Voting for GRCs even if not contested

[Sideswipe]

What advantage does propositional representation have over straight-out direct democracy?

"Democracy" in most countries is a joke.

Proportional Representation
一人一票，票票等值...

 

[popdod]

They will laugh at his suggestion noh....and dismissed it as stupid idea.

:o :( :o

 

[Char_Azn]

walkover mean walkover. If there is only one group of candidates for a GRC then they are the winners.

Instead of trying to copy the Thai system, peoples should start demanding for Mixed Member proportional representation. 一人一票，票票等值

It will NOT be proportional if a large chunk of the population doesn't get to vote. So if your idea is to be implemented, the idea from this guy should be implemented first.

In which case I think its not a good idea to squeeze opposition members in as MPs if they lose the vote. 2 scenarios: Just imagine this, U vote for A in the elections, and A won the vote in your district. But due to proportional representation, the Political Party A belonged to needed to get rid of someone coz the representation isn't proportional so they kicked A out and U end up having an MP U didnt vote for

Alternatively, they could just have a whole bunch of non-elected opposition MPs who loss in Parliament. Besides the fact that no one voted for them which pretty much makes them almost as bad as the Walkover MPs, we end up having to pay more million dollar salaries just coz the opposition needs to make up the numbers. Both scenarios sounds stupid as far as I'm concern

 

[shOUTloud]

Singapore is so small. All these Meet the MP sessions are just wayang for them to show that they "care". Do away with the nonsense of CEOs/MDs writing letters for the populace so that they can chalk it up as brownie points.

 

[Sideswipe]

It will NOT be proportional if a large chunk of the population doesn't get to vote. So if your idea is to be implemented, the idea from this guy should be implemented first.

In which case I think its not a good idea to squeeze opposition members in as MPs if they lose the vote. 2 scenarios: Just imagine this, U vote for A in the elections, and A won the vote in your district. But due to proportional representation, the Political Party A belonged to needed to get rid of someone coz the representation isn't proportional so they kicked A out and U end up having an MP U didnt vote for

Both scenarios sounds stupid as far as I'm concern

I got confused with the terms sometimes.

talking about Supplementary Member system voting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_voting

 

[unicando]

It will NOT be proportional if a large chunk of the population doesn't get to vote. So if your idea is to be implemented, the idea from this guy should be implemented first.

In which case I think its not a good idea to squeeze opposition members in as MPs if they lose the vote. 2 scenarios: Just imagine this, U vote for A in the elections, and A won the vote in your district. But due to proportional representation, the Political Party A belonged to needed to get rid of someone coz the representation isn't proportional so they kicked A out and U end up having an MP U didnt vote for

Alternatively, they could just have a whole bunch of non-elected opposition MPs who loss in Parliament. Besides the fact that no one voted for them which pretty much makes them almost as bad as the Walkover MPs, we end up having to pay more million dollar salaries just coz the opposition needs to make up the numbers. Both scenarios sounds stupid as far as I'm concern

hmm...maybe a possible solution is to the limit the GRC size to no more than 3 candidates. Since we've a total of 84 seats, a efficient GRC/SMC system for example maybe as follows:

- 12 x 2 members GRC (1 minority) = 24 candidates (12 minority)
- 10 x 3 members GRC (1 minority) = 30 candidates (10 minority)
- 30 x SMC = 30 candidates

The above will ensure at least 22 minority candidates from the GRC to conform to the race representation. It may also address the issue of many walkover secnarios due to (4/5/6 members) large GRC...?

 

[Char_Azn]

hmm...maybe a possible solution is to the limit the GRC size to no more than 3 candidates. Since we've a total of 84 seats, a efficient GRC/SMC system for example maybe as follows:

- 12 x 2 members GRC (1 minority) = 24 candidates (12 minority)
- 10 x 3 members GRC (1 minority) = 30 candidates (10 minority)
- 30 x SMC = 30 candidates

The above will ensure at least 22 minority candidates from the GRC to conform to the race representation. It may also address the issue of many walkover secnarios due to (4/5/6 members) large GRC...?

I'm all for doing anything within common sense that ensures everyone gets to vote

 

[yuelao]

In which case I think its not a good idea to squeeze opposition members in as MPs if they lose the vote. 2 scenarios: Just imagine this, U vote for A in the elections, and A won the vote in your district. But due to proportional representation, the Political Party A belonged to needed to get rid of someone coz the representation isn't proportional so they kicked A out and U end up having an MP U didnt vote for

Wah kow, still can come here and throw face and say you are widely-travelled some more. Name me a country that has a voting system which allows a candidate who wins an election to get kicked out of Parliament because the party did not garner sufficient total votes nationally.

The purpose of proportional representation is to ensure that the losing party, i.e. the party that has no candidate winning an election or the party has a significant proportion of the vote count but did not win sufficient seats, will get some representation in Parliament. The system may require the party to get sufficient percentage of votes, e.g. 5% before they are allowed representation. If a party has 10 candidates winning out of a total of 100 seats but has only managed to garner less than 10% of the total vote count, e.g. they happened to get slim majorities in sparsely populated areas, the party will have all 10 candidates in Parliament. It just means they are not allowed to put in Parliament any more people from their party list who did not get voted in. This is very unlikely to happen in tiny Sinkieland if the electoral boundaries are drawn up properly.

You are just here to confuse the issues, aren't you? In any case, there are a few varieties of proportional representation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation

 

[yuelao]

deleted double post.

 

[Baroko]

No try also must try because Singaporeans are the stakeholder and not PAP. We don't want another Josephine who claimed to represent the voters when in fact she was not voted in but thru walk-over. Now she contantly made a fool of herself in parliament to embarass Singaporeans

Many coat tail hanger PAP MPs came into Parliament thru the GRC back. Non of these can even hold a candle to CST, SL or LTK in an open unscripted debate.

 

[iamtalkinglah]

Anyone interested to kick PAP's ass?

Go join Virgins Craving To Stand! on Facebook!

Kenneth Jeyaretnam : Anyone seriously thinking of standing please do contact The RP so we can meet up and discuss. I'm at [email protected]

Irene Ho : ---We are living in a period whereby a new dawn is coming. Someday, someone will stand up and say it's enough!--- Irene Ho

Don Lim : Some Singaporeans never had a chance to vote. Their GRC had not been contested by any opposition party. The next General Election is coming. If you dislike the fact that you never had a chance to vote, you might consider to stand as a candidate. Contact one of the opposition parties to discuss with this possibility, Yo...u need to pay a deposit to stand for election, but this is refundable subject to you winning an acceptable % of votes.

 

[Sideswipe]

The purpose of proportional representation is to ensure that the losing party, i.e. the party that has no candidate winning an election or the party has a significant proportion of the vote count but did not win sufficient seats, will get some representation in Parliament. The system may require the party to get sufficient percentage of votes, e.g. 5% before they are allowed representation. If a party has 10 candidates winning out of a total of 100 seats but has only managed to garner less than 10% of the total vote count, e.g. they happened to get slim majorities in sparsely populated areas, the party will have all 10 candidates in Parliament. It just means they are not allowed to put in Parliament any more people from their party list who did not get voted in. This is very unlikely to happen in tiny Sinkieland if the electoral boundaries are drawn up properly.

You are just here to confuse the issues, aren't you? In any case, there are a few varieties of proportional representation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation

Yes, many types of Proportional Representation. I don't understand how some models of PR work too.

Germany, New Zealand and Netherlands voting systems are too complicated and unsuitable for use in our small country.

The best election system which included PR is the parallel voting / Supplementary Member system.
each voters has 2 votes - one for constituency ( first past the post ) and one for favored political parties ( party list PR ) The proportional of constituency seats to party list seats ranges widely according to needs.

This way, everybody get to vote, your constituency is a walkover, you still have the party vote. PAP can even keep their GRC if they like, the main criticism of GRC is walkover, peoples don't get to vote, since peoples can vote now, GRC can remain.

Supplementary Member system is a very simple election method, much better than the thai model to prevent walkover which doesn't solve the real problem.