any other LD supporters horrified at the idea of the Lib Dems propping up a Tory government?

[geekgirl]

What's with all this talk by Nick Clegg about siding with the Tories if they happen to get the most seats?
Surely that really would result in gridlock, plus do Lib Dem supporters feel happy about helping Cameron become PM?! I know I don't...

Yes I think you're right about needing a proper debate about it. I consider myself to be reasonably politically savvy, but there are quite a few different systems of PR out there and, having had some of them explained to me, I'm still quite

this is a good article which explains how STV proportional representation with multi-member constituencies (which is what the Lib Dems want) keeps the constituency link and also allows competition between the local representatives.

I was also a bit at sea re. STV proportional representation until I read this.

I think this thread shows how important it is that throughout this election, people should never forget that what they are reading in the newspapers could be all SPIN.

It would be such a shame if someone changed their voting preference because of lies they read in the papers.

I hope we all manage to keep our heads above all the lies and deceit floating about in the news when it comes to casting our vote, and instead stick to the contents of the manifestos and our just personal preferences.

Also, whilst I'm off on one, I can't believe that in this election it seems that people aren't voting for who they do want, but are voting tactically to keep out the party they don't want.

Does anyone here think that the voting system currently in place is a good one?

By the way, if anyone wants some brief info about the different possible voting systems, the best explained choices I could find were on the BBC last June. Here is a link...

www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2009/06/whats_fairest_for_a_voting_referendum.html

Happy spin filtering! x

AV (alternative vote) would be a good system here - would stop it being a two party race in most elections, and would give a clear signal in the case of a tight election, like this one, that your second choice candidate could be in power.

So at the moment I would vote Conservative. If enough people voted the same as me, we'd get a Conservative seat for my constituency.

If we had AV I would vote Conservate > LibDem. That would mean that if the 1st vote was inconclusive, if no candidate was the first preference of a majority of voters, then the candidate with the fewest number of first preference rankings is eliminated and that candidate's ballots are redistributed at full value to the remaining candidates according to the next ranking on each ballot. This process is repeated until one candidate obtains a majority of votes among candidates not eliminated. I hope that makes sense.

Basically if 33% voted DC, 33% NC, and 20% GB, with the rest voting for others, then the 33% that didn't vote DC or NC would go to 2nd vote.
The balance of that 2nd vote would go onto DC and NC's totals, and every one else would be eliminated.

It's how Labour and Lib Dems vote for their leaders, so it's not new to the UK system.

In theory PR would be nice and democratic, but it needs so many caveats, such as thresholds for extremist parties and independants.

Labour announced the referendum on electoral reform in just enough time to see it pushed into 'wash-up', so we'll see what happens with the next Govt.

for 's sake, why has this gone up in Discussions of the Day as "Lib-Dem Tory pact" ?

worse than Patrick Wintour!

If everyone voted for the Lib Dems, there wouldn't be this problem... Clegg would be PM and all would be right with the world .

wouldn't it just!

I think everyone actually needs to not worry about the hing parliament situation and who would prop up what party etc and just vote for who they actually want to be PM. You can't NOT vote for Lib Dems because of a fear of him supporting Conservatives. If everyone carried on thinking that way then we're going to have the same problems over and over again with the tactical Labour voting. Nothing will change and the country will be stagnant and playing the same game of pass the parcel between Lab and Cons... let's just make the change.

hung rather not hing!

swc - "if the Tories do get the most seats, it will not be becasue they "happen" to do so. it will be becasue more people voted for them than the Labour or LD (or other) parties."

But that's not entirely true, is it?

If exactly the % of people voted Tory as voted LD, the Tories would have many, many more seats.

Not sure how many % points LD would have to be in the lead to end up with most seats, but it's quite a few.
If anyone is 'struggling with the concept of democracy',it's hardly surprising now, is it?

Labour party say, 'vote Clegg, get David'

Tories say, 'Vote Clegg, get Gordon'

It was much easier when they said, 'vote for me' - didn't make my head spin half so much.

I feel to the left of the tories and right of the liberals so I'd be happy with a tory/lib coalition.

However Nick clegg should stop talking about hung parliaments and who he might side with and chase every vote. If he says he will side with either labour or the tories pre the election he will lose 1000s of votes and tories will get a majority. As if he says he will prop up labour lots of those who want to get rid of labour won't vote for him. If he says he will go into a coalition with the tories people will think they either may as well vote tory or those who are ex labour will go back to labour.

He should learn from paddy ashdowns mistakes keep quiet and concentrate on getting votes for his own policies. People don't like the idea of behind the scenes negotiating by any party.

snowlady, I don't think NC wants to discuss the ins and outs of hung parliaments, it's just the press' favourite line of questioning...

He was pressed on it by Andrew Marr, snowlady. He could have wriggled out of it but said what he thought re. the legitimacy of Labour hanging on when 3rd in vote share.

But the Lib Dems are campaigning on "Vote Clegg, get Clegg" - it's the other parties that are twisting themselves in knots in the way ahundredtimes describes.

In fairness snowlady, he is being asked and then misquoted isn't he - I think?

As far as I can make out - which truthfully isn't much this morning - he's saying he doesn't want to speculate, and both parties are taking that to mean whatever they want or need it to mean?

ooh we all said the same thing

Anyway, that's how I'm reading it.

I might just stick to voting for who I want to represent me at parliament, and not join in the wild double-guessing confusing stuff.

I'd far rather they propped up conservatives than labour

"However Nick clegg should stop talking about hung parliaments and who he might side with and chase every vote. "

That's just dishonest, people need to know how the LD's will 'swing' in the event of a hung parliament because a lot of people do not want Brown in at any cost, even if that means giving their vote to the conservatives and visa versa, it should be country before party and I for one would like to know if the LD's will do a deal with labour.

do you think atlantis?

That's a bit too twisty for me. I'd rather vote in a straight forward way, and not think a LD vote was a covert one for either Cons or Labour and demand to know in advance which one I'm covertly voting for.

If I wanted to vote for either of them,I just would.

TBH I am voting (and campaigning) for LDs in the expectation that Tories/Lab will come out approx equal (maybe Tories with more votes, but Labour with more seats), and NC will be in good negotiating position to implement voting reform plus as many manifesto commitments as possible.

No negotiator in the whole world, ever, would say 'ooh, we'd never do a deal with X', as that shafts you from the start. Obviously.

Clegg has now indicated he will work with a man from the moon (half way down). See, the man is dangerous.

"If I wanted to vote for either of them,I just would. "

Well you would and I would but maybe the tory voter who's not too impressed with dave and has swung to nick will think, 'hold on a minute, not if it's going to let labour back in' and the same with labour supporters who are swinging to Nick, would they want a vote for nick to be a vote for dave?

That's the problem when you have three parties, so much easier with just two.

(I propose we disband the Libs !)

Atlantis.

Today, I'm thinking that is exactly what the old two parties want us to think. They're trying to befuddle me on purpose with their confusing vote by stealth business.

I suppose they want to split the Lib dem vote through fear by saying the other guy will get in, on either side? It might have been quite effective, if it wasn't so darn confusing!

I'd rather have GB for 5 more years than DC.

I am not comfortable with a LD-Con pact.

I don't agree their policies are the same. Cons = anti-Europe, pro-trident, increasing inheritance tax threshold, keeping NI low.

LD = pro-Europe, increasing income tax threshold, anti-trident, mansion tax, no tuition fees. They are more left wing than Labour, thank goodness.

They may agree on civil liberties issues but that is no surprise given Labour's OTT policies in that area. Where else are they similar - genuine question, I am interested to know if there are any.