GE15 - results here!!

by Guest Thu May 07, 2015 10:13 pm

First topic message reminder :

con 316
lab 239
lib dem 10
snp 58
ukip 2
others 25

remember this is only an exit poll ........

by Raggamuffin Fri May 08, 2015 11:38 am

He's going.

I feel quite sad about that.

by Andy Fri May 08, 2015 11:50 am

nicko wrote:UKIP came second in 150 seats, that seems pretty good to me.

118 seats. Optimistic as ever.

by Raggamuffin Fri May 08, 2015 12:06 pm

I thought Jim Murphy's speech was interesting. He talked about Scottish and English nationalism, but at the same time he pretty much implied that the voting was tactical.

Secondly, he claimed the party was “hit by two nationalisms. A Scottish nationalism reassuring people they could vote SNP and get Labour, and an English nationalism, stoked up by David Cameron warning vote for Labour and you would get the SNP.”

https://www.politicshome.com/party-politics/articles/story/perfect-storm-held-scottish-labour-back-jim-murphy

I don't think that people in England not wanting a coalition involving the SNP is nationalistic as such - they just wouldn't want a party which didn't or couldn't represent them having a say.

by Andy Fri May 08, 2015 12:15 pm

nicko wrote:UKIP came second in 150 seats, that seems pretty good to me.

by veya_victaous Fri May 08, 2015 12:18 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
nicko wrote:UKIP came second in 150 seats, that seems pretty good to me.

Yes. It's the voting system they can't ever beat.

who won most of the sets ukip came 2nd in ?

was there a pattern of who's vote they are taking Neutral

Although you guys dont have mandatory voting pirat

what is the voter turn out like? confused

by Raggamuffin Fri May 08, 2015 12:19 pm

Ed is going. He looks devastated, poor chap. He did try very hard.

by Raggamuffin Fri May 08, 2015 12:20 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes. It's the voting system they can't ever beat.

who won most of the sets ukip came 2nd in ?

was there a pattern of who's vote they are taking

Although you guys dont have mandatory voting what is the voter turn out like?

I'm not sure yet - haven't had time to look properly. I'm guessing the Tories did, but that is just a guess.

I'm not sure about the voter turn out either.

by Raggamuffin Fri May 08, 2015 12:27 pm

David Cameron is getting ready to go and see the Queen, and she's in residence. I do think they should wait until all the results are in before they do that. The Tories still need one more seat anyway.

by Raggamuffin Fri May 08, 2015 12:41 pm

The Tories have done it - 326 seats, and still more results to come.

It will be a narrow overall majority though.

by Raggamuffin Fri May 08, 2015 2:50 pm

An example of how daft the voting system is. The SNP got 56 out of 59 seats in Scotland, but they only got 50% of the popular vote.

It's crazy really.

by Raggamuffin Fri May 08, 2015 3:11 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes. It's the voting system they can't ever beat.

who won most of the sets ukip came 2nd in ?

was there a pattern of who's vote they are taking

Although you guys dont have mandatory voting what is the voter turn out like?

The turnout was apparently 66.1% - the highest for 18 years.

by Raggamuffin Fri May 08, 2015 4:17 pm

The collapse of the LibDems is really quite dramatic. I'm just wondering if a lot of people voted for UKIP rather than the LibDems. In terms of the popular vote, UKIP are now third instead of the LibDems. They have gone from 3.1% of the popular vote in 2010 to 12.6%. The LibDems have gone from 23% in 2010 to 7.7%.

by Tommy Monk Fri May 08, 2015 4:26 pm

Handy Andy wrote:So much for Tommy Monk's prediction of 25% and about 10 seats for UKIP.
Looks like Farage is history too.

UKIP got just under 4,000,000 votes this time round compared to only 900,000 in 2010, coming second in over a hundred seats so overall a great result and massive increase in support... sadly the way the electoral system is means that it didn't turn into the number of seats that the voting numbers represent.

Also it is clear that The recent constant bombardment of The polls waffle coupled with the constant media spun propaganda that you must vote one to keep the other out scared enough people into voting Tory to keep what would have been a disasterous labour govt getting in again.

This clearly had a negative affect on UKIP votes... how many tens or hundreds of thousands of people switched from UKIP to Tory at The last minute?

Two of my friends did so I'm sure many thousands more also did across the country.

This ensured a Tory majority so now Cameron has got no excuses not to deliver a referendum on EU, reduce immigration to tens of thousands and A bonfire of The quangos!!!

All things I am in favour of but I would have liked to see a few (and well deserved) UKIP MPs in parliament to hold Tory to account.

Let's not forget that UKIP got a huge number of more votes than lib dems!!!

lol!

by Guest Fri May 08, 2015 4:28 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:

who won most of the sets ukip came 2nd in ?

was there a pattern of who's vote they are taking

Although you guys dont have mandatory voting what is the voter turn out like?

The turnout was apparently 66.1% - the highest for 18 years.

Any idea what percentage of the 66.1 % are the votes cast in Scotland raggs ?

by Raggamuffin Fri May 08, 2015 4:32 pm

korban dallas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

The turnout was apparently 66.1% - the highest for 18 years.
Any idea what percentage of the 66.1 % are the votes cast in Scotland raggs ?

Apparently, the average turnout in Scotland was 71.1% Korban, so pretty high really. That's according to the BBC.

Is that what you meant?

by Guest Fri May 08, 2015 4:43 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
korban dallas wrote:
Any idea what percentage of the 66.1 % are the votes cast in Scotland raggs ?

Apparently, the average turnout in Scotland was 71.1% Korban, so pretty high really. That's according to the BBC.

Is that what you meant?

kind of the Scots vote aside what was the English turn out was what i was wondering

by Raggamuffin Fri May 08, 2015 4:50 pm

korban dallas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Apparently, the average turnout in Scotland was 71.1% Korban, so pretty high really. That's according to the BBC.

Is that what you meant?
kind of the Scots vote aside what was the English turn out was what i was wondering

Do you mean the average turnout in England? I can't find info on that at the moment.

Or do you mean the turnout of English people living in Scotland?

by Guest Fri May 08, 2015 5:04 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
korban dallas wrote:
kind of the Scots vote aside what was the English turn out was what i was wondering

Do you mean the average turnout in England? I can't find info on that at the moment.

Or do you mean the turnout of English people living in Scotland?

the average turnout in England Raggs and i am also finding it difficult to find out Question

by Raggamuffin Fri May 08, 2015 5:05 pm

korban dallas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Do you mean the average turnout in England? I can't find info on that at the moment.

Or do you mean the turnout of English people living in Scotland?
the average turnout in England Raggs and i am also finding it difficult to find out

Yeah, England often gets ignored when one's looking for that kind of statistic. Laughing

It might be available later.

by Guest Fri May 08, 2015 5:08 pm

found it the average turnout in England 33.52% thats low

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/nov/16/uk-election-turnouts-historic

scrach that still looking

by Raggamuffin Fri May 08, 2015 5:12 pm

korban dallas wrote:found it the average turnout in England 33.52% thats low

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/nov/16/uk-election-turnouts-historic

scrach that still looking

Isn't that figure for the European elections?

I would be surprised if the average was that low for a general election.

by Raggamuffin Fri May 08, 2015 5:13 pm

Oh!

I'm still looking too.

by eddie Fri May 08, 2015 9:45 pm

I'm sure I read it was about 66%??

by Eilzel Sun May 17, 2015 1:07 am

Wow, tommy was even blowing his ridiculous predictions out till the very end- hilarious Smile

by captain Sun May 17, 2015 1:28 am

Was talking to a L councillor, he said millions did not vote and as many were undecided. He said knew cam would win. The strange one for me is, no one is talking about the election out here or for miles around. This is unusual.

by Tommy Monk Sun May 17, 2015 1:40 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
Handy Andy wrote:So much for Tommy Monk's prediction of 25% and about 10 seats for UKIP.
Looks like Farage is history too.

UKIP got just under 4,000,000 votes this time round compared to only 900,000 in 2010, coming second in over a hundred seats so overall a great result and massive increase in support... sadly the way the electoral system is means that it didn't turn into the number of seats that the voting numbers represent.

Also it is clear that The recent constant bombardment of The polls waffle coupled with the constant media spun propaganda that you must vote one to keep the other out scared enough people into voting Tory to keep what would have been a disasterous labour govt getting in again.

This clearly had a negative affect on UKIP votes... how many tens or hundreds of thousands of people switched from UKIP to Tory at The last minute?

Two of my friends did so I'm sure many thousands more also did across the country.

This ensured a Tory majority so now Cameron has got no excuses not to deliver a referendum on EU, reduce immigration to tens of thousands and A bonfire of The quangos!!!

All things I am in favour of but I would have liked to see a few (and well deserved) UKIP MPs in parliament to hold Tory to account.

Let's not forget that UKIP got a huge number of more votes than lib dems!!!

Well as you are going to bring it up les... this was my latest post on this thread.

UKIP also got more votes than lib Dems and SNP combined!!!

by Ben Reilly Sun May 17, 2015 6:48 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:
Handy Andy wrote:So much for Tommy Monk's prediction of 25% and about 10 seats for UKIP.
Looks like Farage is history too.

UKIP got just under 4,000,000 votes this time round compared to only 900,000 in 2010, coming second in over a hundred seats so overall a great result and massive increase in support... sadly the way the electoral system is means that it didn't turn into the number of seats that the voting numbers represent.

Also it is clear that The recent constant bombardment of The polls waffle coupled with the constant media spun propaganda that you must vote one to keep the other out scared enough people into voting Tory to keep what would have been a disasterous labour govt getting in again.

This clearly had a negative affect on UKIP votes... how many tens or hundreds of thousands of people switched from UKIP to Tory at The last minute?

Two of my friends did so I'm sure many thousands more also did across the country.

This ensured a Tory majority so now Cameron has got no excuses not to deliver a referendum on EU, reduce immigration to tens of thousands and A bonfire of The quangos!!!

All things I am in favour of but I would have liked to see a few (and well deserved) UKIP MPs in parliament to hold Tory to account.

Let's not forget that UKIP got a huge number of more votes than lib dems!!!

Well as you are going to bring it up les... this was my latest post on this thread.

UKIP also got more votes than lib Dems and SNP combined!!!

So, are you also a big fan of Sarah Palin?

by Tommy Monk Sun May 17, 2015 1:51 pm

Why would anything I've said on here mean I like Sarah Palin...!?

I think she's a twat!

I'll explain it for You one more time Ben...

Our Tory party and your democrats are about the same politically with our labour party and your republicans being way out there as extremes but in different directions... our labour party being way out to The left and yours appearing way out there to The right.

UKIP are standing up against the EU federal dictatorship and for the restoration of our democracy and national sovereignty And for the return of control of our country, laws, rules, regulations and borders to our national parliament through our directly elected representatives.

UKIPs other policies include reducing wasteful govt spending, improving education and protecting our NHS from privatisation, and engaging more with The rest of the world for trade.

Hardly the straw man image of the party that The bullshit media may have led you to believe

by Guest Sun May 17, 2015 4:21 pm

The definition of Irony.

UKIP in Twatti complains he wad never given the chance on the EU and whinges constantly about this.
He was however given the chance to vote on a referendum on first past the post and moans thus about when he is given the chance to vote.

Conclusion, no matter the given situation, UKIP supporters are nothing short of a bunch of moaning wind bags.

They represented 13% of the vote, which was actually lower than what they were being polled at which was an average of 16%. So the Polls were wrong, but then so was also Twatti's delusions of UKIP support

by Tommy Monk Sun May 17, 2015 4:39 pm

UKIP got more votes than SNP and lib Dems combined but only 1 seat, while SNP and lib dems ended up with about 60 between them!!!

Tory got 11 million votes and 330 or so seats... labour got 9 million votes and 232 seats while UKIP got 4 million votes making it the 3rd biggest public supporting party but only 1 seat.

Is that fair democratic representation of the electorate in parliament!?

AV was a stitch up... choice being between keeping a not very good system or changing to an even worse system!

by Guest Sun May 17, 2015 4:44 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:UKIP got more votes than SNP and lib Dems combined but only 1 seat, while SNP and lib dems ended up with about 60 between them!!!Tory got 11 million votes and 330 or so seats... labour got 9 million votes and 232 seats while UKIP got 4 million votes making it the 3rd biggest public supporting party but only 1 seat. Is that fair democratic representation of the electorate in parliament!?AV was a stitch up... choice being between keeping a not very good system or changing to an even worse system!

Yes its a fair system, as do you believe in democracy Twatti?
The people were given a referendum and voted on this voting system and voted in favour of first past the post.
There you have a democratic decision made by the people of Britain.
You thus whinge when the people of Britain are given the chance to vote.
Average UKIP support is 6000, that is not big enough per constituency.
UKIP support is only 13% and not a majority in all areas except one place in the UK. That means you wish to overturn the local votes of the people in that given area and the individual they are voting for, based off you not respecting the voting decisions of the people in that area and off the results for the first past the post referendum.
I mean even if we had the other system, which is a sure way that a coalition government will happen, you may want to ask the Lib Dems what that is like, at what happens to them for being the minority party in Governement lol

by Tommy Monk Sun May 17, 2015 4:51 pm

A fair system would not result in 4,000,000 voters only having 1 seat while another 4,000,000 SNP and lib Dem voters ending up with around 60 seats.

The voting change referendum was a stitch up as the choice given was not the choice that people wanted.

It was a choice of keeping a flawed FPTP system or vote for and even worse AV system.

AV is not PR.

by Guest Sun May 17, 2015 4:58 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:A fair system would not result in 4,000,000 voters only having 1 seat while another 4,000,000 SNP and lib Dem voters ending up with around 60 seats.
The voting change referendum was a stitch up as the choice given was not the choice that people wanted.
It was a choice of keeping a flawed FPTP system or vote for and even worse AV system.
AV is not PR.

Is it fair?
That is subjective, because people also vote for an individual as much as they do for the party, so either system has both good and bad points, of which all you are doing is trying to sneak in the back door view your voting system, where in a local area, you wish to make the minority vote the majority based off your system.
Again you prove just what a complete hypocrite you are. You moan that you have not been given the vote on the EU and where you have been given the vote on first past the post you moan.
So the people in the majority voted for the first past the post system, which you clearly are again not respecting the majority view.
Again it works out at around 6,000 votes per constituency, where as the SNP had half the votes of UKIP which works out at over 24,000 votes per constituency they contested.
So would your voting system be fair to the majority of Scottish voters?
Clearly not

by Tommy Monk Sun May 17, 2015 5:01 pm

EU referendum is totally different to The referendum on voting system.

by Guest Sun May 17, 2015 5:02 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:EU referendum is totally different to The referendum on voting system.

Only on what is being voted for.
So as seen you are an utter hypocrite when you do get the chance to vote

by Tommy Monk Sun May 17, 2015 5:09 pm

Bullshit!

I voted to keep FPTP as the only other option given was an even worse system called AV...

PR was the only popular system that should have been offered as an alternative... that's why it was a stitch up because the only choice was between an outdated and flawed system or an even worse system that nobody ever wanted anyway!

I am still waiting for my chance to vote ou EU... I wonder what the choices will be when we are finally given the chance to have our say...!?

by Guest Sun May 17, 2015 5:13 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Bullshit! I voted to keep FPTP as the only other option given was an even worse system called AV...
PR was the only popular system that should have been offered as an alternative... that's why it was a stitch up because the only choice was between an outdated and flawed system or an even worse system that nobody ever wanted anyway!
I am still waiting for my chance to vote ou EU... I wonder what the choices will be when we are finally given the chance to have our say...!?

You are just repeating your same idiotic arguments.
As seen I have just proven you are a complete an utter hypocrite.
You moan when you have not been given the chance to vote on the EU.
You moan about AV, even though you have been given the chance to vote and thus do not respect the democratic outcome of that vote. I am not concerned about your idiotic subjective views on the voting system, as seen both have good and bad points.

Again it proves what a hypocrite you are

by Tommy Monk Sun May 17, 2015 5:29 pm

You have proved nothing you twat!!!

Nobody wanted a referendum on AV!!!

People wanted a referendum on FPTP or PR!!!

The fact that FPTP won the choice given is not a wholesale support for FPTP but instead a rejection of the only other option given, AV, which was a much worse system.

Now had we had a proper referendum where the other option given was PR, which was the only system that anybody ever wanted, then maybe there would have been a rejection of FPTP.

It's like having people complaining about poor quality food, and wanting better quality food, then being given a chance to vote but only given two choices...

Keep the current poor quality food or have even worse quality food!!!

lol!

AV was never what anyone ever wanted so that 'referendum' was just another stitch up!!!

And absolutely nothing to do with our say on the creeping EU federal dictatorship!!!

by Guest Sun May 17, 2015 5:31 pm

I know my point has easily hit home when Matti plays his poker tell he has lost.

lol!

Its a dead give away..

You are just repeating your same idiotic arguments.
As seen I have just proven you are a complete an utter hypocrite.
You moan when you have not been given the chance to vote on the EU.
You moan about AV, even though you have been given the chance to vote and thus do not respect the democratic outcome of that vote. I am not concerned about your idiotic subjective views on the voting system, as seen both have good and bad points.

Again it proves what a hypocrite you are

by Raggamuffin Sun May 17, 2015 5:40 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

UKIP got more votes than SNP and lib Dems combined but only 1 seat, while SNP and lib dems ended up with about 60 between them!!!

Tory got 11 million votes and 330 or so seats... labour got 9 million votes and 232 seats while UKIP got 4 million votes making it the 3rd biggest public supporting party but only 1 seat.

Is that fair democratic representation of the electorate in parliament!?

AV was a stitch up... choice being between keeping a not very good system or changing to an even worse system!

Of course it's not fair. All the people who did not vote for the winning candidate do not count - their votes are worthless. It would be interesting to do a comparison of different elections to see what the outcome would have been under PR. I think it's been highlighted more in this election because of the huge disparity between the number of votes UKIP got versus the number of seats they got, and the number of votes the SNP got versus the number of seats they got.

by Guest Sun May 17, 2015 5:43 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

UKIP got more votes than SNP and lib Dems combined but only 1 seat, while SNP and lib dems ended up with about 60 between them!!!

Tory got 11 million votes and 330 or so seats... labour got 9 million votes and 232 seats while UKIP got 4 million votes making it the 3rd biggest public supporting party but only 1 seat.

Is that fair democratic representation of the electorate in parliament!?

AV was a stitch up... choice being between keeping a not very good system or changing to an even worse system!

Of course it's not fair. All the people who did not vote for the winning candidate do not count - their votes are worthless. It would be interesting to do a comparison of different elections to see what the outcome would have been under PR. I think it's been highlighted more in this election because of the huge disparity between the number of votes UKIP got versus the number of seats they got, and the number of votes the SNP got versus the number of seats they got.

Of course it is fair, because as seen you had the chance to vote on this voting system.
To moan afterwards is nothing more than sour grapes.
As seen with the other voting system the SNP would end up with far less seats where they voted in the majority in most of the constituencies they were in. You are trying to place a national vote over the local vote of people and over who they vote for individually in that area. How is that fair to the local people?
You see this is why most Ukippers are utter hypocrites.

by Raggamuffin Sun May 17, 2015 5:45 pm

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Of course it's not fair. All the people who did not vote for the winning candidate do not count - their votes are worthless. It would be interesting to do a comparison of different elections to see what the outcome would have been under PR. I think it's been highlighted more in this election because of the huge disparity between the number of votes UKIP got versus the number of seats they got, and the number of votes the SNP got versus the number of seats they got.

Of course it is fair, because as seen you had the chance to vote on this voting system.
To moan afterwards is nothing more than sour grapes.
As seen with the other voting system the SNP would end up with far less seats where they voted in the majority in most of the constituencies they were in. You are trying to place a national vote over the local vote of people and over who they vote for individually in that are. How is that fair to the local people?
You see this is why most Ukippers are utter hypocrites.

How do you know what I voted for?

by Tommy Monk Sun May 17, 2015 5:45 pm

Dodge, you just repeated that same shit for the third time now...

You always start doing that when lost an argument or shown to be an idiot!!!

lol!

Nobody ever wanted AV which was the only other choice offered... bit like offering worse quality food to the people who complain about poor quality food!!!

Rags, people have already been saying that PR would have delivered about 86 UKIP seats with their 4 million votes.

by Guest Sun May 17, 2015 5:48 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Dodge, you just repeated that same shit for the third time now...
Waffle and throwing your dummy out with no relevance to the debate as per usual
You always start doing that when lost an argument or shown to be an idiot!!!
Waffle and throwing your dummy out with no relevance to the debate as per usual

Poker Tell you have lost the deabte
Nobody ever wanted AV which was the only other choice offered... bit like offering worse quality food to the people who complain about poor quality food!!!
Nobody? Really, so you base this on now a subjective view , where again people have been given a choice and you are certainly arguing in favour of AV. So contradiction now to your hypocrisy
Rags, people have already been saying that PR would have delivered about 86 UKIP seats with their 4 million votes.

Is it fair?
That is subjective, because people also vote for an individual as much as they do for the party, so either system has both good and bad points, of which all you are doing is trying to sneak in the back door view your voting system, where in a local area, you wish to make the minority vote the majority based off your system.
Again you prove just what a complete hypocrite you are. You moan that you have not been given the vote on the EU and where you have been given the vote on first past the post you moan.
So the people in the majority voted for the first past the post system, which you clearly are again not respecting the majority view.
Again it works out at around 6,000 votes per constituency, where as the SNP had half the votes of UKIP which works out at over 24,000 votes per constituency they contested.
So would your voting system be fair to the majority of Scottish voters?
Clearly not

by Raggamuffin Sun May 17, 2015 5:49 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Dodge, you just repeated that same shit for the third time now...

You always start doing that when lost an argument or shown to be an idiot!!!

Nobody ever wanted AV which was the only other choice offered... bit like offering worse quality food to the people who complain about poor quality food!!!

Rags, people have already been saying that PR would have delivered about 86 UKIP seats with their 4 million votes.

About 82 seats I think, and the SNP would have got about 30.

by Guest Sun May 17, 2015 5:53 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Dodge, you just repeated that same shit for the third time now...

You always start doing that when lost an argument or shown to be an idiot!!!

Nobody ever wanted AV which was the only other choice offered... bit like offering worse quality food to the people who complain about poor quality food!!!

Rags, people have already been saying that PR would have delivered about 86 UKIP seats with their 4 million votes.

About 82 seats I think, and the SNP would have got about 30.

Exactly and how is that fair to the people of Scotland voting int their area. They voted in the majority in Scotland for the SNP and you wish to impose a system which would clearly be at odds with the majority vote there. By your view we should not then bother given powers to local authorities, as by your view the voting should be as a nation to vote for a party and that locally the views of the majority do not count to you

by Raggamuffin Sun May 17, 2015 5:54 pm

Would it be fair to say that it's fairly unusual for a party which got 12%
-13% of the vote to only get one seat? The voting system has always been a problem for the LibDems, for example, but they've never got such a low proportion of seats compared to the number of votes they got as UKIP did.

by Raggamuffin Sun May 17, 2015 5:56 pm

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

About 82 seats I think, and the SNP would have got about 30.

Exactly and how is that fair to the people of Scotland voting int their area. They voted in the majority in Scotland for the SNP and you wish to impose a system which would clearly be at odds with the majority vote there. By your view we should not then bother given powers to local authorities, as by your view the voting should be as a nation to vote for a party and that locally the views of the majority do not count to you

If you're going by the popular vote in Scotland alone, the SNP should have got around 30 seats - 50% of the population voted for the SNP.

by Guest Sun May 17, 2015 5:57 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Would it be fair to say that it's fairly unusual for a party which got 12%
-13% of the vote to only get one seat? The voting system has always been a problem for the LibDems, for example, but they've never got such a low proportion of seats compared to the number of votes they got as UKIP did.

They only got one seat, because their votes were not the majority in the rest of the areas.
We place power onto local authorities, so it goes without saying that people should get the chance to vote locally for who they want to represent them in their are and not just the Government..
You are taking away the individualism of the person you are voting for and making it a system that people only vote for a party in Government and have little say in who locally would govern them.
Is that really fair for the local majority?
No
Hence why there is good and bad in both systems, where again people voted on this and the majority went for first past the post, which to me is the better system.

by Guest Sun May 17, 2015 5:58 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:

Exactly and how is that fair to the people of Scotland voting int their area. They voted in the majority in Scotland for the SNP and you wish to impose a system which would clearly be at odds with the majority vote there. By your view we should not then bother given powers to local authorities, as by your view the voting should be as a nation to vote for a party and that locally the views of the majority do not count to you

If you're going by the popular vote in Scotland alone, the SNP should have got around 30 seats - 50% of the population voted for the SNP.

No they should have got every seat they voted in the majority.

by Sponsored content