PR Voting

Publius Ovidius · Jun 1, 2015

Can someone please explain PR

As I see it, the only way PR would work is if you have a pool of MPs for each party and instead of voting for a constituency MP, you would vote for the party you wanted and an MP is allocated to your area?

Or you completely redesign the Boundries of constituencies so you have the same amount of votes per area?

There is a big discussion going on about SNP winning all bar a couple of seats in Scotland with only 50% of the vote and the conservatives getting a majority with only 25% of the votes, so if PR is the answer, how will it work?

yxee · Jun 1, 2015

(side-note: the conservatives got 37% of the vote, not 25%)

I am also interested in how PR would work in practice.

Bob! · Jun 1, 2015

The best way for PR to work, and to retain constituncies would be to have larger constituencies each returning a number of MP's.

You would vote in order of preference, with 1 as your first choice, using as may choices as you wished to.

Perhaps 6 Mp's per constituency, using that Method the Scotish seats would perhaps elect 3 SNP, 1 or 2 Labour, maybe a a LibDem or Tory.

Bob! · Jun 1, 2015

The Electoral Reform Society explains the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system here:

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/single-transferable-vote

Mileoakman · Jun 1, 2015

yxee said:
(side-note: the conservatives got 37% of the vote, not 25%)

I am also interested in how PR would work in practice.

Side note to your side note. The conservatives only got 25% of the electorate because only about 65% voted. Therefore only one in four of the eligible votes went to the blues.

Peteinblack · Jun 1, 2015

Mileoakman said:
Side note to your side note. The conservatives only got 25% of the electorate because only about 65% voted. Therefore only one in four of the eligible votes went to the blues.

Ah, you beat me to it :thumbsup:

Notters · Jun 1, 2015

Bob! said:
The best way for PR to work, and to retain constituncies would be to have larger constituencies each returning a number of MP's.

You would vote in order of preference, with 1 as your first choice, using as may choices as you wished to.

Perhaps 6 Mp's per constituency, using that Method the Scotish seats would perhaps elect 3 SNP, 1 or 2 Labour, maybe a a LibDem or Tory.

Exactly this. Or make East Sussex, say, one constituency. I don't have the figures in front of me but you would get something like 5 conservative, 2 labour and one each of UKIP, green and lib dem which would be far more representative.

Thunder Bolt · Jun 1, 2015

Did you vote for PR in 2011?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13297573

Bob! · Jun 1, 2015

Thunder Bolt said:
Did you vote for PR in 2011?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13297573

AV isn't PR though!

KZNSeagull · Jun 1, 2015

Mileoakman said:
Side note to your side note. The conservatives only got 25% of the electorate because only about 65% voted. Therefore only one in four of the eligible votes went to the blues.

But don't you then have to assume that the 35% who couldn't be bothered to vote are happy with the result?
Under PR, would 35% of the seats be left empty?!

Gwylan · Jun 1, 2015

Notters said:
Exactly this. Or make East Sussex, say, one constituency. I don't have the figures in front of me but you would get something like 5 conservative, 2 labour and one each of UKIP, green and lib dem which would be far more representative.

You could also have a system that the Germans have: a mixture of PR and FPTP. In this version, there's a MP elected per constituency and a wider range of MPs elected by PR. So, let's say there are four constituencies in East Sussex and they would return three Tories and one Labour (at a guess) and a wider PR run constituency of the the order than Notters suggests

EDIT; Just found this about the German system

Kuipers Supporters Club · Jun 1, 2015

Interesting article here:

Basically saying that under any other system (except AV where the Conservtives went up even more) Parliament would have been hung - with a Tory / UKIP Coalition the other viable solution.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32954807

The report, entitled The 2015 General Election: A Voting System in Crisis, found that under a list-based system of proportional representation, similar to the kind used in European elections, the outcome would have been very different.
In this case Conservatives would have won 242 seats (-89), Labour 208 (-24), the SNP 30 (-26), the Lib Dems 47 (+39), Plaid Cymru 5 (+2), UKIP 80 (+79) and the Greens 20 (+19).
However, the analysis also found that under an alternative vote system, where voters' preferences are reallocated until one candidate gets over 50%, the election result would be similar to that of 7 May, with the Conservatives winning 337 seats - an increase of six.
'Breaking up Britain'
In this case Labour would have 227 (-5), the SNP 54 (-2), the Lib Dems 9 (+1), Plaid Cymru 3 (no change), UKIP 1 (no change) and the Greens 1 (no change).
And the research showed that under a single transferable vote (STV) system, similar to the kind currently used in Scottish local elections, the Conservatives would have won 276 seats (-55), Labour 236 (+4), the SNP 34 (-22), the Lib Dems 26 (+18), Plaid Cymru 3 (nc), UKIP 54 (+53) and the Greens 3 (+2).

Herr Tubthumper · Jun 1, 2015

Brighton4Cambridge3 said:
Interesting article here:

Basically saying that under any other system (except AV where the Conservtives went up even more) Parliament would have been hung - with a Tory / UKIP Coalition the other viable solution.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32954807

The report, entitled The 2015 General Election: A Voting System in Crisis, found that under a list-based system of proportional representation, similar to the kind used in European elections, the outcome would have been very different.
In this case Conservatives would have won 242 seats (-89), Labour 208 (-24), the SNP 30 (-26), the Lib Dems 47 (+39), Plaid Cymru 5 (+2), UKIP 80 (+79) and the Greens 20 (+19).
However, the analysis also found that under an alternative vote system, where voters' preferences are reallocated until one candidate gets over 50%, the election result would be similar to that of 7 May, with the Conservatives winning 337 seats - an increase of six.
'Breaking up Britain'
In this case Labour would have 227 (-5), the SNP 54 (-2), the Lib Dems 9 (+1), Plaid Cymru 3 (no change), UKIP 1 (no change) and the Greens 1 (no change).
And the research showed that under a single transferable vote (STV) system, similar to the kind currently used in Scottish local elections, the Conservatives would have won 276 seats (-55), Labour 236 (+4), the SNP 34 (-22), the Lib Dems 26 (+18), Plaid Cymru 3 (nc), UKIP 54 (+53) and the Greens 3 (+2).

Interesting. I still think it's a fairer system and also one that seems to engender new parties to form which I think is a good thing.

brightn'ove · Jun 1, 2015

Herr Tubthumper said:
Interesting. I still think it's a fairer system and also one that seems to engender new parties to form which I think is a good thing.

It is certainly fairer - but the idea of UKIP getting 80 seats makes my blood run cold...

Notters · Jun 1, 2015

Brighton4Cambridge3 said:
Interesting article here:

Basically saying that under any other system (except AV where the Conservtives went up even more) Parliament would have been hung - with a Tory / UKIP Coalition the other viable solution.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32954807

The report, entitled The 2015 General Election: A Voting System in Crisis, found that under a list-based system of proportional representation, similar to the kind used in European elections, the outcome would have been very different.
In this case Conservatives would have won 242 seats (-89), Labour 208 (-24), the SNP 30 (-26), the Lib Dems 47 (+39), Plaid Cymru 5 (+2), UKIP 80 (+79) and the Greens 20 (+19).
However, the analysis also found that under an alternative vote system, where voters' preferences are reallocated until one candidate gets over 50%, the election result would be similar to that of 7 May, with the Conservatives winning 337 seats - an increase of six.
'Breaking up Britain'
In this case Labour would have 227 (-5), the SNP 54 (-2), the Lib Dems 9 (+1), Plaid Cymru 3 (no change), UKIP 1 (no change) and the Greens 1 (no change).
And the research showed that under a single transferable vote (STV) system, similar to the kind currently used in Scottish local elections, the Conservatives would have won 276 seats (-55), Labour 236 (+4), the SNP 34 (-22), the Lib Dems 26 (+18), Plaid Cymru 3 (nc), UKIP 54 (+53) and the Greens 3 (+2).

I think looking at what would have happened under a different system a bit misleading, for two key reasons:

- A lot of people DO vote tactically due to FPTP. How many exactly? Who knows, but there's no doubt this happens. With PR there would be more votes for smaller parties.
- I personally know a number of people who don't vote at all because they're in safe seats where their vote doesn't count. Again, with PR, they'd go out and vote for smaller parties.

As such, I think parties such as the greens in particular would get even more votes and therefore representation if PR were introduced. This hardly gets a mention in these articles, which is frustrating.

Herr Tubthumper · Jun 1, 2015

brightn'ove said:
It is certainly fairer - but the idea of UKIP getting 80 seats makes my blood run cold...

Totally agree. But if x percent vote for them then they deserve their seats. And if x percent vote for them it's up to the rest of use to do something about it.

Notters · Jun 1, 2015

edit double post.

Titanic · Jun 1, 2015

Notters said:
- I personally know a number of people who don't vote at all because they're in safe seats where their vote doesn't count. Again, with PR, they'd go out and vote for smaller parties.

Or don't bother voting because their chosen candidate is bound to win anyway... so maybe they would now go out and vote for one of the bigger parties??

Notters · Jun 1, 2015

Titanic said:
Or don't bother voting because their chosen candidate is bound to win anyway... so maybe they would now go out and vote for one of the bigger parties??

True, I hadn't thought of that. Whichever way you look at it though, it's not a good thing.

Herr Tubthumper · Jun 1, 2015

Titanic said:
Or don't bother voting because their chosen candidate is bound to win anyway... so maybe they would now go out and vote for one of the bigger parties??

True. In theory PR will get more people out to the polling station which is only a good thing.

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

PR Voting

Well-known member

Well-known member

Coffee Buyer

Coffee Buyer

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Silly old bat

Coffee Buyer

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

cringe

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Super Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Share this page