Proportional Representation (now morphed into B****t 2 or is it 3)

[Donnywolf]

I am guilty of "plugging" this again and again. I never truly understood it until I did if that make sense
Just wondered what other people thought about it and importantly if we as a Nation want it how we ever get it BECAUSE if the process of Leaving the EU is anything to go by it would take forever
The 2 main Parties are the main beneficiaries of our unjust First Past the Post system so they will be hard to crack that is for sure  !

There is the Twitter feed here of Make votes Matter so I can butt out now
https://twitter.com/MakeVotesMatter

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Pros and cons isn't there.  The big point against is the likely number of coalitions which historically don't go down well in the UK.  How many seats would ukip have had in the past for example....

[Bentley Bullet]

No matter what type of voting system we have the most important issue is accepting the result.

[IDM]

Aye BB, but also noting that if the outcome of the result is a total rolling goat f**k, then some time later there can be a further vote..

We have that with general elections..

[BillyStubbsTears]

BFYP.

We've had minority, Govts, or Govts with extremely slim majorities that constrained their freedom to act for 19 of the past 45 years (74-79, 92-97, 10-19). And that's under our FPTP, the one argument for which is that it is supposed to deliver strong and stable Govt...

There is no practical or moral argument against PR. UKIP SHOULD have got a lot of seats in 2015 with the votes they got.

PR would enable the two main parties to split and produce the 5 natural parties that we should have in England (Corbynista Left, Ed Milliband-type Left, Centrist, Ken Clarke-type Tory, Ress-Mogg-type Tory/UKIP).

Then we'd all be able to vote for something much closer to what we actually believe in, and coalition Govts would naturally emerge. Our politics would be far more grown up. Take Brexit. Those 5 parties would all be able to campaign for what they really believe (the far-left and far-right FOR Brexit, the other three against) without having to worry about alienating supporters.

[IDM]

PR is fair IMHO when it comes to choosing the government and the constitution of parliament - however - you could end up with towns being represented by an MP of a minorty party locally, due to how the seats are allocated..

[Glyn_Wigley]

How would the people get rid of an MP they don't like under PR?

[IDM]

Do we need a system like they have in the USA where you vote separately for your local representative as well as your head of government.?

[RedJ]

That would require an elected head of state, I think.

That or you change the way the PM is chosen, as at the moment it's just the head of whoever wins/can form a majority bloc.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Do we need a system like they have in the USA where you vote separately for your local representative as well as your head of government.?

It's called Separation Of Powers, and most countries have it, we're the ones who are the anomaly.

[Glyn_Wigley]

That would require an elected head of state, I think.

That or you change the way the PM is chosen, as at the moment it's just the head of whoever wins/can form a majority bloc.

A symbolic Head Of State, just for ceremonial purposes, can be anybody you like. If they've no power why would they need to be elected? I once suggested the Lord Mayor Of London - the job is exactly the same, just covering the country and not just London.

[Bentley Bullet]

Aye BB, but also noting that if the outcome of the result is a total rolling goat f**k, then some time later there can be a further vote..

We have that with general elections..

Outcome? We've not even left yet!

Who said we can't have another vote to rejoin in future?

[RedJ]

That would require an elected head of state, I think.

That or you change the way the PM is chosen, as at the moment it's just the head of whoever wins/can form a majority bloc.

A symbolic Head Of State, just for ceremonial purposes, can be anybody you like. If they've no power why would they need to be elected? I once suggested the Lord Mayor Of London - the job is exactly the same, just covering the country and not just London.

That's why I also added that you could just change the way the PM was chosen.

[IDM]

Aye BB, but also noting that if the outcome of the result is a total rolling goat f**k, then some time later there can be a further vote..

We have that with general elections..

Outcome? We've not even left yet!

Who said we can't have another vote to rejoin in future?

But if is clear the outcome isn’t going to appear either end of the brexit voting spectrum, why not create a better choice to vote for again.??

That isn’t about reversing the decision repeatedly, however..

[Glyn_Wigley]

That would require an elected head of state, I think.

That or you change the way the PM is chosen, as at the moment it's just the head of whoever wins/can form a majority bloc.

A symbolic Head Of State, just for ceremonial purposes, can be anybody you like. If they've no power why would they need to be elected? I once suggested the Lord Mayor Of London - the job is exactly the same, just covering the country and not just London.

That's why I also added that you could just change the way the PM was chosen.

If you went for proper Separation Of Powers, they'd have to be chosen differently as it wouldn't be the election of the legislature that decided it.

[Superspy]

...total rolling goat f**k...

Can't read the rest of the thread, too busy laughing. That's my new favourite saying.

[Donnywolf]

I will be listening for it Saturday if we go behind to Burton or the Ref drops an immense clanger

I use the word k******d a lot when criticising the Ref but total rolling goat f****r may take its place !

Im IN

[Bentley Bullet]

Aye BB, but also noting that if the outcome of the result is a total rolling goat f**k, then some time later there can be a further vote..

We have that with general elections..

Outcome? We've not even left yet!

Who said we can't have another vote to rejoin in future?

But if is clear the outcome isn’t going to appear either end of the brexit voting spectrum, why not create a better choice to vote for again.??

That isn’t about reversing the decision repeatedly, however..

Because it would undermine democracy resulting in the end of British politics as we know it.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BB

Aye. A democratic vote is guaranteed to undermine confidence in democracy.

[Bentley Bullet]

BST.  A vote to overturn a vote that has already been democratically voted on will not be seen in many millions of pairs of eyes as a democratic vote.

[IDM]

It wouldn’t be a vote aimed at overturning the previous result, it would be a meaningful vote for clear defined choices..

[Bentley Bullet]

Yes it would, and no it wouldn't. It would be seen by many millions of people as a vote aimed at overturning the previous result, and if it went the other way it would be treated as one apiece and a best of 3 situation.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BB

So let me get this right.

You're saying that if the British public, now, in 2019, have a different opinion to the opinion they had in 2016, they shouldn't be able to express that through a vote?

Is that it?

[Bentley Bullet]

BST. I'm saying that not everyone wants another vote because they consider it to be undemocratic because we've already had a vote.

What part of my posts on this thread do you disagree with?

[BillyStubbsTears]

BB

Yep. We had a vote. And no-one in that vote knew what Leave meant.

Not even Farage knew what Leave meant, because back then he was talking about a Norway deal. Now he's talking about No Deal.

Now, we all know a lot more about what the myriad possibilities of Leave are.

We know that we won't be £350m/week better off with Brexit. (in a poll in Ref 2016 week, 48% thought we would).

We know that 80million Turks won't be arriving in Britain anytime soon. (Several million videos were sent to the Facebook accounts of people who had been identified as susceptible to that sort of message in the week of the vote. Videos paid for by Putin).

We know more now. The facts are a lot clearer.

Surely, you'd want a more informed decision to be made now?

[idler]

Not one person on the Brexit side has come across as being capable of negotiating any sort of deal.

[Bentley Bullet]

BST. You're missing the point. The point is millions of people disagree with you and still want to leave, and will demand the right to leave because the country voted to leave.

I believe that having another vote would undermine democracy resulting in the end of British politics as we know it.

Don't you?

[BillyStubbsTears]

No. I don't. For all the reasons I gave above.

This is sounding like an emotional spasm.

"We VOTED in 2016 and we won and we don't give a shit about any of these facts being brought up now."

That's what it looks like. Am I wrong?

[Bentley Bullet]

No, I don't think you are wrong. I believe many millions of people don't give a shit about what you and people who share your opinion think. The leave vote won and they will insist on leaving.

Only time will tell who's right on the consequences of another vote if we have one of course.

[Ldr]

Ok devil's advocate  time again. We have a 2nd referendum, leave win again (and poll trackers suggest they would) what then? More years of whining? Campaign for a 3rd referendum? Where does it stop? If Labour win the next GE do we have a further vote before they can implement their control just in case we have changed our minds in the interim?