Labour: Can they ever win another General Election?

[Serene]

It goes off constituencies doesnt it?

 

[redsquirrel]

What I am saying is, and it is objective, is that if there are a hundred people in the country. then the party that had the highest number of votes is in power and forms a Government. The 2nd place is the opposition.

Well you certainly do not want PR then. If fact FPTP is probably the best fit for you

 

[danny la rouge]

Well you certainly do not want PR then. If fact FPTP is probably the best fit for you

Exactly.

 

[redsquirrel]

It goes off constituencies doesnt it?

Yes but so does AV, so do the vast majority of PR systems. There are very few countries that have a single constituency PR system.

 

[Serene]

I thought that it went off who wins the most Constituencies, and not off a poll-vote per se.

 

[Serene]

Yes but so does AV, so do the vast majority of PR systems. There are very few countries that have a single constituency PR system.

It should go off the poll-vote, total votes and have nothing to do with constituencies.

 

[danny la rouge]

It goes off constituencies doesnt it?

Yes, it does. That’s the mechanism. Are you suggesting a form of STV with a single national constituency but which isn’t proportional? That would appear to be the worst of all worlds. No proportionality and no local connection to representatives.

 

[Serene]

If it went off the total votes, and not constituencies, then it is a fairer vote as the party with most votes wins. It is democratic, whereas with constituencies it isnt as democratic

 

[redsquirrel]

It should go off the poll-vote, total votes and have nothing to do with constituencies.

So you want some bizarre FPTP single constituency system? I'm not sure that there is a country in the world that uses such system and you definitely would be getting repeated Tory governments.

 

[danny la rouge]

I’m sorry, I’m out. This is too weird a detour for me.

 

[Serene]

Does that mean that you have realised that what I am referring to is in fact correct, and the most democratic?

 

[sleaterkinney]

With PR you just end up with coalitions and a load of parties with not much difference between them.

Labour can win, but they have problems around their identity and vision.

 

[Knotted]

If anything we ought to start worrying about what a Labour government might entail. A disappointing, managerial Labour government will likely be especially susceptible to right wing and far right wing culture wars. I don't think it's a coincidence that the BNP thrived during the Blair years or that UKIP thrived in the Brown/Cameron years. Don't dismiss zombie centrism because there's a danger that it might make a comeback.

 

[redsquirrel]

I’m sorry, I’m out. This is too weird a detour for me.

I know I should bow out too but I've gotten sucked into trying to get to the bottom of what this truly bizarre electoral system is

 

[danny la rouge]

Does that mean that you have realised that what I am referring to is in fact correct, and the most democratic?

No, it means you’re proposing something a) pointless b) bizarre.

 

[Serene]

So you want so bizarre FTPT single constituency system? I'm not sure that there is a country in the world that uses such system and you definitely would be getting repeated Tory governments.

You would not get repeated Tory as a lot of the Tory Constituencies have few people in them, and those people are rich and vote tory. Whereas many working class areas have lots and lots of people in them and they vote per head isnt being reflected in a constituency system. Labour is more likely to win.
The Constituencies can be allocated seats after the vote by giving the constituencies seats in Parliament. However the total, the TOTAL VOTE PER HEAD is the vote that establishes which Party is in power.

 

[Serene]

No, it means you’re proposing something a) pointless b) bizarre.

No it isnt I have explained it above. It isnt bizarre it is completey rational and a lot fairer. It is also very easy to do.

 

[butchersapron]

STOP THE POSTS!

 

[danny la rouge]

However the total, the TOTAL VOTE PER HEAD is the vote that establishes which Party is in power.

2019

CONConservative	43.6%
LABLabour	32.2%

Tory win. With the greater number of votes.

What on Earth are you going on about?

 

[strung out]

You would not get repeated Tory as a lot of the Tory Constituencies have few people in them, and those people are rich and vote tory. Whereas many working class areas have lots and lots of people in them and they vote per head isnt being reflected in a constituency system. Labour is more likely to win.
The Constituencies can be allocated seats after the vote by giving the constituencies seats in Parliament. However the total, the TOTAL VOTE PER HEAD is the vote that establishes which Party is in power.

Are you Awesome Wells? This is the kind of weird shit he used to come up with.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

So if the Tories get 36% of votes cast, Labour gets 34% and the Lib Dems 30%, the Tories get to be in power and 64% of the population feels (with much justification) disenfranchised. Yep it could just work.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Serene]

In that instance shown, tory would win, as I agreed before. Corbyn and the last few Labour Governments have been unelectable. However when Labour have a decent manifesto then their vote would be a lot lot stronger with the system I am referring to.

 

[redsquirrel]

You would not get repeated Tory as a lot of the Tory Constituencies have few people in them, and those people are rich and vote tory. Whereas many working class areas have lots and lots of people in them and they vote per head isnt being reflected in a constituency system. Labour is more likely to win.
The Constituencies can be allocated seats after the vote by giving the constituencies seats in Parliament. However the total, the TOTAL VOTE PER HEAD is the vote that establishes which Party is in power.

Do you have any idea about the UK electoral system. The Tories have taken a plurality of votes at the last four elections, as well as many times before that, they have taken a plurality of votes more times than Labour since 1945.

And how the fuck would you allocate constituency seats when votes are specifically divorced from any constituency. danny la rouge is right, this system is possible the most silly electoral system I've heard suggested.

 

[Serene]

Are you Awesome Wells? This is the kind of weird shit he used to come up with.

This isnt weird, it is perfectly rational. That it goes off the head count and not the number of constituencies, for reasons I have explained unequivocally above.

 

[butchersapron]

This isnt weird, it is perfectly rational. That it goes off the head count and not the number of constituencies, for reasons I have explained unequivocally above.

Have you a kraken leashed somewhere?

 

[danny la rouge]

This isnt weird, it is perfectly rational. That it goes off the head count and not the number of constituencies, for reasons I have explained unequivocally above.

For a single post (eg PM) it would work. But for a government it would be a hot mess.

I suspect you don’t know much about the U.K. parliamentary system.

 

[Serene]

Do you have any idea about the UK electoral system. The Tories have taken a plurality of votes at the last four elections, as well as many times before that, they have taken a plurality of votes more times than Labour since 1945.

And how the fuck would you allocate constituency seats when votes are specifically divorced from any constituency. danny la rouge is right, this system is possible the most silly electoral system I've heard suggested.

The Party with the most votes, votes per person gets power, that is totally fair. The constituencies are done after that. Yes the Tories would win it sometimes. However, the working class vote can be a lot lot larger than a Tory vote. If a Tory constituency has 2 people in it and they both vote tory, they win it, and up north a constituency with 200 Labour voters in it all vote labour, thats 1 Constituency for each party, yet it is 200 against 2.

 

[Serene]

For a single post (eg PM) it would work. But for a government it would be a hot mess.

I suspect you don’t know much about the U.K. parliamentary system.

You are correct, I dont. I am learning though. I can sense you are a fair person to discuss this with and I appreciate your equanimity, it is to your credit.

 

[danny la rouge]

However, the working class vote can be a lot lot larger than a Tory vote.

This is not coherent. Many Tory votes come from the working class.

 

[butchersapron]

The Party with the most votes, votes per person gets power, that is totally fair. The constituencies are done after that. Yes the Tories would win it sometimes. However, the working class vote can be a lot lot larger than a Tory vote. If a Tory constituency has 2 people in it and they both vote tory, they win it, and up north a constituency with 200 Labour voters in it all vote labour, thats 1 Constituency for each party, yet it is 200 against 2.

The figures in this post - what do you think they represent?