'Should we switch to proportional representation?' poll discussion

crossleydd42

tripled wrote: »

I can't stand the idea of PR, I like to vote for my local representative rather than a 'party list'. While I acknowledge parties parachute candidates into some seats, the local people have the power not to elect them.

Having said that, the lefties might get more than they bargained for as UKIP and BNP members get in. Proportional represtentation may do the Lib Dems more harm then good as people don't think they're the only alternative to the 'big two'.

I've had a dig and I don't think AV+ looks two bad, as long as the regional candidates weren't just from party lists but independents could stand regionally as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Vote_Top-up

It's worth remembering, though, that the AV+ system isn't actually Proportional Representation and can produce its own distortions at times.

Gareth_Lazelle

kryssykk wrote: »

Surely the fairest way to run elections in this country is first to make voting compulsory. Then run the election as we do now but instead of the uncertainty of the last 5 days which would happen at every election under PR. We then take the two party's with the most votes and then vote again on those two only.

Eep!

Here's why:

You'd end up with MPs from only two parties in the government - every minority (however large) bar the final "second place party" would be effectively excluded from government.

Because of that (and because of the extreme results it is likely to achieve) tactical voting would be horrific in the initial election in order to get an even slightly palatable party into the running for part two of the election!

This system might work for electing a single leader, but for electing a body that is supposed to reflect the views of the populace it would produce extreme results at best, and certainly wouldn't be "representative" by any strecth of the word!

sc867

Surely an easier (and more transparent) way of having PR would be to say that if the winning candidate in each seat under the present system doesn't get over 50% of the votes cast, then the following week there is a re-run where all the losing parties drop out except for the one that came second. The winner of the re-run thus gains the overall majority and the whole electorate can see that it is a true reflection of the vote. Timewise, it would only be a day longer than this election has taken so far!
I do agree that voting should be compulsory, with a box on the ballot paper saying "None of the above" for those who genuinely don't want to vote, can't support any candidate, etc. We should remember that people died in order to get universal suffrage.

Gareth_Lazelle

sc867 wrote: »

Surely an easier (and more transparent) way of having PR would be to say that if the winning candidate in each seat under the present system doesn't get over 50% of the votes cast, then the following week there is a re-run where all the losing parties drop out except for the one that came second.

Why not just run one election using AV?

It achieves exactly the same result (you just have to decide the order you prefer the candidates in when you fill out your ballot),

Somewhat cheaper and less hassle than running two or more elections neh?

enabledebra

This is a really interesting thread with a good many very well argued points :T

For those of you in favour of reform (and who don't already know about this fast growing grassroots movement) I would recommend googling 'Take Back Parliament'. I found out about it whilst surfing the web in utter disgust at the unfairness highlighted by this election of our system where most votes don't count for anything at all and, even if you are one of the lucky few whose vote does count, ring fences power for the tory and labour parties. Something has got to change surely?

wildthing01

clearly something is wrong with the current system seeing as clegg frequently came out top of the polls following the leadership debates, and only 7% of MSEers didn't want to see him in government, yet he got the fewest seats of the 3 main parties. however, i'm a bit of a dunce when it comes to politics, so i don't know whether PR or AV would be any better!

sc867

Gareth_Lazelle wrote: »

Why not just run one election using AV?

It achieves exactly the same result (you just have to decide the order you prefer the candidates in when you fill out your ballot),

Somewhat cheaper and less hassle than running two or more elections neh?

Probably, but is it as transparent or as easily understood, as having all the candidates on a sheet, figures given out and then just the two names & parties on a sheet to choose from. Sadly, not everyone can work out how to use an AV, AV+ or STV. They only recognise a name, either of a person or party.

MSE_Martin

It is worth noting that Alternative Vote the system that is being discussed is actually quite far from proportional represention. In fact it is potentially less proportionate than first past the post.

In effect it promotes the candidacy of voters least worst option.

Gareth_Lazelle

MSE_Martin wrote: »

It is worth noting that Alternative Vote the system that is being discussed is actually quite far from proportional represention. In fact it is potentially less proportionate than first past the post.

True dat, and it is not my personal preference, but it is a big step in the right direction - and after the public gets its feet wet it may be more inclined towards the next step (certainly it may knock some of the mis-truths spread about PR being quite so widespread),

John_Pierpoint

Yes but what type of proportional representation?