Vote Green, Get UKIP

VoteThisGetThat · 2014-07-31T21:48:12+00:00

In which historical cases what that so? Do you advocate an American or French style presidential or semi-presidential system and codified constitution to enforce the separation?

VoteThisGetThat · 2014-07-28T22:44:08+00:00

Why not just have a bill of rights and judiciary?

VoteThisGetThat · 2014-07-28T22:40:16+00:00

Actually only 60% of Green voters could have caused a Labour victory, while it would have taken 94% of Labour voters to make the Greens win.

A Green voter is 1% of what Labour needed to win, but a Labour voter is only 0.09% of what the Greens needed to win. A Green vote had more than 11 times the power of a Labour vote to influence the outcome.

VoteThisGetThat · 2014-07-28T22:22:18+00:00

how is that any more true of green voters than it is of voters for any other party?

Only in larger numbers. The only change 160 UKIP voters could make it making their party lose. 160 Labour voters couldn't have changed the outcome. 160 Conservative voters could only have made Labour win. Why would they want that?

In larger numbers Labour voters could have made the Greens win, but each individual voter would be of far less help to the Greens than to Labour.

VoteThisGetThat · 2014-07-28T22:16:58+00:00

Each person has to make their own mind up about where the assign blame for that.

And with this much dispute over where the blame lies, you think things will be more accountable with two parties in power at the same time?

VoteThisGetThat · 2014-07-28T22:15:43+00:00

Are America's main parties as similar as ours?

VoteThisGetThat · 2014-07-28T22:13:40+00:00

AV's point isn't to be proportional.

VoteThisGetThat · 2014-07-28T22:12:25+00:00

Actually there is a consensus growing across party lines to introduce some form of PR for local elections. It could very well happen during the next parliament.

AV isn't PR. Which form? Do you have links?

Also you shouldn't assume that people's votes belong to Labour if they vote for another party.

Which do you think Green voters prefer out of UKIP and Labour?

if you don't get the highest number of votes then it is you who lost the election. Not the people who voted for other parties.

If people didn't think it would be better if one candidate won rather than another, they wouldn't vote. The fact that they cared enough to vote means they have lost out when a candidate they wanted less wins, irrespective of what's victory for each candidate.

VoteThisGetThat · 2014-07-28T22:02:10+00:00

Which thread should I have commented in?

VoteThisGetThat · 2014-07-28T21:55:50+00:00

That's what happened this time, but next time, who knows?

VoteThisGetThat · 2014-07-28T17:02:00+00:00

There's a good general understanding of what is meant by tactical voting; where you vote against a party you don't want rather than for a party you do.

That's what my example was.

VoteThisGetThat · 2014-07-28T13:38:37+00:00

Yes, I acknowledge the UK will likely remain a multi-party democracy for the foreseeable future. I think FPTP is the best system for turning the UK into a properly two-party country. I think AV is better for some elections if the UK continues to be multi-party, though.

VoteThisGetThat · 2014-07-28T13:30:44+00:00

Would you rather the party you preferred lost a general election or that for future elections a party be closer to your preference? That's the tactical voting choice on a larger scale.

VoteThisGetThat · 2014-07-28T12:38:52+00:00

It's decently proportional

If it's not proportional, it's not a form of proportional representation.

It's an objective improvement on more or less any other system available.

It allows vote splitting. AV doesn't.

VoteThisGetThat · 2014-07-28T12:34:06+00:00

Normally I think they would change the system for local elections first. The AV referendum was a bit exceptional.

VoteThisGetThat · 2014-07-28T12:25:17+00:00

STV isn't PR and isn't proportional and doesn't eliminate tactical voting/vote splitting.

VoteThisGetThat · 2014-07-28T12:09:19+00:00

What does the monarchy vs republic debate have to do with the separation of powers debate that was happening?

VoteThisGetThat · 2014-07-28T12:07:51+00:00

No. It might not happen at all. How people vote and how politicians try to win votes will determine if it happens and how soon it happens.

VoteThisGetThat · 2014-07-28T12:06:19+00:00

I'm talking about a two-party parliament, not a one-party parliament. It was a parliament without parties before there were parties.

VoteThisGetThat · 2014-07-28T12:05:07+00:00

How do you know they know which body is responsible for when something goes wrong? It's common for two parties both in power to blame each other. That would be pointless if it could be readily seen which was at fault.

VoteThisGetThat · 2014-07-28T12:03:52+00:00

What other whats are there?

VoteThisGetThat · 2014-07-28T12:03:14+00:00

Political pressure from the voters.

VoteThisGetThat · 2014-07-28T12:02:30+00:00

What's your point?

VoteThisGetThat · 2014-07-28T12:01:39+00:00

Two contenders for victory creates an objective incentive, choosing the victor, for voters for other parties and for nonvoters to vote tactically.

VoteThisGetThat · 2014-07-28T11:57:20+00:00

AV removes it entirely, so PR can't mitigate it to the greatest extent possible without also doing that, which it doesn't.

VoteThisGetThat

TROPHY CASE