'Should we switch to proportional representation?' poll discussion

pjvenner

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.

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

I personally hope that LibDem members put a stop to Clegg's plans. "Alternative Voting" will still favour the larger parties.

The Tories & Labour don't want PR because it will result in more 'hung' parliaments, and in a hung parliament they can't steamroller new legislation through parliament against the wishes of the electorate.

The only reason hung parliaments have failed in the past is because the bickering babies that we call politicians refuse to work together for the good of the country instead of party/personal interests.

enabledebra

Absolutely. AV does not go nearly far enough and is of course the first choice for the Tories if public pressure means they can't keep the FPTP system going. The Lib Dems were bought for a bargain basement price in terms of electoral reform and I'm ashamed to have been so naive as to have been suprised. As ever, we can't put our trust in any politician to deliver for us. To be brutal, for those of us who want things to change we only have ourselves to blame if things stay the same. We have to be active outside of marking a cross in a box every few years.

As members of this site we are all willing to spend time asserting our consumer rights so I'm sure we are the kind of proactive people who could spend a few hours of our time to assert our civil rights and to start with a demand for the absolute right to decide who runs our country?

Many may believe we already have this right, I'm not one of them.

webwiz

Many people say PR would be "fairer" but the result of PR in the UK with our 3 party system is that the LibDems would be in permanent government for the forseeable future, in coalition with whichever of the other two would give them the most cabinet places. You can see why they would like this but how is it fair?

enabledebra

One of the unknowns is how people would actually vote under PR. Currently we vote against the party we don't want rather than voting positively for who we do want. I don't think anyone knows for sure who the British support. For example, I am a Green party supporter but I've never voted for them and no one collecting statistics knows that they are my preference- why on earth would I vote for them under the current system, I don't live in Brighton. So predictions of what PR would mean are in terms of results are pretty meaningless at the moment. In any case, although I am fervently anti Tory, if PR gave them power then that's democracy and I'm all in favour of that even if a party I hate ends up in goverment. I'm not a bad loser so long as the fight is fair.

adouglasmhor

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.
After the postal voting fiasco this time, postal votes should be stopped except for very closely monitored exceptions like incapacity Serving soldiers abroad etc.

So working people have to make time to vote twice or be fined?

You really are unbelievably misguided. What a stupid pointless idea.

xmas_carol

I would like PR because I could start to vote for the policies I really believe in rather than 'tactically'.
With PR my vote would literally count, and not be a wasted vote.

John_Pierpoint

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.
After the postal voting fiasco this time, postal votes should be stopped except for very closely monitored exceptions like incapacity Serving soldiers abroad etc.

I think this was the oui ou non technique used be De Gaulle to avoid France having a "permanent" coalition government, that had been notorious for breaking up after about 6 - 12 months..

The elections are run during the weekends.

Our Antipodean cousins have compulsory voting - if you don't like it you can always "spoil" your ballot paper.

Dave_Gould

enabledebra wrote: »

Absolutely. AV does not go nearly far enough and is of course the first choice for the Tories if public pressure means they can't keep the FPTP system going. The Lib Dems were bought for a bargain basement price in terms of electoral reform

AV will decimate the Tories unless this coalition massively rehabilitates them in the public's eyes. It's hard to understand how all their MPs agreed to it.

Again, I can't post links but if you Google 'Tories fear AV' you'll find a few sources.

AV was the best on offer so the LibDems did well. If they get half the stuff promised in the agreement, they'll have done extraordinarily well.

Especially when the other choices involved great risk to our credit rating.

As members of this site we are all willing to spend time asserting our consumer rights so I'm sure we are the kind of proactive people who could spend a few hours of our time to assert our civil rights and to start with a demand for the absolute right to decide who runs our country?

Many may believe we already have this right, I'm not one of them.

:T

This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. FPTP has limited us to 2 parties for 80+ years. It took WW1, the slaughter of much of the electorate and the introduction of votes for women simply to change the places of the 2nd and 3rd parties then.

AV is significantly better but still a poor system. Take the time to research STV (Google 'Flash STV') and these other systems. Hopefully my variation, Ideal Majority STV (IM-STV) will get a fair look in (you can actually search for it on Wikipedia now).

pjvenner

webwiz wrote: »

Many people say PR would be "fairer" but the result of PR in the UK with our 3 party system is that the LibDems would be in permanent government for the forseeable future, in coalition with whichever of the other two would give them the most cabinet places. You can see why they would like this but how is it fair?

Your comment illustrates exactly WHY we need PR. NO party should hold power - there needs to be balanced [party neutral] debate before major decisions are made. As parliament is now, IE: with no majority - If MPs voted for the good of the country instead of for party/personal gain then we would have a political Utopia - a balanced view from all corners.

The myth that we NEED a majority government is fed to us by the 2 parties who lose absolute power in the event of a hung parliament...

If you can't figure that out then you really shouldn't be allowed to vote.

pjvenner

Dave_Gould wrote: »

AV will decimate the Tories unless this coalition massively rehabilitates them in the public's eyes. It's hard to understand how all their MPs agreed to it.

Again, I can't post links but if you Google 'Tories fear AV' you'll find a few sources.

AV was the best on offer so the LibDems did well. If they get half the stuff promised in the agreement, they'll have done extraordinarily well.

Especially when the other choices involved great risk to our credit rating.


:T

This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. FPTP has limited us to 2 parties for 80+ years. It took WW1, the slaughter of much of the electorate and the introduction of votes for women simply to change the places of the 2nd and 3rd parties then.

AV is significantly better but still a poor system. Take the time to research STV (Google 'Flash STV') and these other systems. Hopefully my variation, Ideal Majority STV (IM-STV) will get a fair look in (you can actually search for it on Wikipedia now).

STV looks good on paper but given that when it comes to corruption and dishonesty the UK legislature is up there with Italy, we need a more easily monitored form of PR.

In my eyes it should be One person, One vote. That is the ONLY way to be sure that your vote will be counted.