Proportional Representation

[Half Time Pies]

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.[/QUOT

STV delivers a proportional result within the constituency it is therefore a 'form' of proportional representation. It is one 'form' of many proportional systems, one being the party list system which it seems is the only system that you consider to be PR. Nobody could argue that FPTP is a form of PR because it has a very different intended outcome, it is a form of majority 'winner takes all' system.

The electoral reform society most certainly DO consider STV as a form of PR http://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-formers/Electoral-Reform-Society/campaigns-$470346$7.htm It was in fact originally formed in 1884 as the proportional representation society and adopted STV in 1885 as their preferential form of PR voting system. Electoral Reform Society - History

 

[Half Time Pies]

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.

You are missing the point. The problem with FPTP is that it elects a constituent MP with without the majority of support from local voters and therefore no clear mandate. In fact in in 2005 no MP had the support of their constituents and only 3 had a more than a 40% local mandate. This is why FPTP is not a representative system.

 

[beorhthelm]

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

fair point, it wasnt supposed to be personal or a lecuture. just something i've been picking up on and dont get so much. I happend to have only ever voted in seats where i spported the losing candidate, and funnily enough all three have been Liberal. ive never felt that i wasnt able to vote for a representitive, i just picked the wrong one.

but i also think, each of those strong liberal seats have in the past been considered strong tory/labour seats. i know there are some place up and down the country where you pin a blue/red rosette on a horse and it would be sitting in parliament, but also alot of so called safe seats do change hands over the decades. i was looking at a site that shows the stats and it has "this seat is safe, and voters have little say on their MP". i think that sends the wrong message. when you look closer you see things like a majority of over 13,000, but only 52% turn out of 66,000 voters. just how safe is the seat or are people not voting simply on the believe it is?

i also probably have a romantic notion of MPs sitting in their surgeries listening to all problems and being thoroughly keen to help, which is probably a bit wrong.

 

[beorhthelm]

You are missing the point. The problem with FPTP is that it elects a constituent MP with without the majority of support from local voters and therefore no clear mandate. In fact in in 2005 no MP had the support of their constituents and only 3 had a more than a 40% local mandate. This is why FPTP is not a representative system.

i assume you are accounting for non voters, because there are plenty of MPs returned with >50% of the votes cast. FPTP is not flawless. but neither is PR. unless something fundementally shifts in politics, you will never have a majority government, so then were does the mandate lie, with the party that holds 35% or 31%? the more significant issue is the individual MPs have no mandate whatsoever, selected from a list decided by the party. we dislike career politicians and control from party center, this just increases under PR.

Transferable votes seems a middle ground that might work, if they size the constituencies well, say current district size with 2-3 MPs? The EU style regional super constituency made the vote feel remote and mechanical to me.

 

[Curious Orange]

I guess the other thing you have to ask generally is how do you represent the people who don't vote? If only 40 or 50% of voters turn out then no system you use actually gives a majority mandate to the winners.

 

[Half Time Pies]

i assume you are accounting for non voters, because there are plenty of MPs returned with >50% of the votes cast. FPTP is not flawless. but neither is PR. unless something fundementally shifts in politics, you will never have a majority government, so then were does the mandate lie, with the party that holds 35% or 31%? the more significant issue is the individual MPs have no mandate whatsoever, selected from a list decided by the party. we dislike career politicians and control from party center, this just increases under PR.

Transferable votes seems a middle ground that might work, if they size the constituencies well, say current district size with 2-3 MPs? The EU style regional super constituency made the vote feel remote and mechanical to me.

I am accounting for Non voters as it is no coincidence that the UK has one of the lowest voter turnouts of any western nation. FPTP restricts choice to the 2 main parties, it was designed for a time when you were either working class labour or middle/ upper class conservative. Society is no longer like that and the 2 main parties have moved to centre to try to be all things to all people. People don't see that they have a choice and this has led to voter apathy.

I believe that STV would be a better system but constituencies would have to increase in size otherwise the number of MPs in westminster would have to double or even triple.

Lets be honest though, as far as constituent MPs are concerned a lot of people don't even know who there MP is and only a small portion of the electorate follow what there MP actually does in parliament.

I would be in vavor of devolving power in england to regional assemblies such as has been done in northern ireland, scotland, wales. Then people would have a clear idea of where and who to go to to lobby over local issues.

 

[beorhthelm]

Lets be honest though, as far as constituent MPs are concerned a lot of people don't even know who there MP is and only a small portion of the electorate follow what there MP actually does in parliament.

that is true, but it is NOT a good reason to drop the constituancy link. if we are looking to reform voting, we should strengthen that link, and generaly rebalance the system away from parties so parliament can hold the government properly to account.

 

[West Hoathly Seagull]

I would be in vavor of devolving power in england to regional assemblies such as has been done in northern ireland, scotland, wales. Then people would have a clear idea of where and who to go to to lobby over local issues.

Prescott tried that in North East England, and it failed miserably. It was supposed to be the region that really wanted a regional assembly. Only 22% voted for it.