You assume the average voter follows this shit. Let's be honest, they don't. Most voters go by name recognition only. The hope is that by the time the Presidential debates come up, a few people will suddenly engage. I know this is what happened in the UK... the vast majority of people I know, decided who they were going to vote for, based on the party leader debates (which is one of the reasons why the Lib Dems performed so well)

I wasn't trying to upplay the other stuff, just downplay the chance of the debates making a difference.  Debates work usually to take someone down, and make them feel unsecure about them.  I don't see where they will do anything for Romney to establish anything differently than what people see about him now.  In the United States, gaffes usually eliminate candidates, not settle things, unless the issue is a candidate not sure they have intellectual fiber.  I don't believe that Romney has a Palin issue of not being seen as smart.  He is seen more as having a consistency and character issue, and a need for likeability.  

The election in the United States is that Obama should lose, if a candidate on the GOP side could capture the imagination and have charisma and likeability Reagan had.  Romney lacks this, so I am hard pressed to see exactly what Romney could do to establish himself.

I suppose you have two points there, but not really good ones...

That being said there are two sides to your argument.

1. Overly idealistic afluent men that have never had to suffer any hardship in their lives.

2. Overly idealistic poor men who would refuse help of any kind to take the moral "high ground."

I'm sure if single mom's who never asked to be that way and make considerably less than their male counterparts, often for the same skill set, weighed their vote in it would be with a middle finger and smirk.

It won't enough to stop a coalition though unfortunately. Some sort of PR is needed here

Conservative- 10.7 million-306 seats

Labour- 8.6 million- 258 seats

Lib Dems-6.8 million- only 57 seats!

In terms of votes, the lib dems done well, but not anywhere near well enough to run a government by themselves (which will probably never happen!- not that it matters now anyway)

anyway, I look forward to seeing the presidential debates

Why is PR needed? Smaller constituencies will result in better representation, whilst also keeping the idea of direct representation.

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 problem with proportional representation is that it disfranchises entire districts.

This is problematic when representatives are supposed to be working for their districts.

For a US example, it'd be messed up if you were stuck in a district that was mostly democratic but with SOME super hardcore conservatives in it... and say since they weren't going to get their guy in anyway... they all voted for the consitutional party.

So it's something like 65% Democrat, 25% Republican, 10% Constitutional.

Then said district finds out the constitutional party guy is going to be their rep because the Constitutional party got enough votes for at least one rep... and their district had the highest vote for the CP.

Can't imagine that 65% will be happy knowing they voted for the guy who was going to fight forever for new funds for a new park... and they got the "No spending for any reason, in fact lets give money back" guy.

In a way proportional representation leads to NEGATIVE voting for third parties where people would try and "game" the system by voting for extreme parties knowing they will be able to overtop a strong majority simply due to the fact that the seats have to come from somewhere.

Not because they believe in said groups, but because they know that said groups will get a seat somewhere.... AND will work with their party of choice.

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.

@ the bold. Once someone starts with the talkign points "liberal media" then my interest wanes. But that little ditty with the swear words shows some pizzaz but once you come to terms with reality and that Obama will be re-elected the aggression should subside.

@ the edit. Well ive done peer interviews to hire people at my Hospital. I sit down ask direct questions related to the position theyll be hired to and get direct answers. I dont have them send in 30 second clips of why the other potential hire is a communist or a neo-con and hire them to a 4 year contract without sitting face to face so id argue youre wrong.

@ overal discussion. Dont belittle other peoples opinions on a forum (asking a lot i know). I wasnt argueing tax definitions i simply pointed out my opinion on the comment in the context of reality. You show a lack of control which doesnt suit your argument, Once you and many others realize we arent swaying ideas and we will all walk away from these screens back to our lives with the same believes we are simply venting and looking for public approval from others, this will be a better healthier debate.

I am not "wrong" at all. I was simply pointing out my amusement of his comments which were this: He lumps all who pay no income tax/have benefits (47%) as not taking initiative, responsibility of their lives etc. I simply pointed out he only pays taxes on his money making him more money. If a Republican colleague Newt Gingrich were to enact his tax plan of 0% capital gains, Romney ADMITTED he would pay an effective rate of 0%. Which i found humerous because its not that outlandish that at one point Newt was on the verge of being nominee and then Romney could tell himself he needs to take personal responsibility for his life, thats all.