First Past the Post ...

[WickedCossack]

So we just had a general election in the UK using possibly the shittest electoral voting system known to man, FPTP (First Past the Post.)

Here are the results:

[img style="max-width:100%'" src="http://i.imgur.com/QEwuWUh.png" alt="http://i.imgur.com/QEwuWUh.png"]

So the SNP (scottish national party) despite recieving only 1.5mil votes won 56 seats. (So they get 56 votes in parliment.) Green's and UKIP between them has 5mil votes and recieved 1 seat each.

Essentially anyone who voted Greens/UKIP won't have their voice heard as they have no representation in parliment despite a large portion of the country voting for them.

It boggles my mind that you can get that many votes and the country be like nah fuck you guys, you don't need representation.

Ofc it's incredibly hard to change as both Labour/Conservatives want to keep FPTP as it keeps control amongst only them.

Also the labour leader resigned, ukip leader resigned, lib dem leader resigned all today. Lib Dems got absolutely rekt and I don't see them comming back which is a little sad Was a pretty brutal election.

[Mr. Pecksniff]

This has always been the situation in Britain and, sadly, it is unlikely to change any time soon. The lib dems were the only force in politics aiming for electoral reform, and they've been nearly wiped out.

Interesting to see what will happen in the coming weeks though. The political landscape has changed dramatically in just a single day.

[aligator92]

uhmm...could you explain how the seat distribution works? This seems completely random

[WickedCossack]

Yea so there are 650 constituencies in the UK, all of varying sizes. People vote for candidates in their local constituencies and the winning candidates get a seat and consequently a vote in parliament. The government is then made up from the winning candidates from all of the consitituencies.

So essentially if you vote for a candidate that doesn't win their local seat your vote isn't really doing much on the national level.

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[aligator92]

Wow this election system is trash. Poor you :/

[Mr. Pecksniff]

Not everyone gets to have it like the germans

[WickedCossack]

You do understand that the 650 MP's that make up government actually pass laws that affect every constituency ?

Cause it seems like you don't. Kinda wrecks a big whole in your argument there.

[WickedCossack]

It's irrelevant to my point what we think the UK goverment is "supposed to represent".

At the moment voting is done by constituency/"territory" but the government makes laws for everyone as a collective.

It's fine if voting is done by constituency and laws are made per consituency. Or equally it's fine if voting is done as complete proportional representation and laws are made as a collective. But mixing the two is fucked up, and obviously doesn't work.

I don't care either way, but right now it's doing neither. The current system is indefensible.

[WickedCossack]

What you have got to be trolling. You seriously think it's ok to have a system that doesn't represent a significant portion of the population ? What kind of democracy is that.

In a proper democracy one vote is one vote. In the UK depending on where you live your vote can vary from being completely worthless to being worth 100 times a standard vote. But according to you that's just tough luck.

Not to mention that FPTP forces people to vote tactically so people are not even voting for who they actually want in power in the first place that makes it even more fucked up.

[WickedCossack]

A system that doesn't represent a significant portion of the people is a good thing. Ok that's good to know.

I see now why we disagree. You don't want a democracy.

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[Mr. Pecksniff]

Thats because parliaments represent the territories, not people, of a country. This is so to disallow one part of the country from oppressing the rest. For instance if an environmental project was good for part A of a country but bad for parts B, C, and D, do you think the populous A part should overrule everyone else?

This would be a good argument if the UK didnt have such a strong central government. In the current system, local councils and constituencies lack considerable autonomy, and can easily be oppressed by laws passed by members from other constituencies. It is unfair because most constituencies have little to no influence on the policies that end up affecting the whole country.

And Im not sure why you think a territory deserves representation more than individual people.

Thats a good thing. Read up on why the US has its electoral college to better understand why your preferred system would be worse.

Im sure the US electoral college seemed like a splendid idea 200 years ago, when the federal government was still very small and had few responsibilities beyond foreign policy and national defense.

[Mr. Pecksniff]

These are faults of the politicians and the system of government.

My point exactly. Either change the electoral system so that politicians are less able to abuse their power, or decentralize the government.

[Mr. Pecksniff]

It's the voters' fault for not electing a party committed to reform.

Most voters wouldn't be able to change anything even if they wanted to, though. If you live in a safe seat, you might as well not vote since it wouldn't make a difference who you voted for either way.

[deleted_user0]

I wonder if legend walks around with a chronic headache from all the palms to the face hes taking...

[Mr. Pecksniff]

Its the voters fault for not electing a party committed to reform.

Most voters wouldnt be able to change anything even if they wanted to, though. If you live in a safe seat, you might as well not vote since it wouldnt make a difference who you voted for either way.

You could influence the other voters into voting for your candidate.

Thanks for the tip.

[deleted_user0]

More like pigheaded...