'Should we switch to proportional representation?' poll discussion

Gareth_Lazelle

enabledebra wrote: »

One of the unknowns is how people would actually vote under PR.

True, but comparing our statistics with those abroad shows a much greater percentage of participation in countries where PR has been introduced pretty much across the board.

Not conclusive I know, but it is compelling circumstantial evidence,

enabledebra wrote: »

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.

Also very true, wouldn't you like to find out? Because I sure would.

Certainly I am not a natural LD supporter - they would probably lose my vote once PR was installed (not that I'm totally against their policies, but there are other parties which better represent my views ),

Gareth_Lazelle

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?

That is only going to be the case if the LDs are the only party willing to negotiate with anyone else (other than the LDs),

The LDs could be excluded from government as easily as anyone else in PR if parties learn to compromise and negotiate (depending somewhat upon the results of the vote of course),

But of course, PR also increases the chances that the party you really want in will be part of the willing coalition, regardless of which party it is (even with the current coalition only 2 of the seven or so parties with MPs are in the government, usually that is 1 of the 7 or so parties with MPs),

beer_tins

It's worth noting that PR does not automatically mean there will always be a hung parliament. Other countries with PR do have parties that secure overall majorities. It does mean that the parties need to listen more closely to the voice of the people to secure an overall majority.

AV is really no closer to PR. It was offered because it suits the Lib Dems (as 3rd biggest party), but not other smaller parties. Under a PR system, any party that secures "x"% of the vote will be represented in government in some way. As such, you can be sure that you are not throwing your vote away by voting what you believe in.

John_Pierpoint

The Swedish parliament has to sit geographically in a semicircle (if I remember correctly) That makes it difficult to yell and shout at the opposition, as they and your allies are all around you.

Mind you in our normal "elected dictatorship" is anything decided on the floor of the house by the small groups who have dragged themselves away from the [STRIKE]bar[/STRIKE] office paperwork?

Perhaps Hansard is the original blog that got distributed to your mates at the breakfast table?

lemmon_2

The present system is not fair to all voters and PR is probably going to produce weak governments. We should take a closer look at what the Alternative Voting system night produce. The more extreme policies of all the parties could well be toned down and result in a government more acceptable to a greater majority of the electorate.

jojose

MSE_Martin wrote: »

It is worth noting that Alternate 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.

If this were true then under AV you would expect the election of lots of unknown independent candidates, who nobody knew enough about to object to.

AV is not proportional, but it goes guarantee the election of the most popular candidate.

MrsBartolozzi

I was discussing this IRL last night. I'm not sure that PR will be benificial for the LibDems - the ones who think they have the most to gain from it.
Many constituencies are Labour or Conservative strongholds and people who would vote the "opposite" vote for Libdems who are often the only ones who could keep the "bad" party out of the seat. This is the case for my local constituancy. It's a close thing between Libdem and Tory. In an ideal world I'd have voted Labour, but here it's a wasted vote so I voted Libdem as a vote against Tory rather than for LD. If PR came in there'd be no doubt who my vote would be for and so LD would lose my vote. A quick straw poll amongst friends last evening suggested they'd all voted with the same intention and would change how they voted if PR was brought in.
I'm sure tactical voting goes on all over the country and PR would eliminate the need to do so, perhaps polarising votes Leftwing/Rightwing and libdem would lose out? Discuss .

economiser

Why is the current system called "first past the post"? That would hold if the "post" were set at 50% but about 65% of MPs failed to get 50%. Why is the winning candidates margin over the second placed called a "majority" when in most cases the candidate is simply the largest minority? When are we going to get democracy? We don't elect our Head of State (hereditry), our Prime Minister (chosen by head of state), the Upper House (chosen by politicians) or the Government (chosen by PM). We simply elect an MP. One vote every 5 years and if you don't live in a marginal constituency your vote is meaningless.

Gareth_Lazelle

I suspect that is a view only supported by those who believe that they benefit from the current system (cheats always like to keep their edge... In a way they're a bit like the so-called "benefits scroungers", stealing our votes for themselves),

Part of the problem with FPTP though is that the "beneficiaries" (can we call them cheats?) are in a minority, and democracy is about supporting what works for the majority (which, in spite of the right wing press' view, is slightly more than 36%),

The many countries with working PR systems would easily cast doubt on the suggestion that it "won't work in practice" (BTW: Including Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - I don't think any new parliament would even consider FPTP any more - what is Iraq using these days?),

I believe it is the case that we and the Vatican city are the only counties in Western Europe not using some form of AV or PR system,

If we keep it up (and the pope gets his act together) we could have the dubious privileged of being more backwards than the Vatican (and have the most backward, and least-fair democracy in Europe) - how good would that look!

Gareth_Lazelle

MrsBartolozzi wrote: »

I was discussing this IRL last night. I'm not sure that PR will be benificial for the LibDems - the ones who think they have the most to gain from it.

You could be right, but what of it? If it better reflects peoples views then it's still worth fighting for no? Does that not make them more altruistic if it is so?

MrsBartolozzi wrote: »

I'm sure tactical voting goes on all over the country and PR would eliminate the need to do so, perhaps polarising votes Leftwing/Rightwing and libdem would lose out? Discuss .

Thing is, once you start looking at politics in detail there is much more to it than just "left-wing" or "right-wing" (and personally I hate that polarisation as it leads to lazy tribalism without thinking about the issues involved - we don't owe political parties loyalty, they owe us loyalty, and voters should always consider switching their votes if another party better reflects their views, and of course the current polarised two-party FPTP system kind of discourages that and positively encourages tribalism...).

The Liberals (and the Greens, UKIP, etc) have policies that do not appear in either the Tories or the Labour manifestos.

Looking at issues that the Tories supported while in opposition (the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, Trident, the countries power supply, etc) these parties still provide for alternative viewpoints,

Or to put it another way: There may well be more than two possible and valid stances on a single issue, so two parties will never reflect the true range of possibilities,