The EU debate - Part II

Because you keep banging on about how the party with most votes should govern but there's a clear example of a situation where the party with most votes has to negotiate and compromise in order to have a chance of governing.

 

The proportion of the population is important. How is the current British system with a house of Lords logical?
Many countries have a second house precisely because proportion of the population is important and to prevent a minority forcing unwelcome policies on the majority.
It's a balance.

 

Let me make my views clear. People vote in constituencies. The person with the most votes becomes the MP/MEP. The party/political grouping within the majority forms the government. If no majority then the parties/political groupings have to negotiate to see who can form a coalition to form the government. There's none of this counting up individual votes in the UK or EU because this negates the logic of constituencies.

 

Did I say it was?

 

That's not an opinion. It's day one of GCSE politics.

 

This "balance" usually means that very little government can take place. How can a second house change things? What would the voting system be to improve matters?

 

So why are some people on here rejecting it by going on about the percentage of the population. Do they agree with me - and therefore disagree with what they have been saying. Or do they disagree with me and therefore disagree with what you say is obvious.

 

No you simply failed to take it into account when praising the British system.

 

The house of Lords has the ability to prevent legislation passing. It is our second house and it does change things without being able to propose legislation itself

 

Neither. You're saying what the current voting system is, which most people know already, and present it as some sort of valuable insight worthy of recognition.

 

The entire constituency concept is both ****e and corrupt.

The Tories moving boundaries to suit their own ends, and voters who live in areas where one party is extremely dominant means that their vote effectively counts for nothing.

It also keeps the status quo in place for the traditional parties as any fresh party is likely to have a highly spread vote and therefore could achieve a decent percentage of the total vote and not end up with one MP in the House.

Add the unelected Lords into the mix and dickheads like Pete extolling the virtues of British democracy becomes even more laughable

 

Where did I praise the British system? I didn't mention the House of Lords. I mentioned what I would like in a political system. Some of it was the same as part of the British system.

 

The House of Lords is not democratic so I don't like it. I don't think it should have any vote in the democratic process.

 

It isn't what the current voting system is in the EU. You seemed to be unclear of what voting system I liked so I explained to you. You were the only one mentioning valuable insight. Some people were saying they didn't like decisions being made by a government in which a majority of individual voters didn't support. I explained how I prefer the voting system to operate. I am more than happy to hear any other suggestions. All I hear so far is whining. What is your preferred voting system? Can you also take into account the referendum decision on voting?

 

Did you get a "high grade"?

 

But it does and not replacing it with a democratic body would result in a less representative government that could exercise greater self enrichment.

 

How would you replace the House of Lords with a democratic body? How would the voting work to elect the members?

 

Parliament needs a check and balance system to make an incumbent Gvt think again about some of their more controversial legislation.

The problem is that the Lords gas become Partisan in the majority. Any incumbent Gvt throws peerages around like confetti to it's own supporters.

Therefore, the 'check and balance' is not a non partisan one, as it should be. If there is to be this system, and I believe there should be, it should be strictly non partisan. Which is not the case at the moment.

 

Pete's making a proper **** of himself this evening. How can someone get to his age and be so clueless?

 

I wouldn't.
I would have regional government's nominating representatives to a central government.