nightjar wrote
Fredxx wrote
nightjar wrote

Which means we have ended up with a system created by a few powerful
people for their own benefit, that has slowly, usually with great
resistance, been subject to some reforms.

Massive reforms in fact with universal suffrage.

Had the system been removed completely and re-written, we might have one
that actually reflects the will of the people. Instead, we have a system
where one party can hold 56.2% of the seats in the Commons with only
43.6% of the popular vote.

If you can think of a way an accountable MP can be elected be my guest.

That would depend upon what you want them to be accountable for

What they said they would do.

and to whom.

To those that elected them.

If the existing system gives the accountability you want,

It clearly doesnt or he wouldnt have said that.

then the answer would be local list PR.

Bull****. Thats even less accountable than the current FPP system.

That could be virtually indistinguishable from the existing system.

Bull**** it would.

The difference would only come when allocating seats.

More bull****.

Each party would get the same proportion of seats in Parliament as they
got of the popular vote.

And that would mean that no party would get a
majority of the seats and so they would have to
get one of the minor partys to be part of the govt
and that would mean that that minor party would
have far more say on policy than the number of
people who voted for them warrants.

And that would result in very unstable govt as we
have seen with every country that uses the PR system.

That would, of course, mean that results could not be announced until
every constituency had completed its count.

Hardly the end of civilisation as we know it.

Constituencies are ranked according to the percentage of the local vote
each party got, with the highest ranking being allocated to each party
first. Safe seats would remain safe seats, but some marginal seats might
not get the same MP as they would have under the FPTP system. Instead that
seat could be awarded to a runner up. The constituencies would still get
an MP that had appeared on the local ballot.

There would probably need to be some tweaking of the basic model, to allow
for the fact that we have four nations, three of which have national
parties. However, we are not likely to get PR, as no party in power is
going to sign up to a system that would see the end of one party majority
governments.

And those who bothered to vote in the referendum
said that they didnt want the current system changed.

You get to like that or lump that too.

The alternative in countries that have PR is that it's jobs for the boys
with no accountability towards those who elected him or her.

I would far preferred STV, and I feel the referendum result signified
more a hatred towards the Lib Dems rather than actually understanding the
STV system.

We also have a completely unelected upper house, whose members comprise
some there by right of birth, those who hold high rank in the clergy and
the rest being political appointees.

I especially dislike the right religious figures having tenure, but feel
in many cases the upper house has shown more common sense than the
elected side. While I would like some reform I actually like the present
system, where the upper house can only delay a bill and pass it back for
reconsideration.

I've nothing in principle against the House of Lords.

Hardly real democracy.

I quite like the tradition.

More fool you.

I was simply pointing out that they, unlike the EU Commission, they really
are unelected.

And for that reason it should be scrapped.