If seats were decided on PPR.

wotsthat

Looking at the alternative results I'd be happy for PR to be introduced in 2020. To be on the safe side maybe start with Scotland and then, after full consideration, introduce to the whole of the UK in around 2050.

It's the problem with arguments about PR - very little debate about democracy and more about delivering someone else's view of fairness (aka getting the result they'd prefer to see).

purch

I would think it is possible that with PR the smaller party's would get a higher proportion of votes than they get under the current system.

Looking the the vote share in the election probably doesn't give an accurate reflection of how the share would have been under a different system.

If we knew what the results would have been under a different system it could change peoples opinions. Even the two largest party's could easily have secured a higher percentage of votes cast if everybody thought their vote would count.

In fact, even under FPTP it would be interesting to see how some perceived "safe" seats would have turned out if all those voters who maybe decided not to vote as they supported the other party, actually did.

antrobus

purch wrote: »

I would think it is possible that with PR the smaller party's would get a higher proportion of votes than they get under the current system.

Looking the the vote share in the election probably doesn't give an accurate reflection of how the share would have been under a different system.

If we knew what the results would have been under a different system it could change peoples opinions. Even the two largest party's could easily have secured a higher percentage of votes cast if everybody thought their vote would count.

In fact, even under FPTP it would be interesting to see how some perceived "safe" seats would have turned out if all those voters who maybe decided not to vote as they supported the other party, actually did.

I believe that those are all fair points. If you change the rules of the game, you change the game.

wotsthat wrote: »

Looking at the alternative results I'd be happy for PR to be introduced in 2020. To be on the safe side maybe start with Scotland and then, after full consideration, introduce to the whole of the UK in around 2050....

Are you trying to start a fight with Sturgeon?:)

wotsthat wrote: »

...It's the problem with arguments about PR - very little debate about democracy and more about delivering someone else's view of fairness (aka getting the result they'd prefer to see).

In reality, what we have had in the UK for many years is a three party system, where the big two support FPTP because it's a way of squeezing down the smaller third party, and guaranteeing themselves a crack at power from time to time. For change to happen, what you need is for one of the big two to come to the conclusion that FPTP is no longer going to give them a chance of majority government, and to throw their weight behind PR.

And that has to happen before (a) it is to late for them to do anything about it (see the Liberal Party early 20th C) and (b) before the wheel turns and they win a majority under FPTP (see Blair late 1990s)

Sapphire

Under PR, I think we would end up in an enormous mess. In my view it is preferable to have a single party leading a country.

antrobus

Sapphire wrote: »

Under PR, I think we would end up in an enormous mess. In my view it is preferable to have a single party leading a country.

I'm not convinced that Norway, Sweden, Germany etc and so forth have ended up with an "enormous mess" as a result of PR. And I'm certainly not convinced that having FPTP and a "single party leading a country" eliminates the chances of ending up with an "enormous mess". (See Labour 1997-2010.:))

Sapphire

antrobus wrote: »

I'm not convinced that Norway, Sweden, Germany etc and so forth have ended up with an "enormous mess" as a result of PR. And I'm certainly not convinced that having FPTP and a "single party leading a country" eliminates the chances of ending up with an "enormous mess". (See Labour 1997-2010.:))

I think that, in this country, if you got a combination of Conservative, UKIP, Labour and SNP (for example) you would end up in an enormous mess. I simply cannot imagine those parties working together.

paddyrg

They wouldn't have to work together on every issue as one voice - they would horse-trade, and as such we'd get a fairly stable and moderate government.

I'm personally fine with FPTP, it's just as imperfect as every other voting system, they are all flawed one way or another.

princeofpounds

One major issue with PR is that all candidates become heavily incentivised to work their way up the greasy pole of the candidate list, and zero responsibility towards any local constituency. Nothing will matter more than party HQ. If you think the Westminster village is insular now, you ain't seen nothing yet.

antrobus

Sapphire wrote: »

I think that, in this country, if you got a combination of Conservative, UKIP, Labour and SNP (for example) you would end up in an enormous mess. I simply cannot imagine those parties working together.

Maybe that's because FPTP has moulded the kind of parties that we have?

antrobus

princeofpounds wrote: »

One major issue with PR is that all candidates become heavily incentivised to work their way up the greasy pole of the candidate list, and zero responsibility towards any local constituency. Nothing will matter more than party HQ. If you think the Westminster village is insular now, you ain't seen nothing yet.

That's an issue with party list based PR systems. Which is why I don't really like them; they hand power to the party machine.

Which is why I prefer multi-member constituencies with STV. All candidates retain a 100% responsibility towards their local constituency.