Asking
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

UK people:have you voted today (or already for today)?

Poll - Total Votes: 21
Yes
No
Show Results
You can only vote on one answer.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
ArtieKat · M
No - the alternative was to deliberately spoil my ballot paper and that seems childish. The current MP is not a nice woman and I certainly don't want to be represented by any of the other candidates.
helenS · 36-40, F
@ArtieKat If I were British I'd vote Lib Dems, and I would fight for proportional representation of all voters. 👍🏽
ArtieKat · M
@helenS Although very few people would agree with me, I thought that the Coalition government in 2010 was an improvement
MrAverage1965 · 61-69, M
@helenS Is it not better to vote labour, fight for proportional representation when they win and then vote Lib Dem next time.
I may constituency a vote for Lib Dem this time could let the Conservatives win.
helenS · 36-40, F
@MrAverage1965 that's one the many problems of the FPTP principle: it forces people to vote for a party they don't really support...
helenS · 36-40, F
@ArtieKat Yes the Cameron/Clegg coalition was before the decline of the Tories.
ArtieKat · M
@MrAverage1965 What makes you think that Labour (under Keir Starmer), with a large majority under first-past-the-post are any more likely to reform the system that they could have done between 1997 and 2010, or the Tories have failed to do.
MrAverage1965 · 61-69, M
@helenS apparently 25% of those voting here vote tactically
helenS · 36-40, F
@MrAverage1965 Another FPTP problem is that a party with a strong local or regional support base will be able to get people into the parliament, whereas a party with the same number of voters, but scattered all over the country, will come away empty-handed. It's not fair.
MartinII · 70-79, M
@ArtieKat It was, in many ways, the best government of the last 20 years or so. Not saying much, of course. And it didn't require proportional representation!
ArtieKat · M
@MartinII Agreed. The worst excesses of both were curbed by the necessity of compromise
MartinII · 70-79, M
@helenS Well, yes and no. Unfair from a national perspective, I agree. On the other hand, if a strong local body of opinion (eg Scottish nationalists) were un or under represented, wouldn't that be unfair also?
MartinII · 70-79, M
@ArtieKat It was made easier because the two parties agreed on the essentials of economic policy. And the leaders were willing to delegate, eg to Gove at Education, Davey at Energy.
helenS · 36-40, F
@MartinII Yes 😐
helenS · 36-40, F
@ArtieKat Lib Dems 61, according to exit polls! Δ% = +450 !!! 🥳
@helenS I want PR.
No matter who is in power the majority of the country didn’t vote for them but we rejected that.
I find it ridiculous any party can get a huge victory with only around 35% of the vote.
And yes I am happy with the result but I spent years knowing I’d get a Tory MP
( unless it was Tory wipeout time) and as a result of boundary changes I now know I will always get a Labour MP.No way will my new constituency ever vote in a Tory.
But it would make the voting system a little more complicated.
We have an element of PR in the Welsh government elections.
And I’m not sure I understand it.
helenS · 36-40, F
@TheSirfurryanimalWales It's really an odd quirk of the British voting system. The percentage of votes a party gets doesn’t translate to seats. 😐
Let there be a constituency with 5 candidates, one of which gets 21% of the votes, and the others get 19.75% each ==> the 21% guy will become a member of parliament. If that were true for all constituencies, 79% of the population would not be represented in the parliament, and the 21% party would get 100% of the seats.
I'm pleasantly surprised by the successes of the Lib Dems by the way! 🥳