4 ms·

Thank you good sir for knowing what you are talking about. The UK establishment doesn't want PR. That alone is a great reason to get it, besides many other goo

Thank you good sir for knowing what you are talking about. The UK establishment doesn't want PR. That alone is a great reason to get it, besides many other good reasons.

vixen99 11y ago
Voters in Britain do not elect a parliament or a party. They vote locally for a member of parliament - namely - someone to represent all people in the constituency no matter what their party allegiance is, in the House of Commons. Everyone knows who they are and can communicate with that person. Fairness means that the person who gets the most votes, gains that privilege. Example: 3.9 million people voted in this British election to gain one single UK Independence Party (UKIP) MP. Unfair? No - given that, at this election, voters did not give majority votes to a UKIP candidate except in that one instance. Occasionally people vote for an outstanding personality who does not belong to a party they generally support. This is as it should be.
- ZeroGravitas 11y ago
  Voters in Britain (specifically Scotland and Wales) use the AMS system that takes this into account and balances both desires while also avoiding the stupidity of unpopular candidates winning because two similar candidates compete for votes, as demonstrated in the fear that UKIP votes would weaken Conservative candidates, leading to front page headlines telling you not to vote for who you wanted to vite for, but for someone else instead.
- tormeh 11y ago
  ...But aren't campaigns fought on a party-by-party basis? Who gets to choose which politicians get the secure constituencies? If all the candidates were truly independent I might see your point, but as long as they belong to parties I don't.
- icebraining 11y ago
  What you're essentially saying is, "the rules of FPTP were followed, therefore the outcome is just", which is a red herring when it's the system itself that's being questioned. "Voters in Britain do not elect a parliament", but shouldn't they?
- vidarh 11y ago
  > Fairness means that the person who gets the most votes, gains that privilege. In your opinion this is what fairness means. In my opinion, this system leaves millions without a say in the direction of the country proportional to the support their opinions have in the populace. Not only do I find it unfair, I find it offensive and undemocratic, and as a result I don't see a government elected under such a system as having any legitimacy. It's worth pointing this out: It is not up to you to define what is fair. Nor is it up to a majority. It is up to everyone. When a system leaves a substantial number of people finding it unfair and feeling robbed of any opportunity to be represented, it is unfair, whether or not the majority thinks it's the most awesome system ever. If you care about fairness, you need to care about gaining consensus, not about whether or not you're above or below 50%. > Unfair? No - given that, at this election, voters did not give majority votes to a UKIP candidate except in that one instance. First of all, it is not majority of a constituency but a plurality. This is a big deal. My seat was won with 43%: The majority of his constituents wanted to be represented by other people. We won't ever know who would have been preferred by a majority of constituents under one of the many systems intended to actually get to a majority choice. Secondly, that the results matches the rules does not mean they're not unfair. When peoples votes carry different value based on where they live, then that to me by definition is unfair.

Thank you good sir for knowing what you are talking about. The UK establishment doesn't want PR. That alone is a great reason to get it, besides many other good reasons.

vixen99 11y ago

Voters in Britain do not elect a parliament or a party. They vote locally for a member of parliament - namely - someone to represent all people in the constituency no matter what their party allegiance is, in the House of Commons. Everyone knows who they are and can communicate with that person. Fairness means that the person who gets the most votes, gains that privilege. Example: 3.9 million people voted in this British election to gain one single UK Independence Party (UKIP) MP. Unfair? No - given that, at this election, voters did not give majority votes to a UKIP candidate except in that one instance. Occasionally people vote for an outstanding personality who does not belong to a party they generally support. This is as it should be.

ZeroGravitas 11y ago
Voters in Britain (specifically Scotland and Wales) use the AMS system that takes this into account and balances both desires while also avoiding the stupidity of unpopular candidates winning because two similar candidates compete for votes, as demonstrated in the fear that UKIP votes would weaken Conservative candidates, leading to front page headlines telling you not to vote for who you wanted to vite for, but for someone else instead.
tormeh 11y ago
...But aren't campaigns fought on a party-by-party basis? Who gets to choose which politicians get the secure constituencies? If all the candidates were truly independent I might see your point, but as long as they belong to parties I don't.
icebraining 11y ago
What you're essentially saying is, "the rules of FPTP were followed, therefore the outcome is just", which is a red herring when it's the system itself that's being questioned. "Voters in Britain do not elect a parliament", but shouldn't they?
vidarh 11y ago
> Fairness means that the person who gets the most votes, gains that privilege. In your opinion this is what fairness means. In my opinion, this system leaves millions without a say in the direction of the country proportional to the support their opinions have in the populace. Not only do I find it unfair, I find it offensive and undemocratic, and as a result I don't see a government elected under such a system as having any legitimacy. It's worth pointing this out: It is not up to you to define what is fair. Nor is it up to a majority. It is up to everyone. When a system leaves a substantial number of people finding it unfair and feeling robbed of any opportunity to be represented, it is unfair, whether or not the majority thinks it's the most awesome system ever. If you care about fairness, you need to care about gaining consensus, not about whether or not you're above or below 50%. > Unfair? No - given that, at this election, voters did not give majority votes to a UKIP candidate except in that one instance. First of all, it is not majority of a constituency but a plurality. This is a big deal. My seat was won with 43%: The majority of his constituents wanted to be represented by other people. We won't ever know who would have been preferred by a majority of constituents under one of the many systems intended to actually get to a majority choice. Secondly, that the results matches the rules does not mean they're not unfair. When peoples votes carry different value based on where they live, then that to me by definition is unfair.