see, that's something I could agree with - I actually apologised to out local Labour MP (who was not bad) saying I couldn't vote for her as it would keep Blair (and later Brown) in office
I much prefer the present system where elections are not tied to leadership (explicitly at least). If we vote for a PM separately, such that s/he may not belong to the majority party and/or have the support of that party if s/he does, then we're kinda asking for a weak leader as well as an American-style dumb popularity contest.
I like that the PM has relatively little importance (in that we can go through a change of PM without another election) but quite a lot of power in terms of domestic politics (when compared to the US president for example).
I would like to see some sort of PR though. But a model that retains both the local representation and lack of a presidential election of the current system.
Answering the original question: I vote for the party with the closest-match ideology to my own, taking into account, a bit, what chance they have of actually getting in. Pisses me off that all parties don't run everywhere. The parties I'd vote for under a PR system don't even run here. I don't pay any attention to how hard working the candidate is or whatever, that is of relatively little importance. Doesn't matter how hard working and well-intentioned my local MP is if the country is being fucked on a national level.
I voted Lib Dem last election. I will never, ever, ever, ever vote for them again. They turned my vote into a Tory vote. I'm still fucking angry about that. Bunch of weak, inexcusable cunts.
Probably vote Labour next time.
They're not officially tied to leadership but when it comes down to it I would say a large amount of people (possibly a majority) vote based on who they do or don't want as the Prime Minister rather than who to represent them in parliament.
Though as you say, a separately elected leader could easily result in the winner not being from the same party as the major party in the commons.
A local/regional/county form of PR would definitely be the best option. A national list would totally ruin any idea of local representation. Possibly split into lists of 20 or 30 MPs per region. This would definitely result in UKIP MPs and quite possibly BNP MPs which I wouldn't like, but that would be democracy in action. If people want these parties elected they should be.
I think your issue with parties you'd like to support not standing would definitely change if a form of PR came in. If for example a 30 MP list system came in per region they wouldn't need to put 30 candidates forward, just a couple to make sure that if they did get enough votes to win a seat or two they'd secure them fine. It could easily mean a small party puts forward a candidate per region and wins a couple of seats rather than 650 candidates and winning nothing.
Going off the 2010 election a national straight PR system would have given these results in MPs (2010 actual result):
Conservative -234 (306)
Labour - 188 (258)
Lib Dem - 150 (57)
UKIP - 20 (0)
BNP - 12 (0)
Green - 6 (1)
SNP - 11 (6)
I always knew the Lib Dems got screwed with FPTP but I didn't realise they did so well in 2010 in terms of popular vote.
I tried to edit that post but Beehive is giving an error.
Forgot to add, with PR we'd be pretty much guaranteed a hung parliament and coalitions.
By not tied to leadership I mean we don't have to hold an election for a change of leadership. If a leader is ineffective, then the party can ditch her/him and and carry on. The party is more important than the leader (as it should be).
Of course some people will based on personality, that's inevitable and fine. But a presidential system makes that the only criterion and, well, just has no up-side.
I wouldn't want regional PR (depending on what you mean). I don't vote for who I want to represent my locality (I don't think that has any meaning any more, tbh). I vote for who I want to run the country and I think that's how it should be. I think everyone should vote, with no constituencies, for the party that they think should run the country and then a best-fit statistical model should be created and managed (by an independent body) which divides the country up into islands of voting-tendancy and fits the available MPs to those islands. Which is not an insoluable problem these days.
I don't think a PR system would've resulted in those numbers in the last election - people would've voted very differently knowing it was PR. But yeah, you're just illustrating that FPTP favours the big parties as it does of course.
I don't mind coalitions. I only mind when they result in my vote becoming the diametrical opposite of what I voted for :C
*of course some people will vote
(can't edit either)
I just calculated votes per party/(total votes/MPs) so it was just a crude calculation.
It could mean people voting more so for smaller parties because they know their vote is worth more.
As for a local PR system I mean split the country up into maybe 20 or 30 MP sized regions and each region votes based on a list put forward by parties for that region. I'd rather that than a national PR system where MPs are then allocated regions after election. Saying that, it's not like there's as many MPs as there used to be who are actually from their constituency so many people aren't really locally represented anyway these days.
I hate the very concept of party lists. I don't like political parties much to start with, and having a bunch of un-elected MPs in the House who are inevitably party hacks who probably couldn't get elected otherwise, accountable to the party only grates so much. Which is why I prefer STV - at least then everyone is elected outright.
I read that post with my mouth open in genuine shock, I had no idea anyone could/would think like that
I tend towards the party that represents my position as best as possible, but the leader makes a HUGE difference - for me and everyone I've ever talked with about things like this
Take Blair, I would NOT have voted for any party led by him, it wouldn't have mattered if it was Lab, Tory, Lib-Dem, Green, or the "give Jon £1M a year" party. I knew the guy was a liar and a con-man from day one.
There's only one party that counts: M-O-N-E-Y. The rest is window dressing.