We don't want to emulate the US - you copied the system that we now no longer have a use for. In a first past the post system where you have more than 2 parties, the result is a winning party that has a small share of the votes.
So the Tories who got 36% of the National vote have 307 seats. Labour who got 29% get 258 But the Liberal Democrats who got 23% get only 57 seats. They ought to have 150ish. Others got 28 seats. When there are only 2 main parties such as before 1930s and after 1945 the system was fairly reliable at producing strong governments, But the Liberal Democrats are in the ascendant at the moment, and the anti-Tory vote is split between them and Labour. There are 2 problems. 1 is that these seats do not represent the popular vote. 2 there is no overall majority and so no one can pass legislation. Normally one party will get a massive majority but with always less than 50% of the popular vote. This means that we tend to get draconian governments that can do what they want until they are replaced and then the next one undoes all the good of the previous. Most people seem to want the number of seats to be reflected by the number of votes and want the parties to compromise on their most extreme measures. This would mean introducing a PR system with transferable votes, based on a party list system. On May 10, 11:30 pm, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not British, so please excuse my ignorance of the issue. > I saw the web site, but it does not explain what the issue is. > What is the objection to the present system, > and what is the remedy? > If you are countenancing imitating the American (USA) system, > then I reluctantly alert you that our representatives have insulated > themselves > in a coccoon of unaccountability, public secrecy, and disinformation. > They are perceived by a huge portion of voters as arrogant, > unresponsive, and even corrupt. I seem to think that the US suffers from a different sort of problem. It has much more to do with wealth so that the vast majority feel little connection with the process. You tend to be campaigning all the time - this casts huge amounts of cash which retards the growth of new parties and independents. In the UK it is all over in 4 weeks, anyone can stand fore a small (returnable) fee, and sometimes independents get in - though it is rare. We don't vote in a PM, - it is the choice of the ruling party who is the PM not the people, as long as he is an MP and leading the party. There are more variations but these are the main ones. > Their intransigence has triggered several large popular movements, > chief of which is the Tea Party. > The movement's most popular Brit is Daniel Hannan, > MEP.http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100027693/what-could-b... > Please show us a better way than that. > Our Constitution is ingenious, but the public has allowed the ideal to > erode, > and the struggle to restore it is a difficult slog, It's a plutocracy like most systems but probably the most extreme in the West. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > On May 9, 1:33 pm, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > >http://www.takebackparliament.com/ > > > In a multiparty system it was only to be a matter of time before the > > first-past-the-post voting system was going to fail. > > THere is a growing consensus among the electorate that thinks that it > > is time for consensus politics rather than the idiotic draconian and > > dogmatic extremism of the two old two part system. > > If you are a British voter of whatever colour please take a moment to > > sign the petition below... > > >http://www.takebackparliament.com/ > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Epistemology" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]. > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Epistemology" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
