Labour and Lib-Dems sign a non-aggression pact

Well, since I am equally disgusted by both major parties and could not bring myself to vote for either. I will stick to my principles and continue to vote Lib Dem, no matter what.

What is being discussed is an opportunity to not only always be able to vote LD in the future M0nica. PR would mean that vote would be equal to any other vote. Without PR we seem to be destined to unending gerrymandering and therefore unending Tory governments moving further and further to the right.

No one is suggesting we should act in an unprincipled way. To me getting PR would be worth making a judgement call. If you don't want either of the larger parties after that, and many won't, you can then work to raise the numbers of your chosen party with at least some hope of success. There is little or no hope of that at the moment.

What do you mean by ‘an opportunity … to always be able to vote Liberal Democrat in the future Daisy? Has anyone ever prevented you from doing that?

Germanshepherdsmum

What do you mean by ‘an opportunity … to always be able to vote Liberal Democrat in the future Daisy? Has anyone ever prevented you from doing that?

Try rereading her post and the preceding one by MOnica. I think you've grabbed the horns of the wrong bull.

I have read both posts. I know exactly what she’s getting at but as I said, nobody has prevented her from voting LD. Maybe this attitude is why the party has been doing so spectacularly badly as to grasp the opportunity of another destructive coalition.

Germanshepherdsmum

I have read both posts. I know exactly what she’s getting at but as I said, nobody has prevented her from voting LD. Maybe this attitude is why the party has been doing so spectacularly badly as to grasp the opportunity of another destructive coalition.

Where does DA say she wants to vote LD?

True. Dyed in the wool Labour I would say. Funny that Labour was in power for a long time under the PR system and that was fine, but it’s the devil’s own work if it’s seen as keeping the Conservatives in power.

That statement makes no sense to me Germanshepherdsmum, do you mean without the PR system?

Germanshepherdsmum

What do you mean by ‘an opportunity … to always be able to vote Liberal Democrat in the future Daisy? Has anyone ever prevented you from doing that?

Read it again slowly GSM. That was not what I said.

Germanshepherdsmum

True. Dyed in the wool Labour I would say. Funny that Labour was in power for a long time under the PR system and that was fine, but it’s the devil’s own work if it’s seen as keeping the Conservatives in power.

Good Lord. You really can't get anything right today, can you? If you think I am "Dyed in the wool Labour" you need to check how far to the right you have moved without noticing.

I think GSM means FPTP Casdon.

Countries grow in knowledge and change, thankfully. However, there are still some who want to hold us in the past or take us back even further.

DaisyAnne

Germanshepherdsmum

What do you mean by ‘an opportunity … to always be able to vote Liberal Democrat in the future Daisy? Has anyone ever prevented you from doing that?

Read it again slowly GSM. That was not what I said.

That's what I said, too, but she didn't appear to comprehend..

I'm also rather intrigued by Labour being in power for a long time under the PR system. (10.34). Are we living in some parallel universe?

I think GSM made a mistake and typed PR rather than FPTP, we all do it and I think most of us realised that was what she had done and just mentally corrected it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, there's only been two elections since 1918 when the ruling party has gained more than 50% of the popular vote, both in the thirties. Apart from that, whilst different parties have had a majority of seats, it has always been with a minority of the vote. This means that the majority have been disenfranchised. Surely you can admit that there is an element of unfairness when the majority are governed as a result of a minority votes. This applies to both Labour the the Tories.

If we had a proper PR system more people would be able to vote for the party that they really support rather than sometimes engage in tactical voting.

In view of the present political situation, we should be thoroughly ashamed that the only two undemocratic countries in Europe, where a party can gain a huge majority on the basis of a minority of the votes, because MPs are elected by First Past The Post are the UK and Belarus.

Belarus is a fake democracy, under the control of the Kremlin.

What bad company we keep!

Re: Dinahmo Sun 27-Feb-22 16:57:17

Obviously what you say is reasonable and fair Dinamo but there have always been those to offer a "good" reason not to move forward into greater democracy.

I'm sure people truly believed we couldn't continue if we emanciapted slaves, that our world would be intolerable if we enfranchised women and propertyless men. Some people will always hold these views, sadly.

M0nica

I think GSM made a mistake and typed PR rather than FPTP, we all do it and I think most of us realised that was what she had done and just mentally corrected it.

Thanks MOnica, I did indeed mean FPTP. Posted quickly before going out.

Varian In view of the present political situation, we should be thoroughly ashamed that the only two undemocratic countries in Europe, where a party can gain a huge majority on the basis of a minority of the votes, because MPs are elected by First Past The Post are the UK and Belarus.

Belarus is a fake democracy, under the control of the Kremlin

Are you seriously suggesting that the rigged elections in Belorus have any connection with our free elctions.

If Belorus had the fairest pr system inthe world, the results would be just the same. 90% of the voters would seem to have voted for the party of the current President

It's a very sad situation but, if we are considering increasingly rigged elections, my answer would be yes, M0nica.

It would be interesting to know what "free" means in the context you use it.

DaisyAnne The following two links assess the world's electoral system. We actually come out of it very
well.
www.democraticaudit.com/2018/08/15/audit2018-are-uk-elections-conducted-with-integrity-with-sufficient-turnout/

//freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FH_FITW_Report_2016.pdf

That's nice M0nica. However, just because we do comparitively well does not mean that individually we are satisfied it lives up to the standards we each would set.

No, of course we haven't, but do not throw away or under estimate what we have because it isn't perfect.

Not only is FPTP not perfect, it is inherently undemocratic.

There may not be significant fraud by voters or election officials but the system itself is rotten.

Democracy = rule by majority, NOT minority

M0nica

No, of course we haven't, but do not throw away or under estimate what we have because it isn't perfect.

Who has suggested that? I want to retain democracy and expand it, just how we have done over hundreds of years.

I do not agree with those who want to exclude some from an equal vote, or in some cases, the opportunity to vote at all. I see that as a backwards step.

Sorry, I should check. how as