Lib Dems doing well - but do we really want a change in electoral system?

lostinrates

StevieJ wrote: »

I think the Labour/Tory strong govt line is overdone, I am pretty sure that there is a lot more cross party support for many sensible policies by MP's than they would have you believe, I really find it tiresome to hear the defense of certain policies by MP's (eg on Paxman or QT) who plainly don't actually agree with what they are defending

steviej I couldn't agree with this more. I have no problem with someone saying ''I am voing this way/abstaining because this is the party line, what you elected me on, but I personally do not agree with it''.

MPs represent us, and w rarely exist in total accord in any grouping....to pretend issues are black and white , or blue and red (or yellow) is perhaps seen as easier for many to understand, but its still incorrect IMHO.

Conrad

Germans as worlds largest exporting nation ahven't fared too badly with PR, or am I missing something?

Sir_Humphrey

carolt wrote: »

I agree, it's not a perfect system, but surely better than one where there is no local link at all?

Most PR systems in practice still have constituencies.

The only country I can think of off the top of my head that does not is Israel. However, the Israeli Knesset is a bit strange in other ways too (e.g. very low threshold for gaining seats and only has one house).

So the constituency link issue is a bit of red herring really.

Personally I think the question is what sort of PR do we have, because FPTP is well past its sell-by date IMHO.

kennyboy66_2

A._Badger wrote: »

The 'Tory Press' record is a tired cliche. At least we have a choice not to buy Murdoch's rags or the Mail, none of which have even a quarter the clout of the poll tax-funded BBC, which has been actively campaigning on a 'Lib-Dem or Labour - anything but the Conservatives' platform for over a decade.

If you want to hear media hysteria, listen to yesterday's Any Questions on Radio 4, for which the BBC had, clearly, bussed-in a whooping, screecing audience from Labour HQ.

Personally, I think Poppinjay (above) is thinking along the right lines. We need to proscribe political parties altogether. They inevitably lead to bully-boy government, where the nastiest rise to the top and dictate policy to the lower ranks, who trot into whichever lobby they are instructed, like lambs to the slaughter.

Another interesting idea would be a Swiss-style Canton system (again, with party groupings banned).

If people are serious about democracy, then (to misquote Gandhi) it's time we tried it.

I've increasingly noticed Labour packing programmes like Gardeners question time and 606 with their supporters. Is it any coincidence that Gardeners questions time has concentrated recently on flowers like poppies carnations and roses which happen to be mainly RED ?

606 has been full of Man U, Arsenal and Liverpool supporters - all of whom wear RED.

Coincidence ? I think not.

tomterm8

Conrad wrote: »

Germans as worlds largest exporting nation ahven't fared too badly with PR, or am I missing something?

...Erm.... Hitler?

As in... they elected him, that is. Using a PR system.

:eek::D:D:D

apt

Under FPTP Hitler would have been elected with an absolute majority at least a year before he gained power.

tomterm8

Maybe they would have if exactly the same parties had been standing with the same proportion of the vote, but the odds are that the same fate as BNP / UKIP / National Front / Green Party would have prevented them ever going past a few seats in FPTP.

No new party has gained control of the house of commons in 65 years.

Hitler would have remained, in the '20's, and '30's a small bit part player.

Pennywise

The answer is simpler than you think. Keep the existing boundaries. Each constituency votes for its MP as at present. The difference is that in Parliament, it's not simply the number of MPs that determines who holds power, each MP has a voting "weighting" based on the size of their constituency and/or number of votes, so Fred in Lancashire may have an average sized constituency and has 1 vote, but Bill in London has a constituency twice the size so gets 2 votes, however Arthur in Scotland has a constituency half the average size, so only has half a vote. That way, "power" in Parliament is more closely alligned to the proportion of the vote, without the inherent problems of the proportional representation system. Easy to impose by computerised voting instead of the ridiculously outdated "doors" in Parliament. The result would be that a party may have the majority of MPs in Parliament but won't have "power" because the voting powers will give "power" to the party representing the wishes of the majority of constitents/voters.

kennyboy66_2

Pennywise wrote: »

The answer is simpler than you think. Keep the existing boundaries. Each constituency votes for its MP as at present. The difference is that in Parliament, it's not simply the number of MPs that determines who holds power, each MP has a voting "weighting" based on the size of their constituency and/or number of votes, so Fred in Lancashire may have an average sized constituency and has 1 vote, but Bill in London has a constituency twice the size so gets 2 votes, however Arthur in Scotland has a constituency half the average size, so only has half a vote. That way, "power" in Parliament is more closely alligned to the proportion of the vote, without the inherent problems of the proportional representation system. Easy to impose by computerised voting instead of the ridiculously outdated "doors" in Parliament. The result would be that a party may have the majority of MPs in Parliament but won't have "power" because the voting powers will give "power" to the party representing the wishes of the majority of constitents/voters.

This is bonkers.

Apart from some outliers, constituencies size is not the issue (the largest Isle of Wight is approx 110,000 voters compared with average size of 74,000).

The issue is that in roughly 60% of constituencies (and in reality more) there is little point in voting as the result is a foregone conclusion.

We have a system that gets some remarkably unfair results - 1983 being the best example, Labour 27% gets 209 seats, SDLP 25% gets 21 seats.

mitchaa

Doctor_Gloom wrote: »

I most certainly do support a proper form proportional representation.
In the last election the Labour party got only 36% of the vote and yet obtained a clear majority of seats in the House of Commons. This is perverse,

How does that work? There are 650 seats up for grabs and the majority party requires 326 seats, so 50.x %

If labour got 36% of the seats back in 1997, why were they elected in power? Why wasn't it a hung parliament back then if they failed to achieve 50%+?

If there is talk about changing it, what would this likely be? Would it not be fairer to base the result on the number of votes gathered for each party rather than the number of elected seats?

The way i understand it is, you may well have 10m overall votes for the tories and 8m overall for labour, but if labour had a majority of more smaller constituencies hence more seats then they would run away with the result even though they were 2m or so votes down overall.

My knowledge about politics can be written on the back of a postage stamp, but how can this deemed to be fair?