| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The Limits of First Past the Post | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 20 2008, 05:21 AM (136 Views) | |
| ds9074 | Apr 20 2008, 05:21 AM Post #1 |
|
Admiral
|
Electing people by a system of 'First Past the Post' voting, where the candidate with the largest individual tally of votes wins - regardless of whether more people actually voted against them, is such a limited electoral system. It effectively limits choices and causes politicians to focus on a few areas were votes are close. It also encourages tactical voting rather than voting for who you want to win. Take my ward which is holding municipal elections on 1st May. We currently have 1 Labour and 1 Liberal councillor. At the last elections held it was very close between the Labour and Liberals and Labour came close to loosing both seats. Now my preference, having actually read the plans by the various parties that have come through the door would be to vote Conservative. Trouble is I would also prefer to see that 1 Liberal councillor retain his seat and preferably add another Liberal councillors than for Labour win here. I am fairly neutral about the Liberal Democrats but I strongly dislike Labour both locally and nationally. So because of the way this blunt instrument of an electoral system works I have two poor choices. - Either vote Conservative with little chance of seeing them elected but increasing the chance of my least favoured party Labour winning 1 or more councillors. - Or vote Liberal Democrat in order to keep Labour out and hopefully cause Labour to loose the second seat for the ward. Now if we had any kind of proportional system or a preference voting system this wouldnt be an issue. With a preference voting system, as they use in London, I could happily go and vote Conservative as my first preference and Liberal Democrat as my second preference. If, as is likely, the Conservative was in third place and knocked out - my second preference would still be able to help the Lib Dems keep Labour out. As it stands I am in a quandry as to which way to go - tactical or conscience. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Apr 20 2008, 11:15 PM Post #2 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
Sounds like all you're concerned about is how power is distributed among the parties. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Apr 21 2008, 03:11 AM Post #3 |
|
Admiral
|
I'm also concerned to get a good councillor but yes, for a local election I am primarily considering the balance between the parties on the new council. It is the balance between the parties which determines which party gets to form the city cabinet and implement its policies so it is the crucial factor. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Apr 21 2008, 07:52 AM Post #4 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
From my experience, i got everything that I wished for in the election of 2000, the Republican Party maintained control of both houses of the Legislature, won control of the Executive office, and could now work toward dominating the Judiciary with appointments. But then, they mostly just pissed it away and started acting like Democrats. Bush got a couple of good appointments to the Supreme Court and taxes have been a bit low, but other than that Ted Kennedy might as well have been running things. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Apr 21 2008, 08:33 AM Post #5 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
38957, in a Paliamentary system the members of the house are expected to vote along party lines. They can be thrown out of their party if they vote against it. That is why the party affiliation is far more important in the UK or Canada then it is in the US. In the US your representatives can vote independant of their party and still remain a member of the party. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |



9:32 AM Jul 11