NEW: Got questions about energy? Put them to Gary and Andrew from MSE's Utilities team during our energy-themed 'Ask An Expert' event. Check back here from Tuesday 9 August, 12pm
'Should we switch to proportional representation?' poll discussion
Former_MSE_Lawrence
Former MSE 975 Posts
Poll between 10-17 May 2010:
Should we switch to proportional representation?
In last week’s election the split of votes was
Tory 36%, Labour 29%, Lib Dems 23%
yet the share of seats won (excluding others)
Tory 49%, Labour 42%, Lib Dem 9%.
Proportional representation would mean the seats won are in proportion to the vote share – yet the argument against is it would likely lead us to permanent hung parliaments.
Should we switch to proportional representation?
A. Yes - 66% (8863 votes)
B. No - 34% (4634 votes)
Total Votes: 13497
Voting has now closed, but you can still click 'post reply' to discuss below. Thanks
[threadbanner]box[/threadbanner]
Should we switch to proportional representation?
In last week’s election the split of votes was
Tory 36%, Labour 29%, Lib Dems 23%
yet the share of seats won (excluding others)
Tory 49%, Labour 42%, Lib Dem 9%.
Proportional representation would mean the seats won are in proportion to the vote share – yet the argument against is it would likely lead us to permanent hung parliaments.
Should we switch to proportional representation?
A. Yes - 66% (8863 votes)
B. No - 34% (4634 votes)
Total Votes: 13497
Voting has now closed, but you can still click 'post reply' to discuss below. Thanks
[threadbanner]box[/threadbanner]
0
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides
Replies
Why would anyone accept elections being decided by the fall of electoral boundaries rather than the votes of the public?
<edit> And as an addendum to that thought, why should anyones vote be meaningless - even the votes of the Conservatives in Scotland should count and benefit the Conservative party. And vice-versa of course. The situation of only a few constituencies being important is ludicrous, the parties should each be trying to get all of our votes, even if we don't live in the marginals,
As for the "minor parties" - why would we consider a party that achieved 6.8 million votes as to be a trivial number of people. Why must "strong government" be "unfair government"?
Are you saying that the Conservatives need a head start because they are unpopular? That doesn't seem very democratic?
If people vote for the Conservatives then they would have power even under PR. If folks don't vote for them then they don't deserve power.
And why especially in the UK? Are we democratically deficient in some way?
and a government that doesn't have a clear majority. It also creates coalition governments that spend too
much time talking and less time actually passing legislation.
If we embraced Proportional Representation, we would see more behind closed doors politics like what is currently
happening. It would lead to a government that spent more time arguing and less time making decisions.
It's a great way to mire our government in 'red tape'.
Because the left wing parties have a higher percentage of the votes than the conservatives. So they could halt any policies the conservatives want.
Labour had a lower percentage of the vote last time yet got a clear majority which was far less representative than the outcome this time, and I don't remember hearing as much as a squeak that this was unfair and we need PR to fix it.
How is that unfair? If anything it is a statement of how unfair things are now! So FPTP sometimes hurts the Torys too ... Perhaps you should have listened to the Liberals back then... (Or changed it back when you had the chance)
Question is, are you going to turn away from PR just for short-term gain?
Eg- SNP and Plaid, would their share of the vote be counted as x share of the vote in y constituencies, so x amount of seats out of y amount of possible seats, or as a share of the whole electorate?
Sorry probably a stupid question but I'd love to know if anyone can tell me
England 0808 2000 247 Wales 0808 80 10 800 Scotland 0800 027 1234 Northern Ireland 0800 917 1414 Republic of Ireland 1800 341 900. Free and totally confidential.
That said, they may well still do better if their support is distributed across the seats that they do stand in but don't win,
So they shouldn't get an "unfair" advantage,
Hurray say left wingers, but at the end of the day, isn't this all about fairness?
Just for argument sake, let's suppose someone started two other political groups and they were called 'The Ultra-Conservatives' and the 'Super Ultra-Conservatives'.
The House of Commons would then have MP's from Labour, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, The Ultra Conservatives and the Super Ultra Conservatives. There would actually be more MP's from three party's in government who had conservative policies and only two party's with liberal policies. Now let's suppose that the Conservatives won by a small margin, but the Ultra Conservatives and Super Ultra Conservatives could combine their forces and completely silence Labour and the Lib Dems. It would be Three against One and no one would call that fair would they?
So basically, it's a sneaky way for the left wing to put more MP's in Parliament who have liberal agenda's.
Unless between them they have more total votes than the right-wing parties (then they could "gang up" on the right), but of course then they have more votes, so they should be setting the policies, shouldn't they?
Are you telling me that the right-wing voters are more likely to support a left-wing party just because there are two of them? You don't get extra votes for having more parties, the same number of votes (and MPs) are instead split between the parties. More parties just means fewer votes (and so MPs) for each of them, They would if they had more total votes.
But again, if you do that you don't create extra MPs, instead the conservatives would lose MPs, and the two new parties would split the lost MPs between them.
So in practice the balance of power wouldn't shift at all.