Let me share our experience with FPTP. In Bangladesh , we had just four credible elections:
1991: BNP won with 142 out of the 300 seats. But they got just over 33% of the votes. AL won just 88 seats but they actually got 1-2% more votes than BNP.
1996: AL won the election with 140 seats while BNP won 120 seats and both of them got almost the same number of votes, around 40% each.
2001: BNP (in a seat-sharing agreement with some other parties) won 201 seats but they got around 47% of the votes. Remember, 201 seats give a two-thirds majority and the ability to change the constitution. AL won just 63 seats though they got nearly 40% of the votes.
2008: AL (in a seat-sharing agreement with some other parties) won over 80% of the seats while BNP won the remaining. The AL-alliance got over 50% of the votes while the BNP-alliance got 40% of the votes.
Thatâs not all. Barely 20% of the MPs in the first three elections got more than 50% of the votes in their constituencies. 50% of the MPs got over 40% of the votes or had a healthy lead over the rivals. 30% of the MPs got between 25-33% of the votes. There were a handful of constituencies where the winners got barely over 20% of the votes.
Election are complicated enough. Expecting the dumb fucks who make up the majority of the voting population to rationalise their way to PR (An even more complicated system) is a recipe for disaster.
He doesnât men that the referendum would have been different as far as I understand it. I think he means the referendum wouldnât have happened at all.
Part of the argument for the referendum and Brexit itself was that people had not been given a proper say on the relationship with the EU and how it had changed since the 70âs. The thinking presumably goes that had PR already been in place then voting for parties outside of the main would allow their voices to have been heardâŠ(or rather views better represented in Parliament). Negating the need for the referendum, and possibly Brexit ( as some have said they voted for because they thought they would never get a chance to vote on any future changes that might occur)
No, but the decision to have one would need to be ratified in Parliament I believe. Basically the Brexit debate would have happened prior to the referendum and the reality of it revealed earlier and may have actually prevented it.
Yeah, i donât think youâd be able to steam roll such huge decisions through parliament as you would under an election majority rules type system as we have now. There would possibly be a greater spread across the house and youâd have to debate win them all over to get your policy idea through. As opposed to we are the biggest party and the whip system.
It hides huge issues we can only speculate upon. Its the worst political decision the country ever took - oxymoron - because we didnât really did we?! It was 13 Jan 2013, when Cameron gifted that. Im trying to think of another reason for it. I just cannot see how a PM would give that away.
Yeah. They set themselves up as a consultancy, get paid by companies, often not knowing anything about the business in question but they are of course a direct line to government and then policy.
In my drifting imaginations - when I am King - the politicians are all going on the Isle of Man, isolated from all this shit, where they can get on with doing their jobs. Saw it on Star Wars. Corosant
Mine is to appoint 400 people every 4 years at random off the electoral roll educated to at least A level standard.Same for the lords as a safety net. No second jobs.
, we had just four credible elections:
