Proportional Representation

[D'Angelo Saxon]

Can one of you good folks explain this concept to me... I'm not sure I understand it...

 

[Les Biehn]

Can one of you good folks explain this concept to me... I'm not sure I understand it...

To put it really basically the percentage of seats for a particular party corresponds to the percentage of votes they get nationally, rather than gaining a seat by getting the most votes in a constituency.

 

[Curious Orange]

It would effectively mean the end of MPs representing individual constituencies, and of independent MPs altogether.

Its 'Party Only' politics where each party can have x seats dependant on their portion of the vote, and then get their favourite x party members to sit in them. In other words the electorate no longer get to directly elect their representative in Parliament.

 

[beorhthelm]

you pick a colour. the party of that colour then decides who from their list of career politicians and mates will "represent" you. its a bit like appointing Lords, with a fig leaf of more democracy because the members are proportional to the total national vote.

 

[Les Biehn]

It would effectively mean the end of MPs representing individual constituencies, and of independent MPs altogether.

Its 'Party Only' politics where each party can have x seats dependant on their portion of the vote, and then get their favourite x party members to sit in them. In other words the electorate no longer get to directly elect their representative in Parliament.

But it does mean the party with the most votes gets into power rather than one with the most constituencies which would suggest a fairer reflection of what the voters want. 'Seem', not necessarily 'be'.

 

[Curious Orange]

But it does mean the party with the most votes gets into power rather than one with the most constituencies which would suggest a fairer reflection of what the voters want. 'Seem', not necessarily 'be'.

Quite, it depends on whether you think that having proper local representation at a national level is a good thing or not. The party system within Parliament is not the be all and end all of it - there weren't any parties when it was formed after all - and a government can be formed without anyone in it being a member of a party.

I personally think that a PR system is actually more exclusive of the general population than the system we currently have is, as with PR you'd have to be in a party to have any chance of standing to become an MP, and then only if you schmoozed the right people - whereas now all anyone has to do is deposit £500 to stand.

I'm not saying that the current system is perfect, because it isn't, however I'd be very wary of any system that excludes active participation by the general public.

 

[Cian]

I personally think that a PR system is actually more exclusive of the general population than the system we currently have is, as with PR you'd have to be in a party to have any chance of standing to become an MP, and then only if you schmoozed the right people - whereas now all anyone has to do is deposit £500 to stand.

Thats a PR list system.

The UK already has "proper" constituency PR (PR-STV) used in some parts (nothern ireland assembly elections) where anyone can stand for their £500. And has a higher chance of getting in too.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

Thats a PR list system.

The UK already has "proper" constituency PR (PR-STV) used in some parts (nothern ireland assembly elections) where anyone can stand for their £500. And has a higher chance of getting in too.

STV is not a form of proportional representation. It's a preferential vote system which takes into consideration 2nd, 3rd and maybe even 4th choices of voters and seeks to eliminate wasted votes (e.g. 'excess' votes for the winning candidate and 1st choice votes of the bottom candidate).

Under STV, a party which succeeds uniformly to get 10% of the 1st preference vote in each constituency will be likely to get 0% of the seats in Parliament. Under a PR system, 10% of the national vote will definitely get you 10% of the seats.

 

[Don Quixote]

It doesn't work.

 

[clapham_gull]

In other words the electorate no longer get to directly elect their representative in Parliament.

In most of the constituencies I've lived I never has the opportunity to elect a representative... unless I backed the favourite.

I personally favour a system like the London Mayoral Elections.

 

[The Brighton Ace]

There are many different types of PR. The AV system proposed by Labour isn't considered PR by some.

IMO - STV is the way forward as long as we maintain the constituency link.

 

[beorhthelm]

In most of the constituencies I've lived I never has the opportunity to elect a representative... unless I backed the favourite.

you seem to be saying that just because you happen to be politically opposed to the winner, you say you havent had an oppurtunity to elect a representitive. not an uncommon idea i'm sencing. theres something flawed in peoples model of how respresentitive democracy should and does work. it doesnt matter whether you voted for your MP or not, they are still your representitive and you can still take your issues to them. im pretty sure you didnt elect a representitive in the Euro elections either, you voted preferences for a few colours and the names on a list where picked pro rata by default.

 

[Gully]

...at least with PR every vote counts, at the moment we couldn't be further from that...if you live in a safe seat but vote for one of the other parties your vote counts for absolutely nothing, that is no incentive to get people voting and could in some part account for incredibly low turnouts.

 

[Half Time Pies]

It doesn't work.

This statement doesn't stand up to scrutiny, PR is the predominant voting system in europe and 'works' perfectly successfully throughout the world.

We are fed this bollocks by the two main parties about coalition governments not working and being bad for our economic recovery but the fact is that 12 of the 16 countries world wide with the top triple 'A' credit rating use a form of proportional representation for elections and 10 are coalition governments.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

There are many different types of PR. The AV system proposed by Labour isn't considered PR by some.

IMO - STV is the way forward as long as we maintain the constituency link.

Just like STV, the Alternative Vote system is also a preferential voting system rather than a system of proportional representation. As such, it can sometimes deliver results less proportional than First Past The Post, especially for 'Marmite' parties (you know who I'm talking about) who are very popular with their supporters but very much disliked by every one else (so less likely to garner 2nd preference votes).

The Labour Party's proposal of AV+ has a party list system that corrects the unproportionality of the result to a limited extent.

Yes - STV is the way forward. Amazing how much esteem with which it is held once people understand how it works.

Interesting that PR has become a talking point in the election when it is not the preferred system of any of the main three parties - Tories (First Past The Post), Labour (AV+) and Lib Dems (STV).

 

[clapham_gull]

you seem to be saying that just because you happen to be politically opposed to the winner, you say you havent had an oppurtunity to elect a representitive. not an uncommon idea i'm sencing. theres something flawed in peoples model of how respresentitive democracy should and does work. it doesnt matter whether you voted for your MP or not, they are still your representitive and you can still take your issues to them. im pretty sure you didnt elect a representitive in the Euro elections either, you voted preferences for a few colours and the names on a list where picked pro rata by default.

Thanks for the lecture, but not surprisingly you are way off the mark.

I lived in constituencies where the safe majority has been held by either of the big two. Unless I back the favourite there is absolutely no point in voting. I vote but have a massive problem with the result being predetermined and they are hundreds of thousand of people in the same situation who agree with me. Quite arrogant to believe that those people and myself misunderstand the notion of democracy. You sound like an arrogant MP in a safe constituency.

I've also got some lovely stories of MPs behaviour when contacted for help. Funny how the help evaporates when what your concerns are at a political tangent to their understanding of the universe and they can continue in that role until they and not the voters wish.

It's a relatively simple point misunderstood by those who never lived in constituencies where the respective other of the big two don't even bother campaigning much.

It's a much nicer experience being able to vote in the London Mayoral Elections where you actually feel like a part of the process.

 

[Half Time Pies]

STV is not a form of proportional representation. It's a preferential vote system which takes into consideration 2nd, 3rd and maybe even 4th choices of voters and seeks to eliminate wasted votes (e.g. 'excess' votes for the winning candidate and 1st choice votes of the bottom candidate).

Under STV, a party which succeeds uniformly to get 10% of the 1st preference vote in each constituency will be likely to get 0% of the seats in Parliament. Under a PR system, 10% of the national vote will definitely get you 10% of the seats.

Not true, STV is a 'form' of proportional representation, although the level of proportionality is contested, proportionality is the intended outcome.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

Not true, STV is a 'form' of proportional representation, although the level of proportionality is contested, proportionality is the intended outcome.

It might be tempting (and indeed, some people do) to look at the results of STV and FPTP and decide that generally there is closer match between national support and seats under STV, and conclude STV is a 'form' of PR . But that's a bit like saying there is a closer match between national support and seats under FPTP than, say, a one-party state, and conclude that FPTP is a form of PR.

STV is not a form of PR because there is no mechanism within it to deliver proportionality between share of support and seats. It's a preferential system and, as such, brings the first, second and third choices of voters into consideration. No consideration of proportionality is made within the counting process.

The Electoral Reform Society lists many reasons for backing STV at Electoral Reform Society - Single Transferable Vote No way do they claim that STV delivers proportionality or is a form of PR. I certainly would not support STV if it did or was.

 

[blackprince]

But anyone could still stand with PR....you hand over £500 and then if you get enough votes you get a seat!

I may be looking at proportional representation too simplistically but I do not see how the vast majority of people who may have been tempted to stand for Parliament as an independent candidate in their local community could succeed in that ambition under PR. There are 650 MP’s and therefore an independent candidate would need to poll 0.15% of the national vote to win a seat. With more than 44.3 millon voters currently that’s over 68,000 votes. I doubt that many independents would be that well known outside of their local constituency to achieve the required level of support.

 

[RexCathedra]

Multi-member constituencies would have some of the advantages of PR, and some of the advantages of FPTP, but you never hear of it as a possible fix.