h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>> and is more democratic and fairer
(representative democracy) than FPTP - with the elected
Representative (MP) having to be positively supported by more than
50% of the voters.

Yes, I agree..
But most people aren't so concerned about fairness as they are about which party will win.

So .. I don't see it as "the Lib-Dems fault" .. I see it as the people getting what they want..

basically more of the same .. 2 parties jeering at each other in parliament .. the blues & the reds

>>most people aren't so concerned about fairness as they are about which party will win.<<

If most people are more concerned with which party will form the
majority within parliament - then yes that would be best satisfied
by "proportional representation". In effect that would be changing
the vote from the selection of a number of constituency based
individuals to the selection of a party within parliament.

ps If that is the reason why the No vote won - then that would
indicated "people" are not that interested in elections at the
constituency level, but are more interested in elections at
the parliamentary level --> voting for a party into government.

If that is the case they should have voted for that which was more
likely to lead to further change (rather than to endorse the
existing system).

Can I point out that I did take the time to understand AV before voting no.
I do want to see change ie. fairer distribution of wealth, an economy that does not pollute the planet, an ethical foreign policy, decent health care and education etc,etc.

The bottom line is, to get any good out of it you would need to have an electorate who a) understand how it works, b) understand how it can be beneficial, and c) take their role as electors and citizens seriously. I'm not convinced we have that. So that being the case, I don't think it matters very much that there was a "no" vote.

I was quite surprised at first, that the majority in the UK prefer FPTP .. but then .. the Continental Europeans see us as barbaric in many ways .. our behaviour when on holiday in the sun .. our football violence etc.

Keeping our FPTP system has some advantage .. it's simplicity .. it's easier to count.

For a real change to occur in the UK, people will have to change who they vote for

well I think for a real change we would need polititions who actually represent the average person and don't suddenly become obnoxious yes men confined to the voiceless backbenches
people have become too disillusioned and apathetic on politics as a whole

I thought it was interesting that my local council lib dem candidate spent ages trying to avoid telling me her position on AV when she was doing the doorstep rounds. This is a *very* tory area (a poodle with a blue rosette would get in so any divided opposition hasn't a hope, so while we have FPTP I might as well not bother to vote at all, from the next general election I shall return to spoiling my ballot though I may do it by expressing my choice AV-style) so she didn't want to risk alienating someone who might vote for her in the council and parish elections by stating the lib dem position on AV. I forced it out of her (she was voting yes) and I told her I agreed but even then she wouldn't be drawn on why she wouldn't campaign on the issue.

I think this failure to move to a fairer system, combined with the boundary changes, condemns us to 50 yers of tory rule.

>>well I think for a real change we would need polititions who
actually represent the average person ...<

Are there any minimum level qualifications and experiences necessary
to become a candidate for a constituency election / MP? I would
like to see a threshold for demonstrable "intelligence"/"knowledge"
and a threshold "experience" level of engaging in/working within
aspects of British life. This experiential track record should also
help in the assessment of the moral fibre of the candidate.

As you say there is somewhat of a loss of the constituency link if
the elected candidate / MP becomes just another party lemming.

all you need to become an MP is a lot of money behind you
sure a popular party helps you probably wont get in if your a millionaire independent even if your policies are good
and as an independent you would have little to no influence in politics on a national level even if you did

I think part of the problem is that people vote on a local level more or less, what do we need for our area in the contrey
now I live in the north west of england, what we need is Jobs,
not unlike many other areas
I am also a university graduate and a mother so I also want good education and the ability to progress my own skills,

I don't see a polition or a part offering any of those things, I see many policies actually taking some of these away or making it more difficult to for example get a good education while the job market remains unstable

so who should I vote for? well as I live in a village populated by the elderly all the information i was given was about how my winter fuel heating allowance was taken away. my mp/councillers didn't even knock on my door to explain who they where and why i should bother voting at all. never mind give me a chance to sum up there moral charector in a two minuite conversation. I think I know the local Jahova's witnesses more than my mp. Perhaps I should have written them down on the ballot paper for all the good it would have done.

politions are out of touch with the people electing them. and as long as our politions continue to be public school children from old money and well paying jobs most of us would give a leg to have, and as long as they continue getting relatively high wages for the work they do or don't do then how can they ever know what a person is going through in the rougher parts of there constituency or what the average man on the street actually needs,

the parties are not held to keep the promises they make when they are pandering for our votes in the first place, often what draws the undecided or less loyal voter to change there vote to them in the first place.

just realised that might be a bit rant like and wander off topic quite a bit

That's not a rant - it seems to be a fair example of the situation
many encounter. I think it is this sense of not being represented
in London (Westminster) where all the decisions are made, that made
possible the SNP success in Scotland and the possibility the Scots
will consider separating from the Union (UK rather than EU). It's
certainly a threat they could wield to gain further powers for the
Scottish Parliament.

I'm all for further powers for scotland
being origanally from there and hoping one day to return
I think there is little point in devolution if it's in name only and token powers

I think we're all grown up enough to realise that not much would change however

Secretly, Independence isnt the SNPs game plan.

Fiscal autonomy. Sorting out the Crown Agency issue. Thosell do for me. But what will push Scotland into independence will be denying them