Sentences with phrase «voting system so»

And we need to change our voting system so that ultra-safe seats can be made a thing of the past.

«we need to change our voting system so that ultra-safe seats can be made a thing of the past.»

He urged the use of a proportional voting system so that smaller parties would receive fair representation.

It is a preferential voting system so the voter ranks the candidates on the ballot paper in order of preference.

When YouGov asked their sample whether they supported changing the voting system so that parties are represented in parliament broadly in line with their national vote, 54 per cent were in favour and only 16 per cent opposed.

«We want to improve and modernize our voting system so everyone's vote counts.

This fall British Columbians will decide whether to change BC's provincial voting system so that the number of votes more closely matches the number of elected representatives.

Not exact matches

Billionaire businessman Mark Cuban called President Donald Trump «s time in office so far «political chemotherapy,» suggesting that supporters of the President knowingly voted for a «poisonous» leader in hopes of shaking up America's political system.

Doing so will significantly diminish the likelihood of electoral fraud, which is a huge issue despite the prevalence of electronic voting systems.

So after the pro-democracy legislators in Hong Kong's Legislative Council (Legco) voted down Beijing's proposal to replace the former British colony's undemocratic electoral system with another equally undemocratic version, the only thing we should expect is that this is not the end of the story.

America could be a true multi-party system as in Europe, but the existing parties have been quite effective at duping people into voting for them so that the other side wouldn't win.

And so we get silly people voting for third party candidates when they should be out trying to change the system.

For the rest of us, you were required to vote for every category, so the system sometimes required me to cast ballots for categories I had no interest or experience in.

It is sad that so many people feel that their best option in the voting booth is «a lesser of 2 evils» I blame the party system we have.

meaning, the overall system itself is exploitative and needlessly punitive and just pretty shitty all around, so gaming that dumb system likely doesn't carry the same sort of stigma as, say, embezzling money from your company or taking bribes to vote on a piece of legislation.

In fact everyone hated it so much that on the morning of the race the teams got together and unanimously voted to go back to the old system for the next round but in their infinite wisdom, the FIA rejected it.

In real - world elections, there are some systems where is is much harder to vote tactically than others - you never have perfect information on everyone else's vote, so the more information that you need to be able to vote tactically, the less likely people are to do so.

Even so, some systems (such as winner - take - all) are more heavily impacted by tactical voting than others (such as instant - runoff).

The instant runoff system is considered a very good voting system when choosing between multiple options because it avoids the spoiler effect (e.g. two similar options stealing each other votes so a 3rd candidate who is actually less popular than them wins), doesn't discourage votes for options perceived as underdogs and leads to a compromise most people can agree to.

Far better to reform the voting system for elections so we get a more representative kind of politics.

The result of all this is that FPTP bodies tend towards dual party systems after a while; the similar candidates fight it out in primaries so that in the real election, there's only two major choices and the effect of vote splitting is minimized.

There is no point having PR for both the Commons and Lords — every voting system has some flaw or other, so it's better to have different means of election to both chambers if both are elected, with the purpose of each correcting the other's flaws.

Whilst it is true that most (but not all) Republican and Democratic primaries are open only to registered party supporters, the American party system is much weaker - with party affiliation only being a weak identifier for a much broader ideological spectrum, and you don't have to pay membership dues to vote - so in effect, the primaries are open for almost anyone to vote in.

So such a result might put the Head of State in a difficult position — would she go with the seat split spat out by the first past the post system, or break with established practice and ask the popular vote winner?

This especially struck me as a great example of how broken our current political system is - in SO elections some candidates were younger than 15 years and yet I voted for them because of quality presentation and ability to see their history of votes / answers.

A key requirement of democracy is equal protection of all stakeholders - i.e., if at some point there is a completely fair vote of 2/3 population preferring the choices advocated and implemented by party A; and 1/3 preferring the choices of party B - then a system must ensure that the minority gets adequate protections and fair treatment; so that while at this moment country gets steered to choice A, the minority doesn't get punished in any way for saying that in their opinion choice B might be best; and if some of the original voters change their mind, the choice B can still be known even if the governing clique that was elected on the idea of A wants to continue with A forever.

So when the election system makes it next to impossible for small parties to get representation, people will vote them even less.

This argument is based on evidence from Australia that, given the choice, the vast majority (around 95 %) of voters choose to vote above the line and so it is a de facto closed list PR system.

So you could argue that the current system is actually biased against Labour, and therefore PR will actually disadvantage Labour even more unless rates of voter registration are improved and compulsory voting introduced.

In several of these cases (1951, 1966 and Oct 1974) the parliament was either hung, or the Prime minister had a majority of less than 10 (which is not considered to be a «working majority» in the UK's parliamentary system) and so you can say that they «jumped» to call an election before they were «pushed» by losing a vote of no - confidence.

So either you will be able to tell exactly who voted for what or the system will be vulnerable to manipulation.

So: why are there so many different voting systems in use across the USo: why are there so many different voting systems in use across the Uso many different voting systems in use across the UK?

This appears to me to be a historical artifact; I'm not aware of any legal impediments on a federal level that would prevent states or municipalities from using any voting system they want, so long as it treats all votes equally.

He believes that the «disenfranchised, disillusioned, despondent underclass» is not being represented by the political system, so nobody should vote for today's politicians because it would amount to tacit complicity.

I'm not super familiar with the intricacies of the various voting systems, so forgive me if I'm way off in an assumption I have.

By the way AV is a fudge of a system but is slightly better than FPTP so I'm backing it until we get the chance to vote for PR.

Yet there are plenty of other voting systems, like the Single Transferrable Vote method used to elect moderators on Stack Exchange sites, where voters can honestly indicate their top preference and have an incentive to do so, without the disincentive that this might help their least favored candidate win.

«So when you see settlers all over the country trouping to vote for the NDC, it is not about tribalism, it is about they moving to a system which will give them their civic rights.»

Journalists with NMC accreditation will take part in special voting «It's a system which is robust and it is so verifiable that it is practically impossible for any single individual or group to manipulate and change election results,» he added.

So today as we watch the spectacle of squeezing a 21st century electorate through a 19th - Century voting system, I hope that we can collectively take a moment to consider how can we start to implement all this new technology.

English MPs are voting exclusively on the Housing Bill for the first time under the so - called «EVEL» system

CES: So what do you think about Approval Voting as a voting method as an alternative to Plurality Voting or another preferential system.

Turkey's don't vote fr Christmas so why would Labour MPs vote for a system which would wipe out many of them and permanently force them into a coalition if they want to hold power?

These elections are conducted using the so - called «First Past The Post» voting system, whereby every registered voter casts one vote for a candidate in their town or area (known as constituencies).

The remaining 40 to 45 per cent of representatives for each body (the «additional members») are elected in large regional areas using a proportional representation system, so as to match every party's share of winning candidates to their votes share.

It's the first time that the so - called EVEL system (English Votes for English Laws) has been put into practice.

Johnson said he was open to backing a more proportional voting system, closer to what Clegg wants, but another Labour electoral reformer, Peter Hain, told the Guardian that proportional systems break the link with constituencies and so make it more difficult to sack corrupt MPs.

But under the First Past the Post voting system, the net impact of that will be a big heap of so what.

The system is so open that the Conservative - supporting Daily Telegraph urged its readers to register and vote for Corbyn, in a bid to «destroy Labour».

Israel has a closed list proportional representation electoral system with a single nationwide constituency so, apart from the 3.25 % threshold, changes in seats are pretty much perfectly sensitive to the changes in the share of the vote.