Romney doesn't care about 47% of americans

[the2real4mafol]

SamuelRSmith said:

the2real4mafol said:

Even though the Lib Dems are a shit party, they should of had alot more seats than 57. Since they got nearly 7 million votes. It's unfair when the conservatives and labour get only a couple million votes more each and yet have 5x to 6x the number of seats. A electoral system like AMS (which mixes PR and FPTP) would be far fairer. It allowed the popular SNP to take over the scottish parliament from Labour, but if FPTP was used there, Labour was still be in power there, despite the popularity of them.

Also, how would smaller constituencies work? Don't you think think 650 of them is enough as it is? Unless, only major ones would go to parliament

The smaller the constituencies, the greater the proportionality of the representation, for example:

Say the entirety of the UK only had 1 constituency. Say, in this example, there are 5 parties (Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrats, UKIP, Greens, Christian Democrats). Let's say they had an election, and the results were as following:

Con - 30%
Lab - 16%
LD - 14%
UKIP - 11%
Greens - 10%
CD - 9%

In this example, despite only getting 30% of the vote, the Conservatives received 100% of the seats (as there was only one seat).

Okay, now let's break this down, so that each country within the UK had its own seat (one for England, one for Scotland, one for Wales, one for Northern Ireland). Let's also take the above results, and break them down by country.

Con - 30% / Eng - 40% / Scot - 30% / Wales - 36% / NI - 15%
Lab - 16% / Eng - 30% / Scot - 40% / Wales - 34% / NI - 30%
LD - 14% / Eng - 10% / Scot - 10% / Wales - 10% / NI - 35%
UKIP - 11% / Eng - 8% / Scot - 9% / Wales - 3% / NI - 10%
Greens - 10% / Eng - 9% / Scot - 8% / Wales - 9% / NI - 5%
CD - 9% / Eng - 3% / Scot - 3% / Wales - 8% / NI - 5%

In this example, Conservatives won England and Wales, Labour won Scotland, Lib Dems won Northern Ireland. So, votes to seats:

Con - 30% of the vote, 50% of the seats
Lab - 16% of the vote, 25% of the seats
LD - 14% of the vote, 25% of the seats
Others - 40% of the vote, 0% of the seats

As you can see, simply by increasing the number of seats, we've seen a massive increase in the representation of the parties, in accordance with the results. Obviously, it still isn't perfect with 4 seats.

Personally, I favour doubling the size of the Commons. This will vastly improve the "proportionality" of the results, while also making your vote twice as powerful in the election. It will be a boon for grass roots movements.

Obviously, a national Parliament won't work, which is why I support regional Parliaments.

i'm sure it was just an example but there is no way, conservatives would get 30% of the vote in Scotland lol

but anyway, it's an interesting system change you are purposing, but how would you split up the existing constituencies? Would they still met up in the commons? (I don't think, the commons could fit in 1300 MP's, unless the house of lords was abolished) Would it stop "safe seats" from forming? I agree with having regional parliaments though. If this constituency reform gave more than 2 or 3 parties a fair chance of winning elections, I would support it. Anything, to make it harder for the same old labour and tory governments to form over and over again.