Proportional Representation

The Birdman said:

What system did Italy have in the past didn't they have many elections due to coalitions collapsing.
Also I think someone mentioned the number of MPs in the UK isn't this being looked at.the recommendations was to reduce the number.

Click to expand...

Labour refused to support it, because in the past they have benefited from the current situation - it appears that may have changed with this election, so maybe, just maybe, it might happen. That said, BrExit rather than domestic politics is going to be the priority, so this still may not happen.

I would seek to diminish or remove the power of parties. They are fundamentally undemocratic. That's why we want to kill those spouting a party line while obviously not beleiving it (the majority of politicians). That's why we like someone who speaks from the heart as though they mean it (for me Corbyn, Lucas) or someone who sounds different (I'll offer Boris!).

We all live in coalitions in the rest of our lives (family, friends, work) and that's how politics should be. State funding, no external funding (unions, big business), STV to give everyone's vote equal status (https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/...sferable-vote/), debate not rhetoric (Brexit means Brexit what cobblers). Rise like lions after slumber ...

Bladders said:

Really . Do tell . Because I was under the impression that seats are assigned as to % of votes cast per party

Click to expand...

Plooks said:

Yes...and I am saying you can have PR AND local representation. There are many different ways to do more PR based systems, not just fully blown PR. Although that would still be the best and fairest form of democracy.

Click to expand...

The Australian Senate is an example of what you're talking about, [MENTION=15363]Plooks[/MENTION]. The country is divided into 8 regions (the 6 states, and 2 major territories). Within each region, single transferable vote (w/ optional preferential voting) PR is used to elect a number of representatives for that region. Each state has 12 reps, and the territories 2 each.

Voters can either vote for the parties as a block, or for individual reps (not both, though). If a vote is cast for the party, then it is assigned to candidates in the priority order set by the party (their candidate 1 gets all the party votes until they have enough to be given a seat, then candidate 2 etc). Votes cast for individual candidates go direct to that candidate. At the last Aussie election this happened in Tasmania, where Labor won 5 seats but candidate #5 on the parties priority list didn't get elected because candidate #6 received a high proportion of votes for them individually.

It is actually therefore possible for a candidate with a strong local support base within a region to get elected even if they are not particularly liked by the rest of the region.

The one thing I would say about the Aussie system, though, is that it tends to produce very predictable results. In the two territories you get 1 each from the two main parties at every election, without fail. So we start from a 2-2 seat count. Then in most of the states you get either 4 or 5 each from the two main parties (last time out the 5's went to the Coalition, and 4's went to Labor - except in Tasmania, where it went the other way). You get 1 or 2 Greens. And you get 1 or 2 from a minor party. Exception to that rule being at the last Aussie GE, South Australia turned into a 3 way fight between the two majors and the NXT party (4 for Coalition, 3 for Labor, 3 for NXT, 1 Green, and 1 minor party). NXT won those 3 seats almost purely on the popularity within that state of their leader - Nick Xenophon gets enough personal votes that he could claim multiple seats in his own right.

When you look at the national vote share, and ignore the regional breakdown, what you can see is that by having the regions you actually end up with more seats going to the two major parties, as well as the Greens, than they are due under a pure PR system. Also, because Tasmania has a much smaller population but still elects 6 reps you get the oddity of Jackie Lambie getting elected on the back of just 69074 votes when a national PR would have required more than twice that much (182091); there were 8 minor parties that got more votes than Lambie but didn't get seats, because their votes were in the wrong region or spread across multiple regions.

Or even more stark, one of the two Northern Territory candidates received just 37,156 votes (note: this is reported as votes for the party, not the candidate). By contrast, the Australian Capital Territory candidate who won a seat on the least votes needed 84,615, and the Greens (who didn't get a seat) managed 41,006, more than either candidate from the NT.

(note: the last Aussie Senate election was unusual in that it was for the whole senate. They normally only hold half-senate elections every 3 years, with any elected candidate then remaining in their seat for 6 years. So under normal circumstances you only elect 6 candidates per state (the Territories 2 candidates have to re-stand every 3 years), but the math above still works if you divide by 2. One thing that does stand out when half-elections are run, is that NXT's success swings wildly between elections - whenever Nick Xenophon is on the ballot paper, they get a much higher number of votes than when he isn't. As he won't be on the next ballot, it's probable that NXT will lose at least 1, possibly 2, of their seats at the next election.)

Buzzer said:

Surely having PR will make it more likely in future that the largest party will have to do deals with much smaller and/or batshit crazy parties?

Click to expand...

Or as Iain Duncan Smith said at the weekend "we've got used to crashing things through with a majority, now we have to make sure we have strong policy". I know which i'd rather...........

Brovion said:

We DID have a referendum, as I mentioned in my post #75.

In all the bleating about how 'unfair' FPTP is it's been forgotten that in 2011 we had a chance to change the voting system - and decided not to.

Click to expand...

...... with a loaded question from the PM and the ruling party being fiercely antI.

I'm all for PR. A sensible system would force different parties to talk to each other and come to something workable. Germany seems to do OK with it - strong and stable!

DavidinSouthampton said:

...... with a loaded question from the PM and the ruling party being fiercely antI.

I'm all for PR. A sensible system would force different parties to talk to each other and come to something workable. Germany seems to do OK with it - strong and stable!

Click to expand...

Yes. And Labour weren't massively in favour either. And people also voted against it simply because it was Nick Clegg's idea and he was now hated because of his volte-face over tuition fees.

All that is irrelevant. As a nation we had a chance to change our voting system - and we decided not to. All the "Ah but, yeah but, well but" bollox on this thread doesn't alter that fact.

1. Lib Dem supporters have been championing the idea of PR for the last 40 years.
2. As a resident of Arundel and South Downs under FPTP I have been disenfranchised for 30 years.
3. Is it any wonder 13 million didn't even vote in the EU Referendum when most peoples votes don't make any difference and the swing of only 20% of seats decides elections?
4. FPTP encourages short-termism and projects of more than 5 years turn into political footballs (see HS2, Hinckley Power Station, A27 upgrades, grammar schools, NHS, Northern Powerhouse etc).

Pavilionaire said:

3. Is it any wonder 13 million didn't even vote in the EU Referendum when most peoples votes don't make any difference and the swing of only 20% of seats decides elections?

Click to expand...

not really, because in the referendum ever vote counted. the fact there were so many not interested to vote, shows what we might expect from turn out if we had another voting system.

and the short termism comes from our adversarial approach to politics. team A will venture a policy and team b will shout it down without looking at the merits and areas for compromise. anything politically courageous is swerved, until it looks like an imminent issue. it filters down to local level, where every change or development is contested and inquired for a decade. i dont see changing the voting mechanism will alter that much, instead it will lead to watered down proposals to get sides to agree. NHS and pensions are the obvious ones, if there was appetite for compromise they could do so within the current system. for example, Frank Fields couldn't even get his own party to consider pension reforms they asked him to come up with.

whitelion said:

How would it work with regard to the smaller parties ie Greens UKIP etc - maybe 10 to 15 seats under PR - where would the MP be represented as only one seat won under 1st past the post in 2917.

You will have an MP whom the electorate haven't voted for.

Click to expand...

UKIP would have got about 80 seats at the 2015 election.

Single Transferable Vote is the best of both worlds - local MP, still a reasonable size & fairly elected.

Single Transferable Vote
With the Single Transferable Vote, you get a Parliament where the strength of the parties matches the strength of their support in the country, and MPs have a strong local link.

The Single Transferable Vote (STV) is a form of proportional representation developed in Britain and used in the English speaking world. It is currently used for most elections in Northern Ireland, and Scottish local elections. Elsewhere in the world it used for elections in Malta, the Republic of Ireland and for the Australian Senate.

How to vote
Rather than elect one person to represent everyone in an relatively small area, with the Single Transferable Vote, bigger areas elect a small team of MPs that reflect the diversity of opinions of the voters. Parties will often stand more than one candidate in each area.

In the polling station, voters put numbers next to candidates, with their favourite candidate as number one, their second favourite as number two, and so on. Voters can put numbers next to as many or as few candidates as they like.

"Voters don't have to worry about 'vote splitting' or tactical voting with STV – just put the candidates in order"
Electoral Reform Society
How it’s counted
To get elected, candidates need to reach a set share of the vote, known as the quota, determined by the number of positions to be filled.

Each voter gets just one vote, but the numbering provides instructions for the counters to allow the vote to transfer. Once all the votes are counted, any candidates who have more than the quota are elected. In order to properly represent the area, rather than waste votes over the quota, these votes are re-distributed based on the voter’s instructions. If no candidate gets elected then the worst performing candidate is eliminated and their votes redistributed. This process continues until all seats are filled.

"Transferring the surplus votes means candidates aren't punished for having popular running mates"
Electoral Reform Society
Effects and Features
The Single Transferable Vote is an electoral system that put the power in the hands of the public.

Unlike party-list PR, voters can support independents without worrying about wasting their vote. Due to this, independent candidates are strong in Ireland and in some Scottish councils.

Voters can also choose between representatives of the same party, whilst still allowing voters to transfer their vote between the candidates of the same party.

As a purely candidate centred system, voters can also cast preferences across candidates of different parties. Truly voting for the candidate and their individual abilities.

A constituency in the Single Transferable Vote might cover a small city or a county, say, creating a recognisable local link, but giving voters a choice of representatives to talk to.

Through this system, the Single Transferable Vote produces proportional results in parliament while also giving voters a high amount of power over candidates and a strong local link. Evidence from Scotland and Ireland suggests voters are capable of using it in quite sophisticated ways.


https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/single-transferable-vote/

Brovion said:

Yes. And Labour weren't massively in favour either. And people also voted against it simply because it was Nick Clegg's idea and he was now hated because of his volte-face over tuition fees.

All that is irrelevant. As a nation we had a chance to change our voting system - and we decided not to. All the "Ah but, yeah but, well but" bollox on this thread doesn't alter that fact.

Click to expand...

O know it doesn't alter that fact.

But despite what the mainstream political parties might say, all I am saying is that, looking at it objectively, I fully support PR and have done for 40 years plus.

And no, I am not a Lib-Demmer.

Brighton4Cambridge3 said:

UKIP would have got about 80 seats at the 2015 election.

Click to expand...

people keep mentioning this however if thats what 12% of people want as a government surely thats fair. It might sound horrific to some but thats all part of democracy. We're a multi-cultural society and you can't just disregard 12% opinions just because you don't agree with them. In fact if people felt more enfranchised then they may vote differently as a chunk of those UKIP votes will be a protest vote

JCL - the new kid in town said:

people keep mentioning this however if thats what 12% of people want as a government surely thats fair. It might sound horrific to some but thats all part of democracy. We're a multi-cultural society and you can't just disregard 12% opinions just because you don't agree with them. In fact if people felt more enfranchised then they may vote differently as a chunk of those UKIP votes will be a protest vote

Click to expand...

I'm not saying it was a bad thing - I'm such saying it