'Should we switch to proportional representation?' poll discussion

mike_paterson

MSE_Lawrence wrote: »

Proportional representation would mean the seats won are in proportion to the vote share – yet the argument against is it would likely lead us to permanent hung parliaments.

There is not just that simple argument against PR - There are many reasons why PRE would be a very bad thing for us.

As a result I think that this vote is extremely biased.

mike_paterson

Dave_Gould wrote: »

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

Well under PR they would get seats, as would the greens, monster raving loony party, and the StarWars Jedi democrats.

mike_paterson

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.
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.

You make some good points here!

mike_paterson

competitionscafe wrote: »

PR Myths: The facts and the fiction on proportional representation:

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/downloads/PRMyths.pdf

There seems to be a fair bit of fiction in that document IMO.

It is entirely (and unsuprisingly) biased!

pennypinchUK

The key strength of the current 'first past the post' system is that there is a direct link between the electorate and "their MP". Everyone knows who their MP is, and the MP is directly accountable to their constituents.

Many forms of 'proportional representation' (and there are many different forms) don't have that direct link. Candidates can be imposed on constituents via party lists, where the political parties undertake horse-trading behind closed doors to select party insiders who have no direct link, and are often not even directly elected (for example, the method used in Germany).

If the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition hold a referendum on PR the British electorate will, for the first time, be exposed to the arguments for and against PR, in it's many forms. Then, I believe people will realise PR is not such a simple proposition as "being fairer".

The Liberal Democrats preferred PR system of the Single Transferable Vote (STV) would mean large regional constituencies, resulting in many MP's being elected in each constituency. So the electorate would lose the direct one-to-one contact with their sole MP. You may or may not consider this an issue, but as an example of the potential pit-falls just ask yourself how you would contact your Member of the European Parliament (MEP), or indeed who that person is? MEP's are elected from large regional constituencies under PR but I'm certain very few people know which constituency they're in or who their MEP is - even more confusing is that people have 7-8 MEP's representing them from each constituency. So which MEP would you go to?

It's true that first-past-the-post is more ideal when there are only 2 candidates, but the British electorate must also weigh the disadvantages associated with PR.

Sometimes, we have to accept that the least-worst system is actually the best.

Cats_Whiskers_3

Proportional representation would be faier and better for the country. Rather than serial dictatorships where they majority party can push through any policy they wish, there would have to be a greater concensus. Yes it would take longer but we would end up with policies that were better for the country and that would not just be changed when the opposing party won the next election

Cleany

teddyco wrote: »

Do we need electoral reform? Maybe and maybe not. However, it's certainly a subject that's going to reshape the face of Britain forever and certainly not something that we want negotiated on the back of a cocktail napkin by greedy politicians who are horse trading for points they can score with their own party!

why were they doing that?

Cleany

a lot of politics is a matter of parties trying to get in power by creating policies which they know will be popular, rather than policies which will actually help the country in the long run, or are derived from some set of values.

the current systems encourages this type of popularist politics because it gives power disproportionally to the most popular party, and most people will vote for what they want for themselves, rather then whats better for the country.

electoral reform will give fairer representation for those who want to vote for what is better in the long term, which will in term be better in the long term for the country.

it will go some way to stop the vacuous and pandering popularist politics which sway the masses who have little time or attention to think properly about what they are voting for.

my personal opinion is that right now the 3 main parties are simply filling in the gaps of what people want using focus groups and marketing. there is little left of principles or ideas derived from values or long term strategy. its simple power grabbing, its tesco politics.

some of the arguments against pr in this thread based accusations of manipulation say reveal a lot about the people making those arguments.

its not about an agenda, its certainly not about left or right wing, its about what's best for the country in the long run.

Dave_Gould

mike_paterson wrote: »

Well under PR they would get seats, as would the greens, monster raving loony party, and the StarWars Jedi democrats.

Not under STV (as has been said 3x already), or some strict PR system which requires a 2-5% minimum.

I expect the Greens' vote would rise above such obstacles.

Ian181676

I'm not sure about the pros and cons of PR, but am definitely in favour of a single transferable vote system.