Workers Party. The only opposition in the world helping the ruling Party

[winnipegjets]

Policy means absolutely zero if you don't have a majority vote. A one-third representation of seats means you can block some bad policies. With a simple majority, you can do even more. So if you don't have a simple majority, all you can do is to poke holes in bad policies to win over votes in the next election. Seats is everything. All these gerrymandering, GRC scheme, denial of upgrading threats are for one thing - seats.

With a simple majority, the WP can put forward legislation to change the system to proportional representation. Get rid of FPTP.

 

[HTOLAS]

Changing the electoral system is an amendment to the constitution; it requires 2/3 majority.

With a simple majority, the WP can put forward legislation to change the system to proportional representation. Get rid of FPTP.

 

[zhihau]

Changing the electoral system is an amendment to the constitution; it requires 2/3 majority.

that's why we need to rid the MIW's pleasure of having 2/3 majority first, else everything gets bulldozed anyway.

 

[mojoe]

Red-letter day. ESM Goh Chok Tong and former Minister Mah Bow Tan spoke near the end of parliament sitting today. I raised my hand after each of their speeches to ask questions but in each case was not called upon by the Dy Speaker

quote from CSM

 

[mojoe]

Well, I hope they read this.

ESM took pains to point out that 6.9 million is a planning parameter, not a target. I wonder if he remembers that the last time a population planning parameter was told to Singaporeans, it was overshot and superseded, and in double quick time, the effect of which still ails Singapore today.

 

[mojoe]

Former Minister Mah said that the Workers' Party's proposal is tantamount to closing Singapore off to the world. Come again? 28% of our country's total population are foreigners who currently live here (not including PRs). This is one of the highest rates in the world.

...................................

 

[ray_of_hope]

With a simple majority, the WP can put forward legislation to change the system to proportional representation. Get rid of FPTP.

It would not make any sense for the WP to do so. Proportional Representation would result in some other parties getting into Parliament when they would not be able to do so in FPTP. If WP has perfected the technique of winning in FPTP then it should stick with it.

 

[steffychun]

It would not make any sense for the WP to do so. Proportional Representation would result in some other parties getting into Parliament when they would not be able to do so in FPTP. If WP has perfected the technique of winning in FPTP then it should stick with it.

FPTP works for Singapore's case. Even the UK people rejected it

 

[HTOLAS]

People in the UK rejected proportionate representation when they were given a chance to choose - they kept the FPTP system.

FPTP works for Singapore's case. Even the UK people rejected it

 

[mojoe]

What do you expect? WP is not known as Wayang Party for nothing.

you from the papig IB ???

 

[mojoe]

People in the UK rejected proportionate representation when they were given a chance to choose - they kept the FPTP system.

there is a difference ... we have GRCs

 

[wwabbit]

People in the UK rejected proportionate representation when they were given a chance to choose - they kept the FPTP system.

If you are referring to the the UK 2011 Referendum, it wasn't to replace FPTP with PR, but to replace FPTP with Alternate Voting.

 

[cheekenpie]

Haha.... give WP 40% of the seats in parliament.... Wait long long

 

[mojoe]

Haha.... give WP 40% of the seats in parliament.... Wait long long

we are working towards this end; the political inbreeding led to albino and spastic type polices; tell your masters to turn up their hearing aids ........

 

[HTOLAS]

Thanks for the correction. But the 'alternative voting' plan that was rejected would have brought about representation in parliament that is more proportionate to the votes the parties got.

If you are referring to the the UK 2011 Referendum, it wasn't to replace FPTP with PR, but to replace FPTP with Alternate Voting.

 

[ray_of_hope]

Only in a proportional representation system would minor parties get parliamentary representation. In most other places all those minor parties need is just to get around 10% of the vote to get 1 or more seats in Parliament. Thank goodness we do not have that. Leave our political system to a budding two-party system. That would be fine for most people, though not am inconsequential fraction, such as those who supported the guy who secured 1.2% in the recent BE.

 

[wwabbit]

Thanks for the correction. But the 'alternative voting' plan that was rejected would have brought about representation in parliament that is more proportionate to the votes the parties got.

It's not that simple. If you check out the British Election Study research into the 2010 election results: http://www.essex.ac.uk/bes/ You will find that if AV had been used, there would have been no change in the number of seats for the small parties, but the Liberal Democrats would have won more seats from Labour and Conservatives, enough to allow the LibDems to play Kingmaker - choosing who to form the coalition with.

While this may look like a result that, ignoring the small parties, more closely resembles Proportionate Representation this is really just a coincidence. The more accepted viewpoint is that AV favors the centrist party. Which is why AV would have been irrelevant for just about all the results in independent Singapore with the sole exception of the 2011 Presidential Election where Dr Tan Cheng Bock would have easily won with AV.

 

[steffychun]

If you are referring to the the UK 2011 Referendum, it wasn't to replace FPTP with PR, but to replace FPTP with Alternate Voting.

It's close enough. People there didnt not want to have a complicated system

 

[steffychun]

It's not that simple. If you check out the British Election Study research into the 2010 election results: http://www.essex.ac.uk/bes/ You will find that if AV had been used, there would have been no change in the number of seats for the small parties, but the Liberal Democrats would have won more seats from Labour and Conservatives, enough to allow the LibDems to play Kingmaker - choosing who to form the coalition with.

While this may look like a result that, ignoring the small parties, more closely resembles Proportionate Representation this is really just a coincidence. The more accepted viewpoint is that AV favors the centrist party. Which is why AV would have been irrelevant for just about all the results in independent Singapore with the sole exception of the 2011 Presidential Election where Dr Tan Cheng Bock would have easily won with AV.

AV would have resulted in lots of weak governments. Doesn't work well for major economies like the UK.

 

[wwabbit]

It's close enough. People there didnt not want to have a complicated system

AV would have resulted in lots of weak governments. Doesn't work well for major economies like the UK.

I don't think you understand what AV is. It is completely different to PR. In fact compared to PR, AV and FPTP might as well be the same thing because in most cases AV and FPTP give the same result for any one seat.