|
Post by Kit's tits kick ticks on May 8, 2015 6:30:16 GMT -5
I think voting on paper isn't really a problem. Okay, it's maybe not really nice for the environment, but it works, even when there is no electricity or something, and nothing can be deleted without destroying an actual physical thing. When I have my vote on a paper, I feel much more like it actually exists than when I just click something.
What I find weird is that the amount of people of each party in the parliament doesn't actually represent how many people voted for that party. I mean if one party comes second everywhere, they have 0 seats in the end. And if a party comes first everywhere with like 30%, they have all the seats instead of just 30% of the seats.
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on May 8, 2015 9:13:12 GMT -5
Yes indeed. Your '0 seats' suggestion is more or less what has happened in Scotland. (OK, Labour got one seat.) And now UKIP is also complaining about it, suggesting we ought to have a system more like (continental) Europe. Of such ironies life is made.
|
|
|
Post by B. on May 8, 2015 11:40:28 GMT -5
Yeah, the system is a bit dubious sometimes. I think there should possibly be a voting reform- but I'm happy the SNP did so well in Scotland. I would've voted for them or labour if I was considered a ~real~ ~adult~. Oh, and 'Conservative Majority Government' is nowhere near as bad as it sounds- by comparison with other nations 'Conservative'are actually pretty left wing sometimes- they bought in same sex marriage in England in their last term, for example. Oh, and I found a cool article comparing differences in voting in the USA and the UK www.buzzfeed.com/hannahjewell/differences-between-voting-in-america-and-voting-in-the-uk#.boY59gMVj
|
|
|
Post by gliquey on May 8, 2015 12:52:15 GMT -5
What I find weird is that the amount of people of each party in the parliament doesn't actually represent how many people voted for that party. I mean if one party comes second everywhere, they have 0 seats in the end. And if a party comes first everywhere with like 30%, they have all the seats instead of just 30% of the seats. I agree, although would change the word "weird" to "stupid". I think our system - "first past the post" - is rubbish and really hope it gets changed in the future (anything else would be better - Single Transferable Vote, proportional representation etc). And now UKIP is also complaining about it, suggesting we ought to have a system more like (continental) Europe. Of such ironies life is made. Yeah, it seems like UKIP are just sore losers but I think they have a right to be. They got about 5 million votes (12.6%) but only 1 out of 650 seats (0.15%). The Greens, who wanted proportional representation before they found out the results, are in a similar position (although had fewer votes and seem a lot more grateful for the one seat they managed to keep). Oh, and 'Conservative Majority Government' is nowhere near as bad as it sounds- by comparison with other nations 'Conservative'are actually pretty left wing sometimes- they bought in same sex marriage in England in their last term, for example. The Conservatives deserve very little credit for that; it was the Liberal Democrats that pushed gay marriage through. Many Tories voted against same sex marriage and David Cameron was voting to keep Section 28 (banning "promotion of homosexuality" in schools) in 2003, just a decade ago.
|
|
|
Post by Isadora Is a Door on May 8, 2015 13:47:37 GMT -5
I think the first past the psot system is better than any other system.
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on May 8, 2015 14:04:39 GMT -5
I think that PR goes very badly with the structure of government in the UK, where the government has to have the confidence of Parliament at all times. Since no single party would ever get a majority, they would have to be constantly doing deals to keep in power, and agreeing programmes that no one had actually voted for. It might be better if we just said that the single largest group forms a government, and has to get a majority for each specific proposal that they make, but doesn't need a fixed majority all the time. Scotland did that for while, and it seemed to work fairly well.
And yes: people say that the Lib Dems have had no effect, but I don't agree at all: it seems to me they have made the government quite a bit more moderate than it might be. How they will be without the Lib Dems is quite a question. I don't think Cameron is that extreme, but without the Lib Dems he will find it harder to stand up to the extremists in his own party. They won't be able to reverse gay marriage, but on other questions, like the Human Rights Act or environmental issues, things could be quite frightening.
(Also, Gliquey, are you in the UK? It seems we have a lot of Snicketologists here.)
|
|
|
Post by gliquey on May 8, 2015 14:27:43 GMT -5
(Also, Gliquey, are you in the UK? It seems we have a lot of Snicketologists here.) Yup. I live in the Tatton constituency, represented by George Osborne. I'm not old enough to vote, but after extensive thought and hours and hours of tests online, I have come to the conclusion that I would have voted Green if I could have. At the very least, it would have put them one vote closer to keeping their deposit. EDIT: I think that PR goes very badly with the structure of government in the UK, where the government has to have the confidence of Parliament at all times. Since no single party would ever get a majority, they would have to be constantly doing deals to keep in power, and agreeing programmes that no one had actually voted for. It might be better if we just said that the single largest group forms a government, and has to get a majority for each specific proposal that they make, but doesn't need a fixed majority all the time. Scotland did that for while, and it seemed to work fairly well. Yeah, if you take a look at Weimar Germany, proportional representation without any other conditions didn't work at all - but then again, the Nazis might have got in power whatever system you devised, as I imagine they would have tried more putsches until one worked if they knew they had no chance of getting in under the governmental system. I agree coalitions should be kept to a minimum (and there are lots of ways to do that), but something in the voting system needs to change. I don't know how many people vote tactically (or how you could accurately measure that), but I imagine it's a pretty large number, and that's not a good sign. Single transferable votes minimise tactical voting. Depending on where you live within the UK, your vote could either count for a lot (in a swing seat) or absolutely nothing (look at my constituency). That's not fair. Proportional representation would stop that.
|
|
|
Post by penne on May 8, 2015 17:05:32 GMT -5
I think voting on paper isn't really a problem. Okay, it's maybe not really nice for the environment, but it works, even when there is no electricity or something, and nothing can be deleted without destroying an actual physical thing. When I have my vote on a paper, I feel much more like it actually exists than when I just click something. I suppose it's not that much of an issue in countries with relatively smaller populations, like the UK. Voting on paper is just totally wild to me, because for as long as I can remember, votes here have been electronic, and you can see why counting over 100 million votes on paper would be problematic. I also feel like votes on paper could be easier to fraud than electronic ones, though I could be mistaken
|
|
|
Post by Charlie on May 8, 2015 20:47:24 GMT -5
In Heroes they commit mass voting fraud using magic computer hacking powers to make some dude the president. Couldn't have happened with paper ballots...
|
|
|
Post by bandit on May 8, 2015 22:17:29 GMT -5
A lot of states in the US have paper ballots, but they're bubble sheets so it combines the inefficiency of paper with the insecurity of technology
|
|
|
Post by Linda Rhaldeen on May 8, 2015 22:39:48 GMT -5
I have been a poll worker and done both. On even years where there are big races (Senate, President, etc.) the county is in charge of voting and they have electronic voting machines. On odd years they only had a city council race and a city ballot initiative and we did paper. I liked electronic better because we didn't have to spend two hours at the end of a very long day counting paper ballots. (we had to arrive at the polling place by 6:30 am and the polls were open 7 am to 8 pm, and we weren't allowed to leave until the polls were closed and everything was put away and secured).
|
|
|
Post by B. on Jun 5, 2017 9:53:27 GMT -5
Isn't it lame that we literally miss out by a few months, and have to wait another 5 years for the next one? Well, well, here we are 2 years later now adults able to vote. Who's everyone voting this time round?
|
|
|
Post by Isadora Is a Door on Jun 5, 2017 10:04:25 GMT -5
Labour. Doesn't this deserve it's own thread?
|
|
|
Post by Reba on Jun 7, 2017 14:41:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Jun 7, 2017 14:47:34 GMT -5
Labour. (Would vote Lib Dem if there were any point, but there isn't in my constituency.)
|
|