PR Voting

[seagulls4ever]

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.

Did you read the article?

In a survey commissioned by the society and carried out by pollsters YouGov, over 40,000 people were asked how they would have voted in the general election had they been required to rank the parties in order of preference.

 

[Titanic]

As long as we don't have a list system which rewards party toadies and lickspittles with safe seats at the top of the list... then I am happy enough with PR. We need a voting system that allows for the Portillo and Ed Balls moments.

It will lead to more coalition government, which once we have got used to it and moved away from our current adversarial setup, is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[m20gull]

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

Not just in theory. http://www.idea.int/publications/voter_turnout_weurope/index.cfm
As a further side note the turnout for UK elections has been increasing since 2001.

 

[Igzilla]

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

FPTP encourages tactical voting, as well as protest voting. If people felt their vote was worth something, they would change their behaviour and vote for the party they truly wanted.

 

[Igzilla]

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?

Have a look at these videos...

http://www.cgpgrey.com/politics-in-the-animal-kingdom/

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

As long as we don't have a list system which rewards party toadies and lickspittles with safe seats at the top of the list... then I am happy enough with PR. We need a voting system that allows for the Portillo and Ed Balls moments.

It will lead to more coalition government, which once we have got used to it and moved away from our current adversarial setup, is not necessarily a bad thing.

Wise words.

 

[GT49er]

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.

That's about it - there wouldn't be any direct relation between the MPs and the constituencies. You'd just have the Tory party's favourite tories, the Labour party's favourite labourites, etc, etc.

 

[GT49er]

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

But that's democracy. Are you opposed to democracy in some way? Democracy means that people are allowed to vote for things you disagree with - the alternative would be a one party state.

 

[Titanic]

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

Can you imagine, with a party list system, what sort of high calibre candidate would be likely to be no.80 on the UKIP list?

 

[pb21]

But that's democracy. Are you opposed to democracy in some way? Democracy means that people are allowed to vote for things you disagree with - the alternative would be a one party state.

Eh?!

The thought of UKIP having 80 seats making someone's 'blood run cold' but being 'fair', doesn't suggest a dislike for democracy but UKIP!

 

[GT49er]

Eh?!

The thought of UKIP having 80 seats making someone's 'blood run cold' but being 'fair', doesn't suggest a dislike for democracy but UKIP!

The thought of 2 or 3 hundred tories makes some people's blood run cold, as does the thought of 2 or 3 hundred labour to some other people. It's democracy. You put up with it. If necessary, fight to keep it.

 

[pb21]

The thought of 2 or 3 hundred tories makes some people's blood run cold, as does the thought of 2 or 3 hundred labour to some other people. It's democracy. You put up with it. If necessary, fight to keep it.

Exactly, but you seemed to think that someone not liking UKIP was equivalent with being in favour of a one party state?

 

[GT49er]

Exactly, but you seemed to think that someone not liking UKIP was equivalent with being in favour of a one party state?

Maybe I read it wrong, but it was the perception that somehow it would be terrible if four million people were appropriately represented in Parliament.

 

[Gwylan]

That's about it - there wouldn't be any direct relation between the MPs and the constituencies. You'd just have the Tory party's favourite tories, the Labour party's favourite labourites, etc, etc.

But as I pointed out earlier, we could have PR and a direct relation between MPs and their constituencies if we adopted the German method. Not that I want to sound like Herr T ...

 

[Titanic]

But as I pointed out earlier, we could have PR and a direct relation between MPs and their constituencies if we adopted the German method. Not that I want to sound like Herr T ...

But that sort of system would mean Portillo / Ed Balls could almost never have been voted out... because his own party would put him top of their list for that group of seats.

 

[Bob!]

That's about it - there wouldn't be any direct relation between the MPs and the constituencies. You'd just have the Tory party's favourite tories, the Labour party's favourite labourites, etc, etc.

But as I pointed out earlier, we could have PR and a direct relation between MPs and their constituencies if we adopted the German method. Not that I want to sound like Herr T ...

But that sort of system would mean Portillo / Ed Balls could almost never have been voted out... because his own party would put him top of their list for that group of seats.

No, you're not getting it.

Please go back and read posts #3 and #4. There is no need to have party lists involved.

 

[Titanic]

No, you're not getting it.

Please go back and read posts #3 and #4. There is no need to have party lists involved.

Example: 8 MPs in a 'constituency'... if Ed Balls is number one on the Labour list, as long as Labour get 13% of the vote, he gets in. Or does it work some other way??

 

[Gwylan]

No, you're not getting it.

Please go back and read posts #3 and #4. There is no need to have party lists involved.

But I wasn't proposing a way to do away with party lists, my suggestion was to solve a different problem, how to have representative MPs within a PR system. TBH, I don't see much wrong with party lists, provided they're elected properly by the parties and not stitch-ups

 

[Bob!]

Example: 8 MPs in a 'constituency'... if Ed Balls is number one on the Labour list, as long as Labour get 13% of the vote, he gets in. Or does it work some other way??

Yes,
You would vote for the person/people you wanted to vote for in order of preference from 1 to whatever.
If you don't want to vote for Ed Balls you don't vote for Ed Balls.
There is not a party list, there is a list of candidates.

 

[Bob!]

But I wasn't proposing a way to do away with party lists, my suggestion was to solve a different problem, how to have representative MPs within a PR system. TBH, I don't see much wrong with party lists, provided they're elected properly by the parties and not stitch-ups

Sorry, that was aimed at Titanic.
I was re-iterating you're reply to his original question, to which he then responded without getting the Candidate rather than party list