Can any one explain AV (alternative voting) system in an uncomplicated way?
In simplest terms, the difference between first past the post and alternative voting is that in first past the post you get to vote for one candidate while in alternative vote you rank the candidates. In both systems, you start by counting the first preference. In first past the post, you stop at that point and the candidate with the most votes -- whether 25% or 51% -- wins. In alternative vote, if the leading candidate does not have over 50% of the votes, you eliminate the candidate with the least votes and shift that candidate's votes to whomever the individual voters ranked second. This process continues until somebody has a majority of the valid votes. The only real pro of the first past the post system is its simplicity. Most of the other pros are based on biased evaluations of alternative vote. The con is that it allows a candidate to win who is actually the least favorite candidate of the majority of the district. The other con is that it makes votes for a "non-competitive candidate" wasted votes. The biggest pro of alternative voting is that it frees up voters to cast their first vote for the candidate that they really prefer. If you are in a closely contested seat between Labour and the Conservatives but really like the Lib Dems or UKIP, you can cast your first vote for your true preference and then use your second or third choice to show that, given a choice between Labour and the Conservatives, which party you actually prefer to be in government. The con is the complexity which might discourage some voters from voting or completing the ballot plus the additional time that it takes to count the vote. There are a lot of theoretical objections to alternative vote, but they are speculative on how alternative vote would actually work in the United Kingdom. The primary claim is that alternative vote would lead to nobody ever getting a majority of seats. However, historically, alternative vote (as used in Australia, the country with the most experience with alternative vote) has not led to a true coalition government, On the other hand, first past the post countries have had hung parliaments in the past (Canada is now about to have its fourth inconclusive election in a row).
Explanation of how the UK electoral system works?
There are three parts to the British legislature. The Monarchy is the head of state, and the prime minister is the head of parliament. Parliament is made of two chamber, the more powerful House of Commons and the lesser House of Lords. The UK electoral system operates through First Past The Post. The United Kingdom is divided into constituencies (there are roughly 645, but this changes every election). MPs from all the different parties who wish to run for election campaign to be the MP for a constituency. The citizens of that constituency on general election day then vote for the MP they want to be their MP. That MP then has a seat in Parliament. It's called FPTP because it is the MP who has the most number of votes who wins the seat. At the end of the day the party who has the most number of seats in Parliament is the ruling party and forms the government. The leader of that party is now the prime minister. He is invited to the palace by the Queen, who in one of Britain's many traditions and conventions, asks them to be her prime minister. The second biggest party in the commons, forms the opposition. Therefore, the british people hvaen't actually voted for the prime minister but only their local MP, which is why you can have changes in PMs mid-term, i.e. Gordon Brown. Elections are called by the prime minister and can be called at any time, but no one party can rule for more than five years without calling an election. Four to five years is the norm for one term in office. As an electoral system it provides very strong stable governments, as very rarely are there ever hung parliaments where coalition governments between two parties have to rule. However statistically it is very wasteful with votes. Voter apathy is so great now that only 60% of the electorate actually vote for a party. Because for an MP to succeed he/she needs only the greatest number of votes not the majority, often winning parties don't have 50% of the total vote. Indeed in 2005, Labour received only 35% of the vote overall, which means that 65% of the voting electorate didn't want him in power. As only 60% voted in the first place, only about 20% of the country wanted him to be their PM.
What voting system would work in the UK?
Well I would personally want us to use the hybrid electoral system called the Alternative Member System (AMS) also known as the Mixed-Member System. This would enable us to have a constituency MP, thus maintain the close MP-constituency link which a lot of constituents like as they can approach their MP if they need help. At the same time AMS would let us use a proportional representation (PR) system for regional elections, thus we will have much more proportional results for the parties elected.
Why does only Britain use a FPTP voting system in comparison to the rest of Europe?
Britain kept its electoral system because it works. FPTP systems tend to elect strong governments of a single political party. That makes for clearer, more decisive political decisions. The UK system is based largely on custom and practice, in keeping with an unwritten Constitution, observed in time-honoured fashion because it also works.In a representative democracy, an elected member represents the interests of all electors in the constituency that elected him or her, irrespective of their political allegiances. Any constituent can therefore approach their Member of Parliament at a constituency ‘surgery’ or by mail, etc, to seek assistance with often complex and intractable problems. Thus any citizen has access to a powerful advocate in Parliament irrespective of how they voted at an election.It may be that the UK system continues to thrive because of the UK’s unique form of Constitution. Britain is governed, by and large, by consensus politics, which are underpinned by conventions rather than legislative rules. It is those ‘common law’ guidelines which have stood the test of time and which make the British approach to government so effective.Contrast the European mainland where the territories of most modern States today bear only a passing resemblance to their borders in, say, the 19th Century. recently-formed nations which did not inherit cherished customs and practices had to invent new constitutions and ways of voting which reflected the more diverse constituencies which had to be represented. An FPTP system in such circumstances would almost invariably produce minority electoral winners and unrepresentative governments. Systems such as proportional representation and single transferable voting are designed to cope with electorates which do not owe affiliation to relatively few, strong political parties. The downside is that broad-spectrum coalitions tend to be the norm in that environment, and government by compromise the usual approach.So, what came first, the UK FPTP, or a settled democracy based on consensus?
How does the hospital system in the UK work?
As Steve said: you get ill and they treat you.Your family doctor will usually refer you to one of the local hospitals that is best for the treatment you need.This is totally free for UK citizens and funded via taxation.A small percentage of people take out private health insurance to get quicker treatment for non-urgent conditions but most people don't bother.For more serious treatments you are usually better in a national health service hospital as most private hospitals don't have intensive care and emergency back-up if anything goes wrong.There is also the danger, in any 'for profit' system, of over-prescribing: this now seems to be a big problem in many countries that don't have universal health care.
I really know nothing about the pension scheme/system in the UK, how does it work?
There are two types of pension in the UK - the State Pension, and a private pension.The State Pension is available if you have contributed enough years of National Insurance payments (a specific type of income tax), and starts to be payable to you when you reach 60, 65, 66, 67, or 68, depending on your age and gender. At the moment, the base level is £155/week. Elderly people living just on the State Pension may well be eligible for other government benefits, including a Pension Credit, Housing Benefit, Council Tax Credit, and others connected to disabilities.A private pension is one that you and your employer (if you have one) contribute towards. All employers with more than 5 staff are obliged to provide access to a scheme for their staff, and are obliged to enroll their staff on that scheme unless the staff member actively opts out.Private pension schemes take two forms: Defined Benefit schemes, which pay you a percentage of your final salary (or sometimes a career average salary) from that employment that is based on the number of years you have worked for that employer; or Defined Contribution schemes that you pay a set percentage of your salary in to (typically with employer contributions), and where the contributions are invested on your behalf by the scheme. Clearly, there is more risk for the individual in a Defined Contribution scheme, but they have become the dominant mechanism outside the public sector.Private pensions can be drawn from the age of 55 onwards, and the ways you can draw on the funds depends on the amounts saved and the type of scheme.Pension contributions, up to certain limits depending on income, are made gross of tax, and tax is then paid on the pension when you receive it after retirement.More details than you can imagine are available here:The Pensions Advisory Service
Why can't I vote online for the UK General election?
The current method works. No UK government has decided to put money into the technology for it (which is no bad thing considering its terrible record of making IT projects work), and not everyone has an Internet connection so not all voters could use it. That would mean opening up polling stations anyway for the people who can't vote online, meaning it would be more expensive as two voting systems would be running in parallel and it would complicate the count. And the powers that be are still worried about electronic electoral fraud, rightly or wrongly. There are endless trials and consultations - the Representation of the People Act 2000 allowed trials in online voting to take place in local elections but nothing ever seems to come out of it. The silly thing is that this Labour government seems to have no qualms at all about putting all our personal data on to a national ID register when ID cards come fully into use. It will undoubtedly be worth some thief's while to hack it and it'll be the biggest aid to ID theft ever.