Toni Said:

Would proportional representation in the UK be good or bad?

We Answered:

Obviously introducing democracy to the UK for the first time is a good idea. The arguments against are all bogus. Has the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly been "indecisive"? They have never had a majority. Extremist parties can "get in". They would get a seat or two. Scotland has had its Socialists. So has Westminster, there used to be the odd Communist or two there in years gone by. Would it be really detrimental to have one or two from the far left and far right? The idea that a system is "good" because it excludes certain groups is a poor defence of the system. If a couple of percent of the people vote for those parties, give them the seats that vote share merits and live with it.

First past the post causes apathy because it disenfranchises people. I live in a safe Labour seat. If I want to remove my Labour MP, I may as well forget it. If I want to vote for her, I still may as well forget it, she will win anyway. 70% of votes cast in 2005 may as well have been shredded before they were counted, either being cast for losing candidates, therefore not affecting the national result, or in excess of the required majority for the winner, therefore not needed. I am sure all parties would rather win by 1 vote, and that the other 11,000 votes making up the majority could be cast somewhere else where they don't perform so well.

Under PR if a party wants a majority of seats it will have to convince a genuine ABSOLUTE majority of voters.

As for the weaker government argument, ie that PR returns hung parliaments. Well it looks like FPTP will too. In fact hung parliaments are more likely in future as people flirt with minority parties. Up to now it has generally produced a majority by a complete fluke. 13 million votes gave Thatcher a 144 seat majority. Yet 14 million votes gave Major a 21 seat majority, and 9.5 million gave Blair/Brown a 66 majority. One election saw Labour "lose" to the Tories on vote share, but beat them on seats (hung). It is a barmy system and has to go.

Douglas Said:

Does it bother you when people don't exercise their right to vote?

We Answered:

It bothers me that many people don't exercise at all....

Ricky Said:

What could be the reasons behind the Liverpool Riverside ward having the lowest voter turnout...?

We Answered:

Apathy!

Virgil Said:

Is the UK able to accommodate 100% voter turnout?

We Answered:

obviously not. one constituency even run out of voting papers. unbelievable.

Pauline Said:

What would make you vote at the General Election?

We Answered:

It should be cheaper and easier for small parties to stand, in order to give the electorate a genuine choice.

All parties should have the same amount of airtime and the same column inches given to them in the press. Political advertising should be banned.

There should be a system of proportional representation.

Politicians should be wired up to a lie detector every time they open their mouths.

Parties should actually go round, talk to people, knock on their doors and do some old-fashioned canvassing.

The reason that politics is so meaningless is because all three main parties have the same policies. There is no difference between them, so it then becomes a matter of which leader has the nicest personality. Depressing. Not to mention the fact that all three main parties are corrupt and sleazy.

See below for a genuine alternative.

Annette Said:

Do the French have a greater sense of democracy than we do?

We Answered:

It certainly seems that way.
It would be great if we could get 85% voter turn out. Hell, it would be great if we could just get 50%.