'Should we switch to proportional representation?' poll discussion

nej

I don't agree with PR at all. It will mean that the Liberal Democrats will decide who wins each election by deciding who to team up with this time round. In other words, politicians will decide on the make-up of the government, not the voters. No party will ever get more than 50% of the vote. Even Blair's landslides were only about 45% of the vote. Ditto Thatcher. It would work well with a 2-party system but not with more. Frankly, the entire point of the election is almost pointless - it's sole purpose will be to help the Lib Dems decide.

If you think your vote doesn't count for much now, be grateful for what you've got because it will count for absolutely nothing under PR.

newsgroup_monkey

This is a ridiculous vote.

Of course everyone wants some form of PR, but I don't think everyone would like out-and-out PR. It would be really painful (currently, no party got more than about 35% of the vote IIRC so then (as someone pointed out above) it becomes about who can make the Lib Dems happy.

Firstly, we need to completely devolve Scotland (and possibly Wales, although I don't think they are possibly strong enough to support their own economy - please don't take this personally Welsh - I don't believe that many parts of England can either - which is why we are in a lot of ways a "Great Britain")

The Scottish Parliament, Welsh and London assemblies actually have a "Mixed Member System" which is a watered down mixture of both FPTP and PR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_member_system

John_Pierpoint

Interestingly there is a country that got a reputation as a Banana Republic back in the 1990's; because it appeared to be doing a Greece (though probably not fiddling the figures).

That country is Canada.

The experience there is that the government works quite well, because the wise electorate give the party that triggers the general election early, a good kicking in the polls.

Perhaps our country with its low turnouts does not have the maturity to leave the partizan attitudes at the football stadium and encourage to let the government get on demonstrating it knows how to sort out the mess?

John

BTW all the Canadian civil servants had to take a pay cut.

Dave_Gould

nej wrote: »

I don't agree with PR at all. It will mean that the Liberal Democrats will decide who wins each election by deciding who to team up with this time round.

What if the LibDems win? Pollsters said about 50% of the electorate reported they'd vote LibDem if they could win. Surely an exaggeration but I do think the LibDems will become the biggest party in the next 10 years.

What if the weather gets crazier and the Greens start getting 20% of the vote?

nej

Dave_Gould wrote: »

What if the LibDems win? Pollsters said about 50% of the electorate reported they'd vote LibDem if they could win. Surely an exaggeration but I do think the LibDems will become the biggest party in the next 10 years.

What if the weather gets crazier and the Greens start getting 20% of the vote?

LibDems win?? Their vote share actually went down this year... still, it could happen. Then it would probably be about who they invited to join them, so it'd still be the same.

The really scary thing (and the Greens are often scary enough!) is that BNP would be represented in parliament with several seats. Now that's progress.

Gareth_Lazelle

nej wrote: »

LibDems win?? Their vote share actually went down this year... still, it could happen. Then it would probably be about who they invited to join them, so it'd still be the same.

No, it really didn't,

Their vote share went up (about 1% IIRC). Their share of MPs in parliament however went down - go figure...

And hey, the other parties could always negotiate with each other and cut the LibDems out of the picture... But if the LibDems are the only party mature enough to negotiate and compromise (in order to get their followers some of what they want rather than all-or-nothing) then perhaps they really are the best option...

nej wrote: »

The really scary thing (and the Greens are often scary enough!) is that BNP would be represented in parliament with several seats. Now that's progress.

It is certainly true that free speech/expression is progressive, while restricting their speech (and voting rights) could be considered somewhat... Orwellian (right-wing?) in approach?

However much we may dislike it, these parties are a symptom of a real problem (which may or may not be the one that their voters think it is). The solution is not to take power from their supporters (that really is undemocratic), but to address the underlying problems (and that might simply be a case of calming the papers down, and explaining the realities of immigration, etc - i.e.: education).

If we where to address the problems however, then these parties support would melt away in all but the most extreme of cases,

pennypinchUK

gvlewis wrote: »

Quite frankly I feel I would be wasting my time writing to my local MP about say the building of an airport on the Thames estuary when he has come out so fervently in favour of it.

That's the thing about democracy. If you and others think strongly enough about an issue that your MP disagrees with you can vote them out at the next election. Look at Blaenaeu Gwent - supposedly a rock solid Labour seat. An independent stood against Labour to protest at cuts at the local hospital and not only won but held the seat at the next election.

As was famously said once, "Democracy is the least worst option". Having a directly elected MP gives the voters the opportunity to challenge them and vote them out.

[Deleted User]

nej wrote: »

I don't agree with PR at all. It will mean that the Liberal Democrats will decide who wins each election by deciding who to team up with this time round. In other words, politicians will decide on the make-up of the government, not the voters. No party will ever get more than 50% of the vote. Even Blair's landslides were only about 45% of the vote. Ditto Thatcher. It would work well with a 2-party system but not with more. Frankly, the entire point of the election is almost pointless - it's sole purpose will be to help the Lib Dems decide.

If you think your vote doesn't count for much now, be grateful for what you've got because it will count for absolutely nothing under PR.

We've just seen how well FPTP works (not!) in an increasingly multi-party system. It is no guarantor of majority Governments. But even if it were, I simply don't accept that some 35-40% of the voting population has the right to decide in entirety what's good for the rest of us for the next four or five years, and some 35% or so are locked out of the political process almost indefinitely.

We do not elect Governments - this is not a Presidential system. We elect MPs, and whoever can command the confidence of the House generally forms the Government. It is politicians decide who forms the Government as things currently stand. That's the constitutional reality.

FPTP distorts votes. How many people voted Labour not because they wanted a Labour Government, but out of fear of a Conservative Government - or vice versa? How many vote Lib Dem as a proxy "none of the above" vote - or indeed on the single issue of electoral reform? In short, how many people actually voted for their first preference? None of us know. I think it is rash to assume that any of the main parties actually command the positive support in the country of electors who voted for them for a variety of complex reasons.

Further to that point, it would be equally rash to assume that a third party would be in a permanent "kingmaker" position. The Lib Dems are, IMO, in a rather strange position that is actually a product of our present voting system: the party is itself a broad coalition of diverse and competing interests.

The same is true of Labour and the Conservatives, of course, but recent events have cast that fact into stark relief. Already we have seen a few on the "left" of the party ejecting their toys from the proverbial pram because the party has entered into coalition with the Tories. Had they managed to stitch together a deal with Labour, despite that party getting fewer votes and seats, there would have been a similar outcry from those on the "centre-right" of the party, and probably a greater sense of outrage from the country at large.

As such, I think it would be assuming too much to claim that the Lib Dems could make a choice of coalition partner free from consideration of the political consequences for the party; or that they could maintain the level of support they presently enjoy; or indeed that they would be able to, or even wish to, carry on as a single party if put into that position. I also think it would be rash to assume that Lib Dem-Tory/Labour coalitions would be the only options on the table.