'Should we switch to proportional representation?' poll discussion

kilapot

People always look at poorly run countries when slagging off PR, doesn't Germany the powerhouse of Europe have PR?

Anyhow looks like we could be getting AV for parliament and PR for the 'Lords', which may well be the best of both worlds as long as the Lords doesn't become too powerful.

kilapot

art600 wrote: »

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.

It is worth pointing out as unfair as the West Lothian question is any changes to the HP need to be carefully considered. Prior to the SP Scotland kept on voting Labour and got dumped on with Tory policies.... which might go some way to explain their incredible lack of popularity in Scotland.

I for one as Scot down south still get cheesed off with the absolute mess the last Tory Government made of Scotland...... maybe because there were few votes to lose.... oh and I'm sure their are very good reasons for the disproportionate amount of nuclear power stations and the nuclear naval base etc etc etc hey why not turn the whole of Scotland into a nuclear waste dump?

kryssykk

Surely the fairest way to run elections in this country is first to make voting compulsory. Then run the election as we do now but instead of the uncertainty of the last 5 days which would happen at every election under PR. We then take the two party's with the most votes and then vote again on those two only.
After the postal voting fiasco this time, postal votes should be stopped except for very closely monitored exceptions like incapacity Serving soldiers abroad etc.

Dave_Gould

alduncan wrote: »

Surely AV is the way forward to a system which is fairer but less likely to result in a hung parliament?

AV is marginally fairer in the sense that the LibDems, who have been sidelined for 80 years, would have eventually got a chance.
Arguably we have true 3 party politics now but how long that will last, who knows.

In the short-term, it's likely to pander to anti-Tory prejudice, though the coalition may have an effect on that.

It's actually possible to modify any electoral system to ensure a majority as I proved with Ideal Majority STV. I even guarantee a majority which approximately matches the winning party's mandate.

It also would never produce an overpowerful and potentially dangerous government, which AV pretty much guarantees 90% of the time FPTP does.

I'm still linked from the bottom of the "Information and summaries" list on the "Single transferable vote" page on Wikipedia if you want to critique it.

Re: the West Lothian question, that's also on the list of things to be addressed by the coalition.

@kilapot Germany does indeed have a form of PR although their prosperity is largely down to widespread conservative beliefs about the economy and hard work. On the other hand, the Euro is on the verge of sending Europe into a depression and they're going to be losing a lot of their skilled industry to China so it might be better to judge in 10 years time.

jojose

tp306 wrote: »

PR removes the link between the MP and the constituency. Who will represent your local needs when you are voting for a party?
Issues where I live include the proposed overnight closure of the local fire station. In the campaign 2 of the main candidates stood against this whilst 1 (who lost heavily) was in favour. This link would disappear with PR.
Furthermore the chance of an independent candidate winning vanishes. Somebody standing on a single issue (hospital closure for example) could not win a seat. I'm not sure of the figures but I doubt Caroline Lucas for the Greens would have got in either.
Simply put, PR removes your local voice in Parliament.
I'm not saying First Past the Post is the answer but we all need to think very carefully about what we want our MP's and democracy to stand for before we rush PR in.

Every single fact mentioned in this post is wrong.

sailorjohn

NO, definitely NO. You are intended to elect democratically a candidate to represent you - not a party, proportional allocation of seats endorses the election of a party which may then nominate their extra MPs. Does this mean additional MPs being appointed or does it mean that winning candidates are disenfranchised to make way for the appointed ones? Party politics have already corrupted the democratic process to the extent that party backing aids the election of the candidate, but in return he is called on to vote according to party wishes, this then makes Parliament superfluous, because any majority party can enforce it's block vote to carry any motion even when that motion is contrary to manifesto pledges. If you want a fairer change to the voting system perhaps we should have two votes, a positive and negative one, the former for the preferred candidate and the latter against the one you definitely do not want, negative votes being deducted from the count of positives.

fatal1955

I reckon we should have a parliament (or at least one house of it) whose membership accurately reflects the diverse (divided?) nature of the country. I'd like to see the house of peers replaced by a (senate-like) body elected for a single constituency consisting of the entire UK, using the list system: each party or special-interest group puts forward a list of candidates and the number of seats each party/group gets is in direct proportion to the fraction of the overall vote it got, discounting fractions of a seat, provided there are enough names on the list to fill the seats won, otherwise they are lost. Since some people might wish to support more than one group, I would also use the single divisible vote method where I can tick against as many parties/groups as I wished and each would get a fraction of my vote. The counting and calculating would take time but the election could be held say a month before the new membership needed to be announced. Of course, you would probably need to separate the executive from the legislature for this to work...

Dave_Gould

kryssykk wrote: »

Surely the fairest way to run elections in this country is first to make voting compulsory. Then run the election as we do now but instead of the uncertainty of the last 5 days which would happen at every election under PR. We then take the two party's with the most votes and then vote again on those two only.
After the postal voting fiasco this time, postal votes should be stopped except for very closely monitored exceptions like incapacity Serving soldiers abroad etc.

I don't like compulsory voting at all. As Churchill said: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

I think compulsory voting would increase the proportion of 'average voters'.

Not to mention it's unpoliceable, except via a national database of the electorate which would be hijacked to keep track of our bank & medical records, phone calls, emails, car journeys... much as the ID cards database was designed to.

Thankfully, it has little to do with your other points.

2 round voting has a lot to be said for it. However 2 rounds of FPTP would be pointless - it'd still be a 2 horse race every time.

@fatal1955 I addressed your points about the House of Lords 6 posts before yours.

billshep

Can I come back and answer this in 6 months or so when we see if the coalition is going to work! (As PR would most likely result in coalition govts)

Gareth_Lazelle

sailorjohn wrote: »

NO, definitely NO. You are intended to elect democratically a candidate to represent you - not a party,

If the parties didn't exist, and all MPs where independent, then you might have a point.

As it is, many MPs only exist to support their parties (they vote for their parties policies regardless of local interests), and to ignore that fact is to have a completely unrealistic view of politics (sadly we will always have tribes). The restrictions upon who we can vote for in each constituency then lock us into unpalatable choices (why would a major party knowingly field a candidate unlikely to vote for their policies?)

From a purely pragmatic standpoint you have to accept that the views of the party your MP is in will probably have more bearing on your life than the views of your MP (and even if you don't, you must surely accept that it is the view of the majority of the electorate).

And as an aside, the vote for your MP is still going to be skewed by tactical voting.

sailorjohn wrote: »

this then makes Parliament superfluous, because any majority party can enforce it's block vote to carry any motion even when that motion is contrary to manifesto pledges.

Maybe then we need to move away from majority politics?

sailorjohn wrote: »

If you want a fairer change to the voting system perhaps we should have two votes, a positive and negative one, the former for the preferred candidate and the latter against the one you definitely do not want, negative votes being deducted from the count of positives.

How is that substantially different to the AV system (I know that it is slightly different in the details, but hopefully you get the point)? You are essentially ranking your MPs according to how much you would like to see each in power?