first past the post...

[aumentou]

Paul Blomfield, Labour 17,138 41.3%
Paul Scriven, Liberal Democrat 16,973 40.9%

165 votes difference, which is less than 0.4% of votes cast.

165 votes means one team gets a seat in parliament and the other gets nothing. Out of 41,468 voters, only 17,138 get a representative who is even remotely close to their views.

First past the post isn't democracy. It's shit.

Comments

first past the post...

[blue-jez.livejournal.com]

I've been considering alternatives since before the election. I'm quite like the idea of superconstituencies consisting of about 7 current sized constituences, using straight PR.

Each party publishes a list of candidates, you vote for the party and they get a proportionate number of the 7 seats. The party with the most seats assigns 1 candidate to a constituency, then the next biggest party goes and so on until all seats are assigned.

This gives a more proportional government but retains the idea of a local link as that seems to be important to some people. You can approach any MP in your superconstituency if you want to speak to your local MP, rather than have to be represented by someone whose views you are idealogically opposed to.

This should also result in a system where minority government and coalitions are the norm, making a more accountable government.

first past the post...

[blue-jez.livejournal.com]

That should be "I'm quite liking" - I am not claiming to in fact be an electoral system.

If I had the time I would see what could have happened under my system, though it would only be theoretical as there are multiple ways to form a superconstituency and people vote differently with different systems.

Re: first past the post...

[mr-s-face.livejournal.com]

"I am not claiming to in fact be an electoral system."

Really? Damn, that would have made life really interesting.

first past the post...

[blue-jez.livejournal.com]

Interesting article: http://www.quirksmode.org/politics/blog/archives/2010/05/thoughts_on_the.html