'Should we switch to proportional representation?' poll discussion

tripled

macfly wrote: »

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.

Eh? It's up to the labour party to choose their leader, not choose the PM. It's parliament/the Queen who choose the leader. If they really wanted, they could pick an independant or green - not that I can ever see it happening.

The majority of MP's (Tory/Lib) didn't want GB (or their parties didn't at any road), so he can't command the confidence of Parliament and has to go.

Gareth_Lazelle

xiiipaul wrote: »

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.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the "old boys network" is a huge problem right now as well (they're just stuffed into "safe seats" instead of the party lists),

How stuffed are you if you want the party, but hate the local candidate...

xiiipaul wrote: »

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.

You mean like you do now?

My choice of candidate didn't win in my constituency, so how represented am I? Is he going to push the policies I want addressed? I suspect not...

xiiipaul wrote: »

Party line politics will take over completely,

*Splutter*

You mean like now? The "back-bench rebels" are a minority for a reason... Most MPs toe the party line right now,

xiiipaul wrote: »

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

Thing is that it's supposed to be "representative" of the populace - and it is not.

The make-up of parliament is supposed to be representative of the opinions of all of the voters (and not just the largest minority) - and it is not.

All votes are supposed to be equal (even those in safe seats) and they are not.

Minorities are supposed to have representation according to their size - and they do not.

Voting for the party you want to win (rather than tactical voting) should not be punished - but it is.

FPTP cannot be made representative, it always disproportionally distributes power (except by random happen-chance) - and it doesn't even do it in a sane and measured way - it is just random,

Do you want your countries leadership selected at random? (and how you can describe a party with fewer votes but more MPs as anything but random is beyond me), I thought not

We need to work from the ground up to ensure a fair system that also works,

Gazzieh

Just to make one note to start with, unlike some on here I do not presume I speak for anyone else apart from myself. I have a democratic right to have my thoughts and beliefs heard and, unless I live in a very small number of constituents, this right is completely ignored! Amazing that we can have a system where less than 40% of the local electorate elects a person who then stands in Parliament despite 60% of the local constituents voting against them. Hmm, seems fair!

Also, I note early on that many people state that PR would allow small 'leftie' parties to dominate over the 'good old' conservatives. I remember 18 years of a Tory Government that had less than 50% of the votes yet dominated the political scene with no possibility of being restrained (sounds like a dictatorship and felt like one as well - Poll Tax, anyone?).

Okay...

xiiipaul wrote: »

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.

Are you having a laugh? If you can actually get any significant time with your 'local' MP then try to ask them to vote as you would like them to. They will vote their own way, without recourse to those who they 'represent'.

xiiipaul wrote: »

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.

Again, HELLO???

I cannot vote for an individual under the current system (I could but they cannot get in because I am in a Safe Seat) and so we have to select based upon their party politics. In fact I wonder how many people actually vote FOR someone rather than AGAINST someone else?

If we did not have an existing party political system then how come we have such a strong party politically based system?

xiiipaul wrote: »

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

No, it needs stamping on, a good kicking and then throwing away. It is an antiquated system that has been supported by the very parties that benefit from it. Labour and Conservatives have both abused the boundary system defining constituents to enhance their probability of winning and so why would they go for a fairer system where EVERYONE's vote counts? Turkeys voting for Christmas? Never!

It is worth noting the following:

George Galloway polled the votes of only 18.4 per cent of his constituents, yet ended up in the House of Commons. Only three MPs elected in 2005 secured the votes of more than 40 per cent of their constituents.

My emphasis, btw.

Dave_Gould

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.

The BNP polled about 1.5%.

STV would also be unlikely to elect any BNP as it's not fully PR and their obnoxious leader came third (you'd need to come second overall).

STV is not a list system. Winning candidates win because they are preferred by their local elecorate.

Even my variation, Ideal Majority STV isn't a list system. In it, candidates are slightly boosted if their party wins, but they were highly preferred anyway.

I think we're very unlikely to see any form of PR other than STV. If you Google 'Flash STV', the first result is an excellent introduction to this amazing system.

It is what the LibDems are/were pushing for. IM-STV remedies perhaps the only disadvantage (hung parliaments) and hopefully both them and the Tories find it better than AV.

I've stuck it as the last in the list of External links from the Wikipedia page on "Single-transferable vote". Might last an hour.

keet83

not everyone has the chance to vote for every party, where i used to live i had only 2 choices, labour or tories. If you don't have the chance to vote for all of the parties then how would this PR be fair?

If they are to change the voting system then they should come up with a much fairer way than this PR choice that people talk about.

BritRael

FATBALLZ wrote: »

PR won't work, especially in the UK. This whole 'First past the post is unfair' drive is a poorly disguised attempt to keep the Conservatives out instigated by the left wing.

zzzzz... a conspiracy theory again... yawn.

I suppose next we'll have "This whole 'First past the post is unfair' drive is a poorly disguised attempt to keep Labour out instigated by the right wing"...

The fact is it's an unfair system. Yes, fptp does produce majority governments, but it does so because of the counting sytem not by the actual votes cast.

BritRael

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.

The BNP got a large number of votes from the Britsh people which equated to no seats. That is not democracy.

Dave_Gould

BritRael wrote: »

The BNP got a large number of votes from the Britsh people which equated to no seats. That is not democracy.

I think if there was a referendum on how many seats the BNP should get, they'd still get zero.

Max_Head

[QUOTE=FATBALLZ;3266977

Labour had a lower percentage of the vote last time yet got a clear majority which was far less representative than the outcome this time, and I don't remember hearing as much as a squeak that this was unfair and we need PR to fix it.[/QUOTE]

You may not remember hearing any squeaks, but the Lib Dems were hugely vociferous about the unfairness of Labour's unrepresentative majority.

Liberals have been trying to get PR since the mid-1920's.

Gareth_Lazelle

keet83 wrote: »

not everyone has the chance to vote for every party, where i used to live i had only 2 choices, labour or tories. If you don't have the chance to vote for all of the parties then how would this PR be fair?

If they are to change the voting system then they should come up with a much fairer way than this PR choice that people talk about.

You have a good point,

However consider this:

The current system encourages small parties to focus their candidates in seats that they believe that they can win because votes in their favour in losing constituencies count for nothing (each candidate they put forwards costs them a deposit remember (which may or may not be returned, and even if it is, it will only be returned after the election which is when they really need the funds), plus all of the costs of running a campaign). This actively discourages them from running in safe seats held by other parties, or seats that they do not think that they can win for whatever reason (why bother with the costs if you can never win? Better to focus your funds in other constituencies where you have a real fighting chance).

Most forms of PR however allow the party to benefit from votes even in losing constituencies, which actively encourages them to run in as many seats as possible because every vote cast for them, even in losing constituencies, helps them (and often just putting up a candidate with no campaign backing them will net them some votes if only from the national campaigning),

Now that may or may not help you, but it does mean that the odds are much better that you will have more than two choices where the change made. I guess the choice is: FPTP where you are unlikely to get a better choice than con/lib (and face it, even its supporters would agree that FPTP actively encourages two-party politics), or PR where you just might...