´óÏó´«Ã½

How we can call ourselves a democracy using this insane FPTP system is beyond me. You may well be proved right in this Michael, the Tories could end up with millions more votes than Labour but end up with fewer seats. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. What angers me most is that millions of votes in this election will be meaningless. Millions are disenfranchised because of the system, surely this cannot be described as democracy?

I was asked if we really want 16 yr olds to vote? Do they even want to?

So I asked my two 13 year olds, home for the hols.

Turns out they did have a view.

Yesterday some LibDems in the street gave 'em balloons. Hence... got their vote.

I am sure in 3 years there will a great difference in thinking. Well, maybe not thinking but expected 'reward'.

Were I only co-funding public sector and new citizen balloons.

You don't have to be a pro-PR Tory to get a fairer voting system.

It should be possible for first-past-the-post to work. If you get the seats and boundaries right, then FPTP should reflect the proportion of votes cast.

But the system has been skewed in the last few elections, mainly because the Boundary Commission works at such a glacial pace.

what about the electoral system inflicting injustice on the british people?

can we elect the head of state? All members of the legislature? do we have a written constitution? a national oath that protects the rights of the people? Afghanistan and Iraq have wider democracy than we do.

yet to have the same system here would be illegal and break treason laws even to talk about it.

what we call democracy is nothing but a cartel for a class of oligarch. democracy in the uk is unfinished business.

most European country's have some form of PR, why are we so different? Why do we think we are always right? I believe that if we had PR we would never have had the Iraq war or gone into Afghanistan as too many members would have had doubts....

I understand, via @´óÏó´«Ã½LauraK, that Mr. Brown might be 'open to working with other parties'.

Too much to hope before committing to that 'x', who might be keen to reciprocate?

It seems... pertinent.

THE WESTMINSTER ETHOS IS THE ENEMY

The electoral system is a typical tentacle of Westminster. No one should be fooled - within that Palace ALL manifestations are unsavoury. All parties connive at iniquity. Parties want POWER far more than they want decency or democracy. MPs sign up to the party and Westminster Ethos, conniving and coveting in their turn.

ANY PARTICIPANT who does not rise up in an appalled reflex, at the goings-on in Westminster is fool or knave. The only freedom I would grant them is a choice of those two.

VOTER COMPETENCE (#2)

A spaceman watching our response to commercial advertising of 'stuff' would note in hs log: "The species does not reach maturity before end of natural span." Turning to the election lead-up, he would note: "Reference immaturity, the political parties have realised the voters will fall for expensive advertising EXACTLY AS USED TO SELL THEM 'STUFF'." The planet is not worth visiting.

As for lowering the voting age to 16 (of our Earth years) - apart from, possibly, requiring an even larger advertising budget, by all parties, what is 16 compared to the manifest average age of our population?

will there be the usual vote rigging 'that would disgrace a banana republic'?

...Labour activists had 'vote-rigging factory' to hijack postal votes...

Change the system - Our democracy needs a shot of adrenalin.
1 give voters one vote for the party and one for the representative
2 share out the votes in parliament are according to the overall party percentage of votes, rather than their MPs. Each MP gets an equal share of his party’s vote.
This gives us PR government at a stroke, without multi-membership constituencies or party/regional lists, or necessarily changing constituency boundaries at all.
It also gets rid of safe seats and marginal constituencies. Literally every vote counts.
When it comes to selecting your MP you can focus on the best, most competent candidate, rather than the party label.
Did you realise the solution could be so simple?

Michael Crick's concern with the unfairness of the electoral system for the Conservatives has a strangely narrow focus.

Reference to the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s predictor shows that if the main parties all attract around a third of the votes each (which seems likely from current polls), Labour would 'win' over a hundred seats more than the Conservatives, and the Conservatives over a hundred more than the LibDems.

In the present situation, this is not just slightly unfair to the Conservatives, but massively unjust to the British electorate. If Michael Portillo is wrong, and this system survives beyond the coming election, it can only bring our political system into even more disrepute than it has suffered so far.