Bollitics: The General Election 2010 Exit Poll

[Gringo]

The Lib dems in discussion with labour and conservatives is interesting and does point to what you would get with PR in terms of political bargaining to see who gives the best deal

In more mature democracies, people don't expect the govt to be appointed the day after the election, they are used to a deal being struck to ensure the strongest possible govt, not just who gives you the best deal.

What's better, red-blue swings every 5 or 10 years, ripping up what the predecessor created and planting bombs for their succesor, or a consistency of comrpomise creating progress.

Maybe under PR the govt could actually plan for the future with certainty and build the long term infrastructure the country needs.

[LondonLax]

The Lib dems in discussion with labour and conservatives is interesting and does point to what you would get with PR in terms of political bargaining to see who gives the best deal

Yes that is the best part. Minor parties can give their backing in return for getting some of their main campaign pledges included, something that is not possible in a FPTP system.

It means the electorate can truly be represented rather than a government deciding everything on 40% of the vote from 60% of the population.

People can realistically vote for the smaller parties on issues important to them which can be incorporated in the makeup of the final coalition.

[Richard]

The Lib dems in discussion with labour and conservatives is interesting and does point to what you would get with PR in terms of political bargaining to see who gives the best deal

Yes that is the best part. Minor parties can give their backing in return for getting some of their main campaign pledges included, something that is not possible in a FPTP system.

Minor parties whose policies were so appealing that they only got a small percentage of the vote?

[Ads]

In more mature democracies, people don't expect the govt to be appointed the day after the election

Their patience is no doubt born out of extreme tyranny from their own past.

Edit: And yes, yes, yes, I know, I've already kicked myself in the shins for it.

[Richard]

The Lib dems in discussion with labour and conservatives is interesting and does point to what you would get with PR in terms of political bargaining to see who gives the best deal

In more mature democracies, people don't expect the govt to be appointed the day after the election, they are used to a deal being struck to ensure the strongest possible govt, not just who gives you the best deal.

A deal being struck on what basis do you think? What is best for the country or which bits of each others manifesto they keep and ditch regardless of whether the public want them or whether it is good for the country? How do you know what you are eventually voting for at an election if some parts of the manifesto are going to get ditched in the interests of striking a deal?

What's better, red-blue swings every 5 or 10 years, ripping up what the predecessor created and planting bombs for their succesor, or a consistency of comrpomise creating progress.

Consistency? The only constant would be the minor party being the king maker at each election with the party achieving the higher percentage changing. I mean it may be patronising for some people but remind me again the percentage of votes the Lib Dems got and have got in the last 10 elections? They would never, IMO, have the support to make them the largest party but would have the support to make them king maker ensuring that they would always be in government. Is that fair?

Maybe under PR the govt could actually plan for the future with certainty and build the long term infrastructure the country needs.

What certainty would there be? Are you saying that it would be the same party or two parties in power regardless of the vote? Nice way to run a democracy. There would still be change and I would argue greater change as deals needed to be struck to ensure government.

[LondonLax]

The Lib dems in discussion with labour and conservatives is interesting and does point to what you would get with PR in terms of political bargaining to see who gives the best deal

Yes that is the best part. Minor parties can give their backing in return for getting some of their main campaign pledges included, something that is not possible in a FPTP system.

Minor parties whose policies were so appealing that they only got a small percentage of the vote?

They may have a single issue which is important to a minority and can be included without disrupting the policies the major party campaigned on.

If their issue cannot be reconciled with the majority party then they would just be overlooked as per the current system.

[Richard]

They may have a single issue which is important to a minority

But not important and in fact could be detrimental to the population

If their issue cannot be reconciled with the majority party then they would just be overlooked as per the current system.

Is that fair if the current system isn't fair?

In the last election UKIP are the fourth biggest party in terms of votes and BNP 5th, do we think they should get a say / seats?

[Richard]

In addition, how do we know who we are voting for in terms of a local MP?

[kidlewis]

I just hope Cameron has offered something on reforming the electoral system, otherwise I can see another unelected PM in downing street in a week or two.

[drat01]

I just hope Cameron has offered something on reforming the electoral system, otherwise I can see another unelected PM in downing street in a week or two.

You will see an unelected PM whatever happens

[Richard]

I just hope Cameron has offered something on reforming the electoral system, otherwise I can see another unelected PM in downing street in a week or two.

So the liberal democrats would hold out for something that is good for them and , arguably, the public didn't vote for rather than what is good for the country? I know the answer, the question was rhetorical but merely to highlight one of the many flaws that PR would give us

In terms of unelected PM well quite, it could be that none of the three that fought the campaign, or debated on telly, get the job. That would not go down well with the electorate.

If Brown stays then I think the phrase "coalition of the defeated" comes into play, again not a nice thing to stick.

The Lib dems have a tricky path to negotiate . Basically if the negotiations fall down then it puts a hole in their argument of collaborative politics and electoral reform. This is their opportunity to show how it works.

[LondonLax]

They may have a single issue which is important to a minority

But not important and in fact could be detrimental to the population

Yes and if it is detrimental it is discounted, they are the minority after all. But if it is not detrimental then it can be included, that's win-win.

If their issue cannot be reconciled with the majority party then they would just be overlooked as per the current system.

Is that fair if the current system isn't fair?

It is more fair because they actually get a chance to be included which is better than no chance at all.

It is called compromise. Compromise to get more of the populations wishes implemented is obviously better.

Currently only a minority of the population is required to vote in the party who will implement 100% of their policy over 100% of the population.

Even if you vote for a party you most likely do not agree with 100% of their policy, there would be room for compromise on a number of issues to smaller parties who want it more.

In the last election UKIP are the fourth biggest party in terms of votes and BNP 5th, do we think they should get a say / seats?

If it is the will of the people I don't see why not? That is democracy right? I dare say though that any party who included the BNP in their coalition would be signing their own death warrent for the next election.

[kidlewis]

I just hope Cameron has offered something on reforming the electoral system, otherwise I can see another unelected PM in downing street in a week or two.

You will see an unelected PM whatever happens

what I meant was that we could find ourselves with a Labour PM who isn't Brown.

at least people were voting for Cameron, Brown and Clegg as a party leader at the time of the election.

[drat01]

KL - many people voted for Clegg and I am assuming that they were NOT voting for Cameron. At the end of the day we do NOT vote for a PM.

[Richard]

At the end of the day we do NOT vote for a PM.

Especially if it's Gordon Brown it seems

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Never seen the fuss about that myself, you don't directly vote for a prime minister so why all of a sudden is their a problem?

If Dave the rave did shite and Hague came in during their time in government, would you complain that you never voted for Hague?

[PauloBarnesi]

Is Hague more acceptable than Cameron to people?

[bickster]

In addition, how do we know who we are voting for in terms of a local MP?

Abolish the house of Lords and have a second chamber made up on a constituency basis, with no parties allowed and even possibly the inability to stand in consecutive parliaments being part of that make up

[mykeyb]

Never seen the fuss about that myself, you don't directly vote for a prime minister so why all of a sudden is their a problem?

If Dave the rave did shite and Hague came in during their time in government, would you complain that you never voted for Hague?

Are we back to the old 3 year cycle..................

[mjmooney]

Is Hague more acceptable than Cameron to people?

OK, I'm a Labour supporter, but I've warmed to Hague since his "Tory Boy" days, I think he's matured a lot.

If we must have a Tory PM I'd rather him than Lord Snooty.