Is the old two party system coming to an end?

Casdon People sometimes vote for the least worst option, often recommended when they don't actually endorse any of the parties. No party has ever said they believe their candidate succeeded because they were 'the least worse option' they take every vote as a ringing endorsement. If there was compulsory voting how on earth would you break down the 'none of the above' votes? Far from being a meaningless count they have in common that they couldn't bring themselves to endorse any of the standing candidates. Universal suffrage confers a right to vote, I'd argue those that fought for that right never, ever expected it become a compulsion.

It only needs Labour to mess up, big time, - and they are making a sterling effort to do so - for voters to flock to vote for the Conservatives, not because they support them but because tey think they are the best way of getting rid of Labour. and we are back to the 2 party system again.

Reform, the Greens and Lib Dems are parties of protest, that is why they did well this time, but it will not last.

There are now 101 cross party MP's in favour of PR.. I have hopes for a more progressive future..

Rosie51

Casdon People sometimes vote for the least worst option, often recommended when they don't actually endorse any of the parties. No party has ever said they believe their candidate succeeded because they were 'the least worse option' they take every vote as a ringing endorsement. If there was compulsory voting how on earth would you break down the 'none of the above' votes? Far from being a meaningless count they have in common that they couldn't bring themselves to endorse any of the standing candidates. Universal suffrage confers a right to vote, I'd argue those that fought for that right never, ever expected it become a compulsion.

We all have our own opinions Rosie51, and I think everybody who is eligible to vote should vote. I’d prefer a system where everybody votes for one of the available options, but given that that won’t, the dissatisfied have no voice if they are all lumped together, do they? I don’t pretend to have the answer, but nor do I think that we should be harking back to 100 years ago, so much has changed. Maybe in the future we’ll be voting online and a more nuanced way of voting will be developed.

I don’t pretend to have the answer, but nor do I think that we should be harking back to 100 years ago, so much has changed. If it wasn't for the past we wouldn't have universal suffrage, that seems an odd argument to me. Without an answer to the dilemma of the compulsory casting of votes with reference to 'none of the above', no government could ethically bring in compulsory voting. Would everybody voting for a particular candidate have to justify why they had? Just my opinion, which is perfectly valid.

I know that Rosie51, of course. The country is as different now as it was 100 years before suffrage though. Quite a few countries do have compulsory voting without any ‘none of the above’ option, so it is clearly possible, if unpalatable to some. We must agree to differ in our views here I think.

Good choice.😀😃🥳

Do any of the countries with compulsory voting operate a fptp system like us? I suspect not.

Casdon

I fundamentally disagree with not voting at all Rosie51, so I’m probably not the right person to ask. I’ve thought about the option to vote for ‘none of the above’, and I think that would be meaningless too because it would lump all who voted that way into one category, which they clearly aren’t. People need to vote to make their wishes known, so maybe a ‘none of the above’ vote could be broken down into some detail.

What would your suggested penalty be for not voting? How could you ensure any penalty was fair? Some people don't vote on religious grounds - would you excuse them? What about people who weren't mentally fit to vote, would they have to prove it? How?

No of course we don’t have a fptp system. It is unfair. Votes are distributed from minor and independent candidates to their party of choice if they don’t win the seat themselves. I can’t understand why that doesn’t happen in the uk. On second thoughts I suppose it is vested interest from the two major parties - otherwise you might get someone the people really want.

A UK referendum in 2011 on PR achieved a 42% turnout of registered voters and 67% voted against.

Thanks for this OldFrill. I'm not saying we shouldn't have any change, but will remind people as with the badly thought out Brexit vote, 'be careful what you wish for.'

The PR referendum was 2011, the Scottish independence referendum 2014. If we have another referendum to alter the voting system, we'll also need to let the Scots have another won't we? & after Brexit, I can't see either of the main parties keen to go to the country/ies on either of those issues.

Nothing. Makes me angrier than that statement valdavi “we,ll need to LET the Scot’s have another one*!!Just what kid of democracy insists on their neighbour getting their permission on howto run their country? Scotland was an independent nation long before 1707 and should be again.When all the unionistsbleatabout how badly Scotland has done maybe think about what they are actually saying…..The union has not been a union that benefitted us in any way shape or form.WE CAN do better..let’s face it we can’t do any worse.We are ignored derided or dismissed in Westminster quite frankly I can’t see any reason why we are there except for the fact they need to have access to all our recourses as they have done for 300 years.We are a. Colony in all but name .

The vote was for AV. www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/.
PR is not the same as AV, which was the proposed system we voted for, or not. I wonder why as only us America and India have FPA system. Not really good, when those with fewer votes get more seats. Seems mad to me.

First Past post, FPP .aargh fat fingers!!!!

paddyann54

Nothing. Makes me angrier than that statement valdavi “we,ll need to LET the Scot’s have another one*!!Just what kid of democracy insists on their neighbour getting their permission on howto run their country? Scotland was an independent nation long before 1707 and should be again.When all the unionistsbleatabout how badly Scotland has done maybe think about what they are actually saying…..The union has not been a union that benefitted us in any way shape or form.WE CAN do better..let’s face it we can’t do any worse.We are ignored derided or dismissed in Westminster quite frankly I can’t see any reason why we are there except for the fact they need to have access to all our recourses as they have done for 300 years.We are a. Colony in all but name .

I think you could do worse actually, and anyway the Scottish people have spoken, they don’t want to be independent with the SNP in charge.

I agree that compulsory voting is the first step to take. How can you say that a party was what the country voted for when over half the people eligible don't bother to vote at all. If everyone had to vote (as Australia) it would be more of a representative of the country surely. PR might work if compulsory voting was introduced first.

MaggsMcG

I agree that compulsory voting is the first step to take. How can you say that a party was what the country voted for when over half the people eligible don't bother to vote at all. If everyone had to vote (as Australia) it would be more of a representative of the country surely. PR might work if compulsory voting was introduced first.

If compulsory voting was introduced, I would refuse to vote, even if it meant imprisonment.

Compulsory voting is a negation of democracy. Democracy is about the individual having the freedom to take part - or not. Compulsory voting takes away that democratic choice to decide whether to participate or not.

I know of one person who strikes through the ballot paper with ‘ none of the above’ when appropriate. That counts as a spoiled vote.

In a compulsory voting situation, spoiling your vote is the coward's way out.

Yes I would refuse to vote too. Compulsory voting appeals to the authoritarians I think.

Monica isn’t it more cowardly to vote for the wrong candidate?

If you don’t want to vote nothing is stopping you. You either don’t go and may or may not cop a fine or you go and get your name crossed off and then leave without voting. No one cares. In practice the voting rate is around 80 % or so usually.

ronib

Monica isn’t it more cowardly to vote for the wrong candidate?

What is the wrong candidate and who decides they are 'wrong'.
Your definition of a wrong candidate might not be mine, unless you mean someone accidentally ticking the wrong box.

Sorry*nanna8*, you do not get it. I should not have go to a polling station to pretend to vote. I should be free to ignore the whole election and spend the whole day locked in my house, or on the beach or shopping if that is what I choose to do. That is democracy.