But the quirks of the much - maligned first - past - the - post
electoral system means that their presence will barely be felt in the Commons.
The «first past the post»
electoral system means we can't predict the result with certainty, nor expect it to match the vote.
The inherent bias of
the electoral system means that if Labour were to poll just 36 per cent at the next election, the Conservatives 33 per cent, the Lib Dems 14 per cent and UKIP 7 per cent, Miliband would have an overall majority of more than 20 seats.
Although 40 per cent is regarded as the «election winning» mark, the weighting of
the electoral system means today's poll would result in a hung parliament if translated into votes.
Equally, while
the electoral system means voters can give their 1st vote to a minor party without missing out on the Ken v Boris race, that doesn't mean they realise they can and minor parties may be being squeezed by the closeness of the race.
Britain's current
electoral system means voters in marginal seats are the ones which decide the election.
And the polarisation and swings we see under the Commons»
electoral system mean any gains Labour make are often swiftly undone by the next right - wing government.
Not exact matches
That does not
mean - and this has to be clear - a supposed simplification of the
electoral system, by abolishing the proportional
system in favour of majority mechanisms.
This, combined with the U.S.
electoral system's two - party structure,
means that there was both no reason and no way for a third party to gain that kind of traction.
This is what the introduction of the card reader has brought to our
electoral system and we should acknowledge that the card reader has brought a tremedous resurgence of hope and fidelity unequaled in our quest to give
meaning and purpose to the voter register.
I would quite like an
electoral system where «more votes»
meant «more seats» and vice versa.
This
means that if we are right about the pattern and extent of the constituency variation, there will be practically no
electoral -
system bias at the election.
The
electoral system and a continuing culture of tolerance
means that it is almost impossible for an outright racist party to ever break out of a tiny minority of support in the UK.
The decision by the Labour leadership to run an
electoral college for the mayoral nomination rather than the one member, one vote (OMOV)
system originally planned,
meant that Ken was ultimately narrowly beaten to the Labour nomination by Frank Dobson.
And yet we now have, for some elections,
electoral systems which at least some of the time
mean that a Labour vote is -LSB-...]
What do we
mean by democracy, what place do political parties have, and what is the purpose of an
electoral system?
He argues unrest with the expenses scandal
means we need
electoral reform which will miraculously stop abuses of a squalid expenses
system.
Peter Facey (London, Unlock Democracy): As someone who watches the debate about our
electoral system with a keen (if not nerdish) interest and tries to read the tea leaves of what it
means for our future, two things are becoming clear.
--RRB- The winner - takes - all - electors in a state
system is also a
means by which smaller states gain disproportionate representation and it also helps create a mandate for the President by giving the winner a big majority in the
electoral college.
Nevertheless, being stuck out of power by an unrepresentative
electoral system and an indifferent media establishment
means many Lib Dem members secretly view stolen policies as satisfying evidence of political change emanating from the third party.
The problem is that a progressive split, with our present
electoral system,
means letting the united right win everywhere.
Re-elected Green Party MP Caroline Lucas agreed, saying «The political
system in this country is broken -LSB-...] It's ever clearer tonight that the time for
electoral reform is long overdue, and it's only proportional representation that will deliver a Parliament that is truly legitimate and better reflects the people it is
meant to represent.»
When combined with a fair
electoral system it could
mean the renewal of our democracy and crucially, a future of coalition politics rather than our current stale two - party sham.
But using projections based on recent polls, it says that even if either Ukip or the Lib Dems could tie with Labour on 20 %, the
electoral system would
mean neither would win more than 20 seats, with Labour remaining at 140 to 150.
YouGov also asked how people would vote in a re-run between Boris and Ken — 49 % would vote Boris, 33 % Ken (respondents were not offered the chance of voting for other candidates, so this was not a genuine voting intention polls by any
means, but since the London
electoral system does redistribute votes between the top two candidates it offers a rough guide).
His backing for
electoral reform - which would
mean scrapping the first - past - the - post
system on which Westminster MPs are elected in favour of some form of proportional representation (PR)- came as John Denham, the skills secretary, also let it be known that he favours considering a number of «radical steps», including
electoral reform.
While all
electoral systems have flaws and none can offer a «perfect» solution, having a higher number of political parties allows for wider representation of the community's views and could
mean more voters feel that their vote counts, which may help engage younger voters.
Where the problem begins is when supporters of Britain's First Past the Post
electoral system attempt to claim that introducing proportional representation necessarily
means breaking that link.
Finally, the UK has become a laboratory of
electoral systems — and there are ready
means to compare and contrast «voter power» and choice under each one.
It is also becoming evident, on the basis of votes cast, how skewed the
electoral system is: for the Conservatives, 2m more votes than Labour translates into 48 more Tory seats, while Labour's similar 2m vote advantage over the Lib Dems
means 200 more seats.
Perhaps the best way out of our
electoral malaise isn't to reform campaign finances, as politicians so often say, but to reform the voting
system itself — even if it
means doing so one vote at a time.