 56 seats with just 4.7% of the national vote.
But the popular vote was split between the two major parties, with the Tories at 37 percent and Labour at 31 percent according to latest count of votes broadcast by BBC.
Ukip claiming 83 seats should've been had for 4million voters goes with a ratio of 48,193 persons to a seat..........
This Figures to 15,951,807 voters having voted for Cons to give 331 seats,but actual votes totalled 11,334,920 or 34,244 voters per seat......and hey the SNP got 56 seats off of 1,454,436 voters at 25,972 voters per seat.......
the Labour got for 40,292 voters per seat at 9,347,926.
Why doesn't the division of seats in parliament reflect the popular vote?
The Electoral Reform Commission has been trying to change the system for years, running a referendum on electoral reform in 2011. But British voters rejected electoral reform in the poll. All that could be and needs be done really is to redraw the electoral maps, such that the electoral constituencies have a basic equal number of
voters,regardless of whether new constituencies are then created. If all things were fair and equal, there being 46,500,000 eligible British voters, for a total of 650 seats that would be a constituency requirement of 71,538 voters to each and every one starting in applied balance,but it just isn't so. However UKIP which received spread out support thinks it should get to select itself, or have a candidate selected on the basis of vote received broad spectrum,ridiculous. Also ridiculous is a proposed system of selecting two candidates a first and a second, BUT that would mean a selection of another party, NOT the one you desire and hence your selected party(and thence leader), could loose the election.......not what you desire.The British system divides the country into legislative districts with each being represented in parliament by a single MP.
If a number of parties contest a seat in a district, the winner is the candidate who receives the most votes within the district.One winner of the majority of the votes, the rest loosers,nothing wrong with that is there, No, I should say not.
Let's look at UKIP's sour grapes complaint, now population wise, we combine the populations of Birmingham,Leeds,Sheffield,Bradford,Liverpool,Manchester,and Bristol to total 4,059,771 of what UKIP would say are their votes, but rather than giving UKIP 83 seats as they claim they should have, they here get 29 seats, BUT face it, the people here didn't vote UKIP, UKIP support was spread out thither and yon and totalled to 4million, and so what of it, loosers are loosers, winners are winners.It goes by whom the people vote for,the majority of the people,he wins, the others loose, because their votes were less. And so it should be and is and should remain, the will of the majority in any given constituency,loosers don't count, nor do their numbers of votes, regardless as they lost.
Secret Squirrel,
MRL,
MP,Dunny On The Wold,
Minister For Re-Deranged Re-engineering.
and breadth of England but not concentrated in any one place enabling it to get a seat.
That's how the system works, so many voters in any particular constituency will vote one lad in from the party the majority choose, coming close doesn't count you see. This IS the system which is employed world wide in democracies, and no cry baby party, nor cry baby party leader can and should be able to change it...........it is THE system and it works,that is how it works.UKIP’s Nigel Farage called for an end to first-past-the-post elections after the party was left with one elected MP despite a 13% share (the UK’s third-highest) of the vote.
The Green Party also had a 3.8% share of the national vote and just one seat and the
Lib Dems were left with 8 seats with a 7.9% share.
Meanwhile, other smaller parties benefited from FPTP(First Past The Post--majority wins). The SNP secured 56 seats with just 4.7% of the national vote share.
There's nothing wrong with the system of voting, just that the distribution of voters versus constituencies is not correct, rather it is not representation by a specific number of population......as is self evident in the Scottish ratio 56 seats with just 4.7% of the national vote.
But the popular vote was split between the two major parties, with the Tories at 37 percent and Labour at 31 percent according to latest count of votes broadcast by BBC.
Ukip claiming 83 seats should've been had for 4million voters goes with a ratio of 48,193 persons to a seat..........
This Figures to 15,951,807 voters having voted for Cons to give 331 seats,but actual votes totalled 11,334,920 or 34,244 voters per seat......and hey the SNP got 56 seats off of 1,454,436 voters at 25,972 voters per seat.......
the Labour got for 40,292 voters per seat at 9,347,926.
Why doesn't the division of seats in parliament reflect the popular vote?
The Electoral Reform Commission has been trying to change the system for years, running a referendum on electoral reform in 2011. But British voters rejected electoral reform in the poll. All that could be and needs be done really is to redraw the electoral maps, such that the electoral constituencies have a basic equal number of
voters,regardless of whether new constituencies are then created. If all things were fair and equal, there being 46,500,000 eligible British voters, for a total of 650 seats that would be a constituency requirement of 71,538 voters to each and every one starting in applied balance,but it just isn't so. However UKIP which received spread out support thinks it should get to select itself, or have a candidate selected on the basis of vote received broad spectrum,ridiculous. Also ridiculous is a proposed system of selecting two candidates a first and a second, BUT that would mean a selection of another party, NOT the one you desire and hence your selected party(and thence leader), could loose the election.......not what you desire.The British system divides the country into legislative districts with each being represented in parliament by a single MP.
If a number of parties contest a seat in a district, the winner is the candidate who receives the most votes within the district.One winner of the majority of the votes, the rest loosers,nothing wrong with that is there, No, I should say not.
Let's look at UKIP's sour grapes complaint, now population wise, we combine the populations of Birmingham,Leeds,Sheffield,Bradford,Liverpool,Manchester,and Bristol to total 4,059,771 of what UKIP would say are their votes, but rather than giving UKIP 83 seats as they claim they should have, they here get 29 seats, BUT face it, the people here didn't vote UKIP, UKIP support was spread out thither and yon and totalled to 4million, and so what of it, loosers are loosers, winners are winners.It goes by whom the people vote for,the majority of the people,he wins, the others loose, because their votes were less. And so it should be and is and should remain, the will of the majority in any given constituency,loosers don't count, nor do their numbers of votes, regardless as they lost.
Secret Squirrel,
MRL,
MP,Dunny On The Wold,
Minister For Re-Deranged Re-engineering.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)