The next General Election....

[classic33]

One has to wonder whether a PR system would engage voters better. It would also serve as a better guide to how the population really thinks....

But you have to get them to vote first.
You could bring in PR, however you have to consider that the majority of the population do not want to vote. The result being a smaller section voting for whoever gets in. The first election for a regional mayor round here had some people stumped as you'd to mark your paper in relation to how you favoured those named on the paper in number order. No two votes for any candidate.

 

[Fab Foodie]

Perhaps I have an unrepresentative set of friends and acquaintances, but, if not, “how the population really thinks” may not produce desirable outcomes.

PR is fairer but given voter apathy the ones more likely to turn out to vote when they know their tiny party might actually get a seat could well be the people with less mainstream opinions.

What's desirable or not desirable depends on what your views are! People in favour of FPTP usually argue that point. So what if Ukip/Reform get a few seats? Hopefully there will be more Green/LD seats too.
There's no point sweeping others views under the carpet, they need to have their say and be scrutinised.

FPTP actively disenfranchises voters in many constituencies as people's votes are effectively worthless... so why bother voting?

Government needs to better reflect it's voters views however unpalatable. FPTP is the most unrepresentative system available.

 

[Fab Foodie]

But you have to get them to vote first.
You could bring in PR, however you have to consider that the majority of the population do not want to vote. The result being a smaller section voting for whoever gets in. The first election for a regional mayor round here had some people stumped as you'd to mark your paper in relation to how you favoured those named on the paper in number order. No two votes for any candidate.

This is a short-term risk. When people see that their vote means something, that it can make a difference then maybe they'll get engaged....

 

[AndyRM]

This is a short-term risk. When people see that their vote means something, that it can make a difference then maybe they'll get engaged....

This is pretty much where I am on the FPTP/PR thing.

 

[classic33]

This is a short-term risk. When people see that their vote means something, that it can make a difference then maybe they'll get engaged....

I don't think PR would change peoples voting habits. I've no answers as to how it could be done either.
Easier postal voting got a few more people voting for a while, however overall the percentage voting at local level is on the downward trend. Whether this is because of increased checks is uncertain.

Voter photo ID, last time round didn't make as big a dent in the figures as was feared.

 

[AuroraSaab]

What's desirable or not desirable depends on what your views are!

Well exactly. Would those with less mainstream views be more motivated to vote if they knew they were definitely getting seats though? Whilst those apathetic under FPTP remained apathetic under PR?

People in favour of FPTP usually argue that point. So what if Ukip/Reform get a few seats? Hopefully there will be more Green/LD seats too.

Wouldn't UKIP have got 80 seats at their best GE showing? Enough to force a coalition or affect legislation perhaps.

FPTP actively disenfranchises voters in many constituencies as people's votes are effectively worthless... so why bother voting?

Government needs to better reflect it's voters views however unpalatable. FPTP is the most unrepresentative system available.

I don't disagree but think we might have 10 years of less palatable mainstream groups in parliament before the electorate woke up and decided their vote really does count.

 

[Fab Foodie]

I don't think PR would change peoples voting habits. I've no answers as to how it could be done either.
Easier postal voting got a few more people voting for a while, however overall the percentage voting at local level is on the downward trend. Whether this is because of increased checks is uncertain.

Voter photo ID, last time round didn't make as big a dent in the figures as was feared.

If for example you live in a Tory stronghold - like Deal and Dover where I last voted, your vote really has no value unless it's a Tory vote -and that's been the way for years. So if you're anything other than Tory, why even bother going to the polls?
At least with a PR vote, my one Green vote will get amassed with others up and down the country and we might get some representation and influence in the house. In that scenario there's a value in getting engaged with the process....

At the 2019 'Tory Landslide' victory, The Cons got 43.6% of the vote and 56.2% of the seats in Parliament. Labour, Lib dems and Greens got 46.3% of the vote (more than the Tories), but only 32.9% of the seats! How is that right?
Instead of an 80 seat majority and a Tory free-for all we could have had a much better balanced government, or a non-Tory coalition.

 

[Fab Foodie]

Well exactly. Would those with less mainstream views be more motivated to vote if they knew they were definitely getting seats though? Whilst those apathetic under FPTP remained apathetic under PR?

Wouldn't UKIP have got 80 seats at their best GE showing? Enough to force a coalition or affect legislation perhaps.


I don't disagree but think we might have 10 years of less palatable mainstream groups in parliament before the electorate woke up and decided their vote really does count.

And that's a price worth paying.

 

[spen666]

....

We need the young and the most disadvantaged to vote... problem is, who is listening and looking after their best interests? Nobody that I can see....

Well if they do not want to look after their own interests by bothering to vote, then they can't expect to be top of the political parties priority list.
Perhaps a better question would be what if any barriers are there to the young and most disadvanted being able to vote. If there are such barriers, then we must work to remove them.

If there are not any such barriers, then I'm not going to worry too much about them if they choose not to take part in the democratic process and as a result feel their views are not represented

Its a bit like a football team sending out a team of only 8 players each week, despite being able to put out a full team, and then complaining they are losing each week

 

[albion]

Turnout will be high. Three reasons.

Brexit, Brexit and Brexit.

 

[AndyRM]

Well if they do not want to look after their own interests by bothering to vote, then they can't expect to be top of the political parties priority list.
Perhaps a better question would be what if any barriers are there to the young and most disadvanted being able to vote. If there are such barriers, then we must work to remove them.

If there are not any such barriers, then I'm not going to worry too much about them if they choose not to take part in the democratic process and as a result feel their views are not represented

Its a bit like a football team sending out a team of only 8 players each week, despite being able to put out a full team, and then complaining they are losing each week

There are plenty of barriers.

Our democratic process is a farce, and it's only with a serious shakeup that things are going to change so that people will think voting is actually worthwhile. Otherwise, it's more of the same until someone says "This tastes boggin".


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR_rnQEPoZ0


That's got to be one of the worst analogies I've ever read by the way.

 

[spen666]

There are plenty of barriers.

......


That's got to be one of the worst analogies I've ever read by the way.

So many barriers that you cannot even give a single example of one?


The fact the young or disadvantage choose not to engage is not of itself a barrier to voting. That is their choice and one they are entitled to.

 

[AndyRM]

So many barriers that you cannot even give a single example of one?


The fact the young or disadvantage choose not to engage is not of itself a barrier to voting. That is their choice and one they are entitled to.

It's not up to me to list barriers you don't believe exist...

But here's one: the focus of parties on immigration. An article I read recently had that way down the list of things people actually care about. When the two main parties bang on about in constantly instead of things which affect people more directly, is it any wonder they can't be arsed to vote?

Shift focus from perceived and non existent threats to something that actually matters (education would be another, but the Lib Dems f*cked that royally, so it's no wonder they've fallen off a cliff).

 

[Xipe Totec]

Turnout will be high. Three reasons.

Brexit, Brexit and Brexit.

Why? Brexit fans already have their precious Brexit. Polls might now suggest most people don't want it, but the only party that opposes it & will get any seats is the SNP. Who have no power in Westminster, and represent a defacto colony which has no democratic autonomy whatsoever.

 

[stowie]

So many barriers that you cannot even give a single example of one?


The fact the young or disadvantage choose not to engage is not of itself a barrier to voting. That is their choice and one they are entitled to.

Well, one wheeze this government introduced that definitely affects these groups disproportionately is the requirement for ID to vote. Looking through the list of acceptable ID, there is a bunch of various travel IDs which are accepted for over 60's, but nothing equivalent for anyone young. Both the young and disadvantaged are more likely not to have a passport or driving license (the main ID which will be used by those with them). This was introduced by the government to solve a problem that doesn't exist (or at least doesn't exist to the extent that makes any difference to the outcome of elections - especially national ones). I believe that it was introduced by this government specifically to exclude those who they preferred didn't vote, but I am a cynical soul.