'Should we switch to proportional representation?' poll discussion

spendalot_sanj

jojose wrote: »

'A issue with PR is the opportunity for well funded extreme/fringe parties to acquire representation in parliament. What I mean to say is, a party would need approximately 45,000 votes to gain a MP in parliament (turnout divided by number of MPs). If PR was in place for this election then the British National Party (BNP) would have gained approx 12 seats, which scares me. As a coloured man in this country, it would concern me (approx) 2% of the parliment were openly racist.'

Under sane versions of PR, with a threshold of 4 or 5%, the BNP would not have gained any seats.

Hi, you have said "under sane versions of PR with a threshold of 4 or 5%" would you be able to explain this? specifically

1. what in your opinion is a sane version of PR?
2. going on this election and over 29.5m people voting, how many votes would be required to gain a single seat in the house?
3. once you have worked out answer to question 2, which parties would be the biggest winners/loosers? (I am happy to work this out it you want)

Again, do you accept the following, or have I completely missed the point?

1. democracy is "government by the people"
2. there are more than 600 MPs
3. if 29.5m people vote, under PR each MP would need 45,000 votes

flyingscotno1

I'm not sure majority government works well. Strong government yes, but partial dictatorship if you will. Look at some unpopular things that were forced through by a majority government last time- ID cards? 10p tax rate removal? Would that happen if we did not have majorities or coalitions.

I'd like to see it. If it means people are more candidates are dependent on local votes than party line then it is a good thing.

jojose

Well, let's take the system of PR they use in Germany, which is the strongest economy in Europe. In Germany, 5% of the vote is needed for any given party to win any representation. Translating this into the House of Commons, where there are currently 650 seats, the minimum number of seats that could be allocated to any party via the list system would be 30. In order to get that minimum, 5% of the vote share would be necessary - which equates to 1.5m votes. This is a sane version of PR. It represents the electorate's votes accurately, and it prevents the kind of nonsense you have in Israel where tons of tiny parties make it impossible to reach a sensible deal.

So, which parties would be the biggest winners/losers...
The Labour Party and the Tory Party would be the most obvious losers - they are the only parties that benefit grossly disproportionately from the current electoral system.
The Lib Dems, the Green Party and UKIP would probably all get seats.
The SNP and Plaid Cymru would probably be losers, as they would only be able to win seats in constituency elections, not having the 5% share required to gain party list seats.
The BNP would get in if they could increase their vote share from 2% to 5%.
Broadly speaking, the most likely scenario is a 'left' bloc, consisting of the Greens, Lib Dems and Labour, a 'right' bloc consisting of the Tories and UKIP, and a few regional MPs from Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales (although not as many as we have now).

So...
Do I accept the following?

1. democracy is "government by the people" - sort of - in reality it is government by their elected representatives, but these representatives should genuinely represent the people's views.
2. there are more than 600 MPs - yes - there are 650
3. if 29.5m people vote, under PR each MP would need 45,000 votes - not if the threshold was 4 or 5%.

minerva_windsong

There seems to be a lot of confusion about definitions here.

Proportional representation (PR) is a catch-all term for various forms of choosing representatives according to how many votes they get. Alternative Vote (AV) and Single Transferable Vote (STV) are two different types of PR.

AV requires voters to rank a list of candidates in order. The votes are then counted and if a candidate gets at least 50% of the vote then they win the seat. If (as is more likely) no one gets 50% of the vote, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their second preferences are redistributed amongst the other candidates. This keeps going until one candidate has 50% of the vote.

STV involves choosing parties from a list and then allocating seats according to who gets the highest percentage of votes. The party then chooses its candidates to take the seats. So for example, in a six member constituency (about 350,000 people), based on percentage of the vote, the Tories might get three seats, so they pick the top three people on their list of candidates. The Lib Dems might only get one, so they pick the first person on their list. This does not necessarily mean that people will like that candidate, and also creates confusion about who represents whom.

Personally I'm for AV rather than STV, as chances are you are more likely to get a majority, and as it eliminates the party with the fewest votes, which is more likely to be extremists, it would be more likely to keep the likes of the BNP out. Plus it also virtually eliminates tactical voting, and you get to choose who you would like to represent you, as opposed to a party to represent you.

The Lib Dems want STV to be introduced with no referendum or review. The Tories initially did not want PR, but then wanted a committee, then a referendum (both of which would most likely find in their favour, because generally PR does not favour conservative parties) on AV. Labour had bleated about PR in the 90s but never actually done anything, but are now offering to introduce AV+ (AV but topping up with first past the post election - look for Jenkins Commission on Wikipedia).

Also, I wouldn't say the Labour party are liberal. They were socialists once, but frankly God knows what they are now.

macfly

Anthing must be better than the current courting of a minority party, who have also the cheek to demand, effectively, a change of Prime Minister. Much as I abhor Brown, it's up to the Labour party to choose.

jojose

'The Lib Dems want STV to be introduced with no referendum or review. The Tories initially did not want PR, but then wanted a committee, then a referendum (both of which would most likely find in their favour, because generally PR does not favour conservative parties) on AV. Labour had bleated about PR in the 90s but never actually done anything, but are now offering to introduce AV+ (AV but topping up with first past the post election - look for Jenkins Commission on Wikipedia).'

The Lib Dems do not want to change to AV without a referendum, and AV is not a proportional system anyway. It is merely slightly better than FPTP.

'Anthing must be better than the current courting of a minority party, who have also the cheek to demand, effectively, a change of Prime Minister. Much as I abhor Brown, it's up to the Labour party to choose.'

We're talking about a minority party which has received the endorsement of on average 20% of voters over the last three general elections, but who have, until now, received precisely no representation. AND all they are asking for is to let the people decide. Not too much to ask, is it?

Gareth_Lazelle

teddyco wrote: »

I think I speak for a lot of people who feel cheated today that Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats are using their position to selfishly barter for a referendum on Proportional Representation as the most important factor in agreeing to form a government.

Did you vote for the LD's?

If you didn't then why would you feel cheated? They are not your party after all, so why do you have any say in how they choose to jump (and why would you expect them to jump your way if it was contrary to their stated goals).

And why wouldn't the LD supporters feel cheated if the LDs abandon PR to support one of the other parties? Their opinions are important too (more important than your view from the perspective of the LD party if you did not vote for them), shouldn't they fight for the things they believe in too?

And why is a referendum a big deal for the Conservatives? Is following public opinion such a big deal? After all, if it gets voted down then the other parties who insisted upon it look pretty foolish...

Gareth_Lazelle

spendalot_sanj wrote: »

Of course you could argue that as a democracy is a "government by the people" and as such if 2% of the population vote for the BNP then they should get them.

I would advocate that a well funded party would be able to promote their views, if they could persuade just 75 voters in each constituency to vote for them they would gain a seat in parliament (75 * 600 = 45000). So parties who are able to promote an argument (e.g. all coloured people OUT) and obtain a small number of votes per constituency might get representation.

As others are noted, there can be barriers to this sort of thing, but:

So they get one MP,

What are they going to achieve with one MP in the UK where you need 325 MPs to get through a vote in parliament, and where their views will be opposed by 649 other MPs?

That one MP still represents the views of 45,000 people, and they still deserve representation,

The problem is that once you start saying "you can't have a party that supports this, that or the other" you start getting into issues with freedom, thought-police and censorship. And if you have (say) strong left-wing (or right-wing or whatever) majority then maybe the other sides views look pretty horrific to you too. So which parties is it acceptable to ban? (the Tories? - bet the miners would have been for it... And I bet the bankers would be for banning socialist parties!),

Of course, the implication of your statement is that small parties are allowed to stand in FPTP - but that the system is stacked against them, so you never expect them to achieve anything. Essentially you are saying that anyone that supports a small party doesn't deserve representation in parliament.

spendalot_sanj

Hi Gareth Lazelle,

Thankyou for your posting. To clarify my position I am not suggesting that anyone who supports a small party doesn't deserve representation. I am simply suggesting that there are consequences of changing the voting system. I promote liberal democracies however (like most people) I have a vested interest in promoting my views/position.

As a liberal person, I agree that people should vote for whomever they wish, and as such if 2% of the population have (in my opinion) extreme racist views then they should be represented.

As a selfish person, I would prefer to keep the BNP out of government, whether it be 1 or 50 MPs, however many they get, provides them with power/ leverage and (possibly worst of all) the ears of policy makers.

Having said that, I recognise my position is not consistent with liberal beliefs. As such, perhaps liberal democracies are an oxymoron, and PR with a wider spectrum of political persuasions are the future.

It is intriguing, do people vote for what is best for the wider community/society or vote for what is best for them? Perhaps this is my failing, I assume people vote for the best of all, rather than for themselves.

If PR comes up for a referendum, perhaps these arguments will be fostered into an open discussion. We need principles of vigorous, and open dialogue to educate the population on the merits of any system. The education process should not be based on smearing or silencing. Perhaps through critical throught the country will decide what is best.

This issue is key to the future of the nation, once the cat is out of the bag, it is pretty hard to get it back in.

xiiipaul

Proportional representation means you will vote into power MP's that are are chosen only by their own party not the public, thus the old boys network will become a huge problem.
You will no longer have a personal relationship with an individual MP whos job is to represent you the individual and your immediate area first and the party line second.
Party line politics will take over completely, leading to a reduction in democracy as you will not be able to vote out a poor MP if the party chooses that person to stay.

The first past the post system needs surgery to make it work but it does not need a humane death.