Voting and other questions

Could someone please explain to me why we use first past the post?

And why do polling stations not require I.D.?

What is the turnout usually like in the UK?

 

the party leaders might be on to something with how stupid we are.

 

FPTP prevents extremists entering parliament, it leads to more majority governments with strong oppositions and it's really easy for people to understand.

You don't need ID because voter fraud is pretty much nonexistent (no matter what American racists tell you)

Turnout is normally in the 60's%

 

i was just thinking - when you register to vote, wouldnt having the whole "check whos voted" system done electronically (not voting itself) done on a national database be better so you can vote anywhere in the country?

why not use an alternative voting system?

 

I think around 80% turn-out for voting is a good turn-out and was seen during the last election from what I saw reported on BBC TV earlier in the day.

We aren't asked for ID, but we all have to register to vote and have an allotted polling station to report to. All our names are checked off against a list on arrival. A card with your details is sent to each voter, but you can vote without it. I guess the potential exists to say you are someone else, but you would need to know the details of someone else on your polling stations list to claim you were they and of course that would be spotted if/when the genuine person turned up to vote. In any event one person can only make one vote.

I don't know about the proportional representation issue, but it has been mentioned within the last 10 mins on the TV that things may change by the next election.

 

People are suspicious of any kind of electronic voting system.

AV is pretty crap really. It's more complicated to understand, it leads to coalitions which often fall apart and it can lead to extremists gaining seats.

It lacks many of the advantages of prop rep.

 

Voter turnout since 1945 - 2010:

http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

For folks too lazy (p) to click the link:

 

sorry for all the questions holyheadjch

so why dont we use a prop rep system?

and how does a prop rep system work?

 

It's an old, simple system that's been with us pretty much since the dawn of voting history (at least in the UK) and Whitehall & Parliament don't like change.

Politicians are suspicious of change, the people don't put enough pressure on to demand a change to the voting system.

There's actually a few different ways to utilise PR depending on how you want to structure it, but the basic idea is always the same - a party wins X% of the vote, they get X% of the seats:

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/howprwor.htm

On the plus side, it's pretty democratic:

1) It would give minority parties and independent candidates a better chance of winning seats in Parliament.
2) PR ensures that the parties would have to appeal to their core supporters, rather than a small number of so called ‘swing voters’ in marginal seats.
3) It generally gives fairer treatment of minority parties and independent candidates
4) Under PR fewer votes are ‘wasted’ as more people’s preferences are taken into account
5) PR may encourage turn-out and reduce apathy.

On the down side:

1) Under FPTP, MPs serve the constituency they campaign in. This makes them more inclined to tackle important local issues.
2) PR can potentially provide a route for extremists to force their way into the political mainstream: under a FPTP electoral system this would be unlikely to happen.
3) Some would say that PR produces ‘weak’ coalition governments rather than ‘strong’ majority governments, which arguably can lead to indecision, compromise and even legislative paralysis.
4) PR can also reduce accountability to voters, as an ousted party of government can retain office by finding new coalition partners after an election.
5) The adoption of PR list systems weakens the link between the elected representative and his or her constituency.
6) The greater complexity and choice that PR allows can put voters off voting, by requiring them to have a greater knowledge of individual and party positions.

Hope that helps.

 

Because we weren't offered it. The Lib Dems selfishly wasted their flagship concession of a referendum on the massively complicated and not really very good AV system one suspects because the party who would have benefited the most from it would have been the Lib Dems.

 

The big thing most people bring up against PR is that it means yielding seats to parties like UKIP and Britain First though.

EDIT: This is one of the videos campaigning for AV from a few years ago. Needless to say it wasn't too popular:

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FstA45lxgFs"]Alternative Vote System : What it is & why you need to vote on May 5th for AV - YouTube[/ame]

 

While that would be unsavoury is that a valid reason in a democratic society?

 

In my opinion? No. I'd rather give some more extreme parties a few token seats in return for more of an actual democratic representation in Parliament.

Though my big concern would be the endless squabbling.

 

Prop rep destroys the 2 party system we have now. Why would either of the 2 main parties do that to themselves?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, my memory is a little hazy - weren't the Lib Dems actually after the STV (single transferable vote) initially and denied it by the Tories in return for AV as part of their coalition agreement? I remember there was some kerfuffle over a referendum on voting and IDS (or Hague, one of the bald cabinet ministers for the Tories) eventually coming out after the Lib Dems approached Labour, saying they'd offer AV.

I could be wrong though, but I seem to remember the Lib Dems wanting STV.

 

Stv would also have benefited the Lib Dems most. No-one is really going to go for anything other than a single vote system, we're just not wired that way.

 

Asking a sitting government to scrap FPTP is like asking the Queen if we should abolish the monarchy or asking Mr Kipling if we should ban apple pies: it's asking someone who got their power due to the current system to change that system to give power to someone else. They're not going to do it without a fight.

 

was hoping the queen would realise her son is an eejit and abolish the monarchy upon her death...