Proportional Representation

warmleyseagull · Jun 13, 2017

Mo Gosfield said:
On a pure PR system it would have resulted in...........
Con.............276
Lab..............260
LD.................48
SNP..............20
UKIP.............12
Grn................10
PC...................3
DUP................6
Sinn F..............5
Others............10

Clearly the Liberals would be far more influential and thats why PR was part of their manifesto for years.

This sort of says it all. Farron made it clear no deal with Conservatives or Labour so neither major party would have been able to form a majority coalition government. In other words, LD with a small percentage of vote decides the result. Not sure that is any more satisfactory than what we have.

The basic issue is that we don't have a tradition of coalition in this country. As has been pointed out, Nick Clegg was vilified and paid a large price for doing what was right at the time. Had a few more voters in key Conservative seats two years ago appreciated that, we would have had a continuance of what was actually a pretty good government: generally sensible economic policy mixed with LDs mitigating Conservative silliness. And no referendum....

Now LDs are petrified of coalition because of what happened last time. So even if we did have PR not sure how it would work in practice. There has to be a consensual electorate such as Germany's for PR to work long-term. It works in Austria, Netherlands, Scandinavia but most of those countries have shown signs of the consensus creaking recently.

Machiavelli · Jun 13, 2017

Gritt23 said:
I used to be in favour of PR, but the reality of always having a coalition has turned me off it. We've had 2 in the last 3 General Elections, and the chaos that it creates doesn't look like something I would want to change the electoral process to virtually guarantee we end up with each and every time.

Well, I'm in favour of PR, although there are other ways in which our democracy could be improved. What PR does do is to encourage parties to adopt a more consensual approach, which wouldn't be a bad thing.
RE 2 of the last 3 elections, this just goes to prove that even our FPTP system isn't returning whopping big majorities any more; if this is the case, then why not have a more honest system, rather than one that no longer realises one of its supposed clear benefits. Also, I disagree about coalitions and chaos. I'm no fan of Clegg, but that coalition functioned pretty well, despite me disagreeing with most of the policies. Conversely, the two governments we've had subsequently -- which were single-party governments, but a party split on the most important constitutional issue in front of itself -- haven't exactly turned out too well.

5ways · Jun 13, 2017

Not in favour. The election before last under PR could well have been a Tory / UKIP govt. DPM Farage? No thanks.

Herr Tubthumper · Jun 13, 2017

Mo Gosfield said:
On a pure PR system it would have resulted in...........
Con.............276
Lab..............260
LD.................48
SNP..............20
UKIP.............12
Grn................10
PC...................3
DUP................6
Sinn F..............5
Others............10

Clearly the Liberals would be far more influential and thats why PR was part of their manifesto for years.

But this assumes everyone would have voted exactly the same under PR as they did in the FPTP. This will not be the case.

WonderingSoton · Jun 13, 2017

Seems illogical to me to use a chaotic aftermath of a FPTP election as a reason to further propose PR, because PR elections will almost always produce a similar hung result requiring collation and negotiation. If you don't like this, you won't want PR.

5ways said:
Not in favour. The election before last under PR could well have been a Tory / UKIP govt. DPM Farage? No thanks.

Always makes me smile to see the horror on the faces of many who suggest PR, because they seem to assume it'll result in some progressive utopia.

peterward · Jun 13, 2017

goldstone said:
I have never been in favour, but after the fiasco that was the recent election maybe now is the time? Any thoughts?

It is undoubtedly the fairest electoral system, and I am totally in support of it, but it will NEVER happen. Both Labour and the Conservatives will never vote for it as it is they and they only that will either be the Government or the official opposition. To allow it would be to erode their votes to the benefit of others and would lead to more coalitions. As long as the decision to change is a parliamentary one, FPTP will stay as it favours the 2 largest parties.

WATFORD zero · Jun 13, 2017

If the country is a coalition of views, then parliament and the government should reflect that. There is a very strong case saying that the labour and conservative parties themselves are large coalitions and that the in fighting within those organisations never benefits the country. Look at the Brexit/Remain hard/soft/somewhat firm splits in those parties.

It's pointless showing what the last elections would have been under PR because that wasn't what people were asked to vote for.

Maybe more parties representing more segmented views of the electorate and working in coalition is the way to go. It will certainly give more continuity and accountability as each party could not then blame their predecessors as a result of a 2% swing in votes.

Somewhere along the line it's been lost that these people should be working for the good of the country, not their political careers within their political party.

whitelion · Jun 13, 2017

Notters said:
I would simply split the country into larger areas (probably counties). Sussex has 16 MPs and you would end up with something like 5 con, 4 labour, 3 lib dem, 2 green, 2 UKIP, representing Sussex. Pretty much how it works on a District level. You would get more independents too.

This would radically change the nature of representation from the current system of an MP being a local 'go to' for dealing with local issues etc.

Not saying PR wouldn't work but it would alter the nature of having an MP representing the electorate.

WATFORD zero · Jun 13, 2017

.....

Arthur · Jun 13, 2017

beorhthelm said:
you understand that Wealden would still return a Conservative MP under nearly any form of PR? only if you want regional/national party lists and a complete overhaul of elections in this country will most see any change. its not as simple as altering how you count the votes.

Absolutely. The article I read the other day suggested Wealden would return a pretty much identical result under PR as it did with FPTP. Which shows the whole thing needs a complete shake up.

Just look at the UKIP example. Clearly a protest vote last time out as shown by their performance this time round but the majority of the 3.9m people that voted for them last time out wasted their vote for the good it did. Likewise the Greens did very well last time out but what good did it do for them?

I personally think we should follow the French model and have a two round voting system. We're a two party country. Let them scrap it out and whoever gets the most votes runs the country.

Triggaaar · Jun 13, 2017

clapham_gull said:
The argument that changing the electoral system leads to unstable coalitions is flawed since we've had two in recent history under first past the post.

The first time it happened was so bad for the Lib Dems, they won't do it again. And this time round we haven't even had a queen's speech yet, so it's a bit early to be saying this is a stable coalition.

Triggaaar · Jun 13, 2017

Arthur said:
Just look at the UKIP example. Clearly a protest vote last time out as shown by their performance this time round but the majority of the 3.9m people that voted for them last time out wasted their vote for the good it did. Likewise the Greens did very well last time out but what good did it do for them?

It wasn't a protest vote, it was a vote for UK independence. And how was it wasted, we got independence?

peterward · Jun 13, 2017

whitelion said:
This would radically change the nature of representation from the current system of an MP being a local 'go to' for dealing with local issues etc.

Not saying PR wouldn't work but it would alter the nature of having an MP representing the electorate.

It would mean every single vote counts, if you support UKIP in Brighton Pavilion your vote is wasted, if you support Labour in many shires your vote means nothing, conversely if youre Tory in East London. PR would ensure every vote counts, but it would not benefit the 2 main parties and would end them likely having majority government, so it will never happen. It is a less than democratic system, but neither Labour or tory would vote to change it to benefit smaller parties at their expense.

Arthur · Jun 13, 2017

Triggaaar said:
It wasn't a protest vote, it was a vote for UK independence. And how was it wasted, we got independence?

Because they only won one seat so had very little say in how the country was run despite the fact nearly 4m people voted for them.

maltaseagull · Jun 13, 2017

Goldstone1976 said:
I've always supported it on the basis that it seems to me to be a far more democratic process. There was of course a recent referendum on a very watered-down version of PR, which got roundly rejected. Neither of the big two parties will ever support it since it will inevitably mean that it's massively less likely that any party will achieve an overall majority in the Commons ever again. We'd have to learn how to govern with perpetual hung parliaments.

Which is a real win as the extreme measures will be stopped by the majority!

Triggaaar · Jun 13, 2017

Arthur said:
Because they only won one seat so had very little say in how the country was run despite the fact nearly 4m people voted for them.

On the point of FPTP and PR, I understand your point. But they didn't have little say in how the country is run, they've completely changed it.

glasfryn · Jun 13, 2017

beorhthelm said:
Neil Hamilton is currently sitting in the Welsh Assembly, as a consequence of PR.

under PR the current "fiasco" of no overall majority and government formed from coalitions would become the norm. some may say thats a good thing and it has merits, but its certainly not the solution if you dont want this sort of political wrangling.

IF IT MEANS OTHER MP'S SUCH AS HAMILTON(another tory mp who has managed to reinvent himself after being caught with his hands in the till) or any MP in fact then NO

Audax · Jun 13, 2017

Wealden is a special case: It's heavy conservative leaning, to the point that I actually heard someone on the weekend accusing Laura Kuenssberg from the BBC of being a leftie who helped Labour win extra votes. (I was flabbergasted ... until Theresa May's campaign started falling apart, LK was blatantly in favour of a Tory government and anti-Corbyn).

I suspect you'd get a Tory MP in Wealden no matter what system you used, so it's a pretty pointless case study.

FPTP is blatantly broken when you can get a candidate winning by 20 votes with both major party candidates only receiving 42.2% of the total votes cast on a 63.8% turn out. (Kensington, BTW)

As far as voting systems are concerned, I'm a big advocate of systems that allow for preferential voting and, as much as I'm probably in a minority, I also firmly believe in compulsory turn out. Note that compulsory turn out is not the same as compulsory voting. It's often said that Australia has compulsory voting, but that's actually wrong; it is only compulsory to show up and get your name crossed off. From that point onward what you do is entirely your own choice. You can put a blank voting slip in the box. You can "spoil" your vote by writing "none of the above" on the slip. You can draw smiley faces all over it. The last Aussie election had a turn out of just over 90%, with a further 5% "spoiled" votes. So 85% of the electorate cast valid votes.

Anyway ... preferential voting, and going back to the Kensington result. When you look at the candidates that finished third and below, you can actually deduce that there's the potential (on a two-party-preferred basis) that if those candidates hadn't stood, that Labour would have won it in a landslide instead of by a very narrow 20 votes. While it's not a given that the LD voters would all have supported the Labour candidate, from what I've heard about the dynamics of that seat it's likely a significant majority would have. There's a pretty natural flow of votes from Green to Labour as well.

Tricky Dicky · Jun 13, 2017

My first problem with this system is that in order to vote for a tory government (yes, I'm admitting it, reluctantly), I had to vote for my tory MP - with whom I seem to agree on nothing. I wanted a way of voting for a decently ran economy without voting for him, but it doesn't work like that.

heathgate · Jun 13, 2017

Herr Tubthumper said:
But this assumes everyone would have voted exactly the same under PR as they did in the FPTP. This will not be the case.

One example anomaly apparent in the 2015 election... UKIP got 3.5 times as many votes as SNP.... result... UKIP 1 MP.... SNP 56 MP.....

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Proportional Representation

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

cleaning up cat sick

Boing boing boing...

New member

Well-known member

Share this page