The British public’s failure to elect a clear winner in Thursday’s national election appeared to be a mass expression of exasperation with a discredited government and an uninspiring opposition. It also showed the voters’ disillusionment with the increasingly creaky electoral system itself.ER, UM... INSTEAD OF SOME BIG AND COMPLICATED CHANGE THAT UNDOES EVERYTHING, WHY DON'T THEY JUST HAVE A RUNOFF FOR THE TOP TWO CANDIDATES IN EACH DISTRICT IF NO CANDIDATE GETS MORE THAN 50%?
The issue of how to revise Britain's system for electing members of Parliament may play a role in talks that will decide who ends up occupying 10 Downing Street.
As it happens, electoral change — in particular, a move to proportional representation — is one of the priorities of the Liberal Democratic Party. And now that the usually toothless Liberal Democrats have been thrust into a pivotal role, engaged in talks with the Conservative Party for a possible role as a coalition partner, the issue has taken on a new urgency.
Speaking to reporters after an extraordinary topsy-turvy night, Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democratic leader, said that the vote “made it absolutely clear that our electoral system is broken.”
Friday, May 07, 2010
MAYBE BRITAIN SHOULD HAVE RUN-OFFS?
Posted by Reliapundit at 10:25 PM