'Should we switch to proportional representation?' poll discussion

Gundog

Are all money savers Lib Dem's do 65% of you really want your pound notes to be worth lees than a euro or worse still lees than a $ is cheap food affecting brain function.

art600

I think the current system with an MP linked directly to a constituency is the best. However, I do believe there is a need to amend the FPTP voting system - The transferable vote seems to be a possibility where an MP would need to get 50% to win the seat.

Clearly there also needs to be a review of boundaries to establish seats with equal electorates.

The total number of constituencies needs to be reduced.

The West Lothian question must be addressed - it is totally ridiculous that Scottish MPs (as an example) can vote on matters that only affect England, whilst English MPs have no say (nor should they) on matters in the Scottish Parliament.

Scottish MPs (and Welsh, N. Irish) should only vote on matters of Defence and General Taxation.

I do not see the need to establish an English Parliament, in line with the devolved assemblies - costly and unnecessary. For English only matters, only English MPs should be allowed a vote.

alex871uk

PR is a step in the right direction, but just like FPTP, marginal voters (albeit in parliament rather than constituencies) will decide the outcome. It's much easier to bribe floating politicians than floating voters so the outcomes could be less democratic.

There will still be too much business interference (donations) in politics and most MP's are from wealthy, unrepresentative backgrounds. It's a shame that in this era our voice has to be filtered through any party at all, we could vote on issues directly using technology like this. (Imagine if we had a say in the Iraq war or the bank bailout?)

gvlewis

The key strength of the current 'first past the post' system is that there is a direct link between the electorate and "their MP".

I think that depends on who your MP is and whether they share your views. I would expect that most Labour voters would have a greater affinity with a Labour MP from a neighbouring seat that a Tory one in their own constituency. Similarly I think that most Tory voters would feel no strong connections to their constituency Labour MP.

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. A friend of mine who actually voted for the part-time sitting MP had enough problems getting him to reply to a local issue which she tried to bring to his attention. In the end she arranged an appointment with him to discuss the issues - but he cancelled at the last moment. The problem is that there is little incentive to serve the electorate as the seat had been Tory for the last 100 years.

Personally I believe a mult-seat constituency would be better as I would be able to find an MP who would better serve my interests. There would also be more competition between parties as they tried to maximise their representation in the constituency - meaning better service to the electorate.

joeybishop

What has Proportional Representation got to do with this website?

ScarletBea

Yes.
GB needs to learn that full majorities are the exception in normal governments, rather than the norm, and it's a good thing because that means that there are different policies, different parties, rather than just 2.

tinmine

I agree with Gareth_Lazelle!

All views of the population should be represented in parliament - that is democratic - and it is important that minority groups have a 'voice' - Green, BNP and others - it is possible that they might be able to contribute somehow - their views might be extreme and unpopular, but the fact that people have voted for them means something... eg pressures on local services/housing due to migrant workers...

The far right and left wings are simply worried that they will never be able to form an outright majority government and force things through parliament which more than half the population disagree with...

I think parties should work together for fairness and equality - OK, fewer policies might get voted through, but they are likely to be more acceptable and representative of the views and aspirations of the population at large.

adouglasmhor

pennypinchUK wrote: »

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.

In that case why can you explain exactly why I get people phoning up to speak to councilors (Because "Councillor X is my MP") or writing to their MP, MEP and MSP at council HQ.

Most people know, not all.

Gareth_Lazelle

tinmine wrote: »

All views of the population should be represented in parliament - that is democratic - and it is important that minority groups have a 'voice' - Green, BNP and others - it is possible that they might be able to contribute somehow - their views might be extreme and unpopular, but the fact that people have voted for them mean

Just to follow that thought up,

If nothing else, consider that it gives their supporters some way of constructively presenting their arguments (which may or may not be valid (or which may highlight other issues) even if we don't agree with their conclusions) without them turning to criminal activities to make their points,

Anything that discourages political terrorism and extremism (in a positive way) has to be worth something,

jojose

pennypinchUK wrote: »

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.

FPTP is not the least worst system. It is simply the worst system. It is easy to secure local direct representation whilst using a PR system - that FPTP is the only way of ensuring direct constituency representation is a total myth.