'Should we switch to proportional representation?' poll discussion

teddyco

Gareth_Lazelle,

Corporations do this all the time. They sell the same clothes under many different brands to capture more market share. This is what I am trying to point out.

In this election, folks voted for 'change' and Nick Clegg's pretty smile, without realizing that his policies are nothing more than Labour policies wrapped up in a different brand.

Can you see this?

If we allow proportional representation to many different party's without taking into consideration whether they are 'right wing' or 'left wing', we allow for the possibility of an imbalance of power once all the left wings groups form a 'coalition' government. Under PR, the Lib Dems wouldn't have a problem forming a coalition with Labour.

karenandmerry

teddyco wrote: »

Corporations do this all the time. They sell the same clothes under many different brands to capture more market share. This is what I am trying to point out.

Yes, that may work if you are marketing identical products under different brand names. Voting in a democracy is different from this, because the voter is basing their judgement on a number of perceived differences between the parties... that's the whole point of manifestos, debates & so on.

teddyco wrote: »

In this election, folks voted for 'change' and Nick Clegg's pretty smile

No, that's just your idea of why they voted. In a democracy, all we can know is that they voted for x party or for y party; the voting slip didn't ask them why they were voting that way.

teddyco wrote: »

If we allow proportional representation to many different party's without taking into consideration whether they are 'right wing' or 'left wing', we allow for the possibility of an imbalance of power to go towards one type of government over another.

It looks like that to you, because you see everything in terms of 'left wing' or 'right wing'. But there are many different dimensions on which people - and parties - differ.

In my view, it doesn't have to be like football - Team A vs Team B. It seems to me that it would be a good thing if politicians spent more time discussing their decisions before they made them. Yes, under the current system we have a whole lot of politicians who like to make decisions without having to collaborate with others who see things differently from themselves. Under a different system - with a 'balanced' parliament - we might begin to attract politicians who were skilled at working well in a more diverse group. This type of working can be more creative, and lead to better, more sustainable, solutions to the very serious problems facing us today.

Gareth_Lazelle

karenandmerry wrote: »

No, that's just your idea of why they voted. In a democracy, all we can know is that they voted for x party or for y party; the voting slip didn't ask them why they were voting that way.

And it's pretty difficult to judge even that given the way tactical voting works...

How do you know that the Liberals don't have an outright majority right now? You can't tell because the votes don't necessarily reflect the true viewpoint of all of the voters... (How many Liberals voted for one of the other parties to "get Gordon out", "to keep Cameron/the tories out" or because "a vote for the LDs is a wasted vote"? We have no way of knowing),

The is one aspect that the STV vote-system aims to address (by allowing your vote for an 'unpopular' party to be transferred to another party), though full PR makes things much simpler,

FPTP can't even make it in your best interest to vote for the party that best reflects your viewpoint!

karenandmerry

Even so, I don't know if PR is exactly the right solution. The trouble is that in a constituency vote, two things are going on:

• the voter is trying to benefit the party they want to win - either by voting for their favourite, or by voting tactically/pragmatically to keep out a party they particularly dislike
• and in some cases the voter is influenced by loyalty to a particulalry good candidate or dislike of a (perceived) bad candidate.

The first of these means that the votes don't show the real levels of support for parties which have no chance of winning overall. PR would help avoid such tactical voting, so that the true pattern of views could be revealed.

And of course PR would help to ensure that such pragmatic voters could vote fro the party they genuinely prefer and then, together with the idealist voters (who vote for a minority party candidate, even though they know they can't win) gain representation.

But the second item draws on the good judgement of ordinary folk to keep out individuals who are liked by their parties, but hated by the voters (eg someone like Mandelson, perhaps).

And the two-party system does mean that there is always a reasonably strong opposition, with agreed (and paid) shadows to each government post, to ensure proper scrutiny of government behaviour.

globalds

I think it is about time we made the step up in politics from the tradition of confrontational politics to a more mature and considered politics.

Decisions are rarely black and white.... And I think experience has shown enough times that allowing only one group to make all the decisions on an issue without consulting all those with an interest or view will just lead to more problems down the line.

This is not leadership by committee ,but represents something that we in the UK seem to find extremely hard to do ...Making decisions after consultation.

This is one of those times when those with a vested interest in the present status quo should be listened to with extreme caution.

karenandmerry

And my other concern about PR is that the current system filters out the extremes. The fact that in every constituency, nobody much supported the BNP seems to me a good outcome of the combined judgement of the masses. I don't think it would benefit parliament, under PR, to have a small number of such misfits wasting everyone's time with unproductive and discredited views.

But then I'd like to have more Greens! So by filtering out the extremes, you may miss out on creative new thinking, as well as unproductive old thinking. The politics of hope get thrown out along with the politics of hatred.

So perhaps you need to allow both.

But I am torn between STV, which I'd be most comfortable with, and PR, which seems inherently fairest.

rockystaff

I agree that the current system filters out the extremes but that's democracy and if over half a million idiots vote for facists then that should be reflected in Parliament. It's then down to us to ensure that these parties are exposed for the lying bigots that they are.

As for LD and Lab ganging up against the poor Torys, aren't political parties themselves just 'gangs'. Shouldn't all MP's be independants voting on an issue by issue basis and reflecting the community they are supposed to represent instead of blindly toeing the party line and riding roughshot over the people they are supposed to represent?

Gareth_Lazelle

Exactly that,

If the BNP (or UKIP,or whoever) get 5% of the vote then they really do deserve 5% of the MPs,

Just because I happen to think that they are wrong doesn't mean that their views shouldn't be represented if they make up a sizeable chunk of the population (and hey, they probably think that I'm just as wrong - so it's all swings and roundabouts),

teddyco

This article from the Telegraph just about sums it up:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7707439/Gordon-Brown-clings-on-a-bleak-day-for-British-democracy.html

"And the tail is wagging the dog. Last Thursday, the two parties that were formally opposed to PR, the Tories and Labour, between them polled 19 million votes. The party that supports PR polled fewer than seven million votes. Is this what Mr Clegg means when he talks about the “new politics”?

"Since last Friday we have lived with the fiction that Mr Brown was simply doing his constitutional duty by staying at the helm until a new government could be formed, acting in the national interest. Now we see that all the time he has been acting in his and his party’s interest, defying the verdict of the electorate by trying to create a coalition of the election losers. This is a bleak day for our democracy."

tripled

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 independants could stand regionally as well.

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