Proportional Representation

[Robot Chicken]

What do people think about Proportional Representation as used in today's Euro election?

This made me smile!

 

[Brighton Breezy]

Its a shit idea. One which helped the Nazi party get a foot in the door in Germany.
Very dangerous.

In general it also means that because parties have to form coalitions to govern that the real power for bargaining is with the third largest party because they decide who to partner. This means that you get compromises in policy and means that the policies the public actually vote for are not the ones that eventually get carried out.
i.e. in Germany the Greens held the main party to ransom over some power issues.

 

[Robot Chicken]

It's a good idea but only in theory. Then again, communism is a good idea in theory.

 

[Curious Orange]

I prefer to vote for a person myself. Proportional representation is a bit of lottery.

 

[timco]

Like the play offs it gives a chance too people who do not support the Manchester United's and Arsenal's of the political world too gain representation for their views.

We won't ever get it though as the The Manchester united and Arsenal of British Politics have their own selfish self interest to bear in mind and PR does not suit these needs of turnabout politics.

 

[Robot Chicken]

I prefer to vote for a person myself. Proportional representation is a bit of lottery.

I agree 100%.

 

[timco]

I prefer to vote for a person myself. Proportional representation is a bit of lottery.

Then you get people like me who do not want to vote for the person from Labour nor the Tories but where I live no one else has any chance of election. People tend to vote partisan than personal.

PR is no more likely too allow extreme parties than any other system. Its the people that vote that allow extremes too take hold.

 

[Curious Orange]

That's the trouble with democracy, it isn't a perfect system, it is, however, the best of a bad lot.

 

[Robot Chicken]

Whilst PR distributes a fair proportion of seats it gives an unfair and disproportionate power to minor parties. So you end up with the Liberal Democrats holding the largest party to ransom in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly.

 

[Brighton Breezy]

PR is no more likely too allow extreme parties than any other system. Its the people that vote that allow extremes too take hold.

That is wrong. If an extreme party recieves a few votes in a lot of areas, they may not win any seats in 'First Past the Post' because they may not have the most votes in any one seat. However, if when you total up these votes they may have enough to warrant a seat or two. Therefore PR is more likely to let extreme parties in, like the Nazi's in Germany.

 

[Gangsta]

I think everyone should have to be able to pass some sort of test when they vote or its a spoilt paper ( yes I know some people struggle just with the cross ).

How about say 1 maths question, 1 geography question , music and so on. I mean at the moment you dont even have to spell you're own name ( add that and take out part of South London).

I reckon if you did this it could put the fun back into voting and may even encourage a better turn out ( in more than one sense of the word).

That really would be reform.

 

[Brighton Breezy]

I think everyone should have to be able to pass some sort of test when they vote or its a spoilt paper ( yes I know some people struggle just with the cross ).

How about say 1 maths question, 1 geography question , music and so on. I mean at the moment you dont even have to spell you're own name ( add that and take out part of South London).

I reckon if you did this it could put the fun back into voting and may even encourage a better turn out ( in more than one sense of the word).

That really would be reform.

Theoretically there is a lot of sense in this. With so many people being swayed by media hype or 'cos of those asyum types' and ill informed beliefs along those types, it might seem worthwhile getting people to pass a test before voting. However, in reality this is unthinkable.

What would be better would be to replace those crap PSE lessons at school with a lesson about the workings of local and narional politics and helping teenagers to understand the main differences between parties.

 

[Cian]

What the UK is using for the EuroMP elections isn''t PR, it isn't even close to it.

Proportional Representation is a modification of Instant Runoff Voting for more than one seat. Or IRV is PR for one seat, whichever way you see it

Candidates appear individually on the paper and you give each one a prefence, or no preference at all. 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.

A candidate has a quota to get it at. If a candidate reachs that quota at the first count, whatever number of votes they have over the quota are taken randomly from their total vote pool and they are distributed in the second count. The person with the least votes is eliminated.

This continues for as many counts as needed (9 rounds being the record I know of, for my local council elections in 1999) until all seats are filled

Thats PR, as its known in every other country in the world, and inNorthern Ireland. NI has a slight variation in how it calcuates the excess which is too complex to explain here.

What the UK has hasn't got a name. Although combined with the kind of electoral areas changes Labour have made, I think you can call it Gerrymandering.

 

[Brovion]

Eh? Did we have PR? I thought it was standard first-past-the- post (see my post on the other thread).

How's it being done then? I feel a bit ashamed asking. I'm someone who takes an interest in politics and current affairs and I don't know what voting system is being used for the UK Euro elections.

 

[Dandyman]

Its a shit idea. One which helped the Nazi party get a foot in the door in Germany.

Can you explain that one, Richie ? I was not aware PR existed in 1933.

 

[Uncle Buck]

What the UK is using for the EuroMP elections isn''t PR, it isn't even close to it.

Proportional Representation is a modification of Instant Runoff Voting for more than one seat. Or IRV is PR for one seat, whichever way you see it

Candidates appear individually on the paper and you give each one a prefence, or no preference at all. 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.

A candidate has a quota to get it at. If a candidate reachs that quota at the first count, whatever number of votes they have over the quota are taken randomly from their total vote pool and they are distributed in the second count. The person with the least votes is eliminated.

This continues for as many counts as needed (9 rounds being the record I know of, for my local council elections in 1999) until all seats are filled

Thats PR, as its known in every other country in the world, and inNorthern Ireland. NI has a slight variation in how it calcuates the excess which is too complex to explain here.

What the UK has hasn't got a name. Although combined with the kind of electoral areas changes Labour have made, I think you can call it Gerrymandering.

Ah the good old List System. This generally avoides coalition Governments and means that the person who wins in theory has a majority of the vote.

How can people view FPTP as democratic when individuals are being elected with about 40% of the cast vote in their constitunency. Now if I am not mistaken this means that they are not chosen by the majority in their area and surely democracy is about this (and many other things).

 

[Titanic]

<these were my views on PR and the list system from a previous thread... they seem more appropriate here>

1997 Labour 43.2% of votes cast - 419 seats (63%) Turnout: 71%

2001 Labour 40.7% of votes cast - 412 seats (62%) Turnout: 59%

So in 2001 Labour got a massive 167 seat majority in the House of Commons, with the backing of 24% of the voting electorate!



On the PR front however, the 'top up' list system is one of the most corrupt and undemocratic ways of selecting representatives! You can't stop the people at the top of the list from getting in - unless their party vote collapses completely, or conversely, they win a massive majority of the seats in the area outright, they are pretty certain to get in.

It allows the party machine to put its favourite toadies and cronies at the top of the list - guaranteeing them a place on the gravy train without anyone directly voting for them.



A bit of research dug up Charter88's web site, with a good article on the 'Jenkin's Report'.

http://www.charter88.org.uk/pubs/brief/vote_guide.html

They resolved the issue of local representation by suggesting an system of local MP's voted for as at present (except using the 'Alternative Vote' system, where you can vote for all the candidates in order, and then they transfer the second choices of the candidate with the lowest number of first choices to the candidate they voted second etc... until someone gets >50% of the votes.)

Then you have 'regional' open lists to ensure 'proportionality' - say at City or County level.

Seems pretty good to me - shame Blair has ignored it!

Then again, he did get a 167 seat majority with only 24% of the voting electorate supporting him in 2001!

 

[timco]

That is wrong. If an extreme party recieves a few votes in a lot of areas, they may not win any seats in 'First Past the Post' because they may not have the most votes in any one seat. However, if when you total up these votes they may have enough to warrant a seat or two. Therefore PR is more likely to let extreme parties in, like the Nazi's in Germany.

FPTP leads too things like parties getting 30% of the popular vote and less than 5% of the seats in a parliament.

Ever wondered why loads of people do not bother too vote?

There is nothing in FPTP that stops this.
In a hung Council there is nothing too stop a minor party holding the balance of power.

In most forms of PR a party has too reach a level before they get that share, normally 5 %. Any party that gets 5% of the popular vote in an area really should be entitled too seats or you end up with disenfranchised people with no one too represent their views. You may not like those views but its up to you to do something about that.

 

[Simster]

In most forms of PR a party has too reach a level before they get that share, normally 5 %. Any party that gets 5% of the popular vote in an area really should be entitled too seats or you end up with disenfranchised people with no one too represent their views. You may not like those views but its up to you to do something about that.

This "minimum support" idea is the only way PR can really work. The only problem is, who decides what that percentage should be?

And also I'd be very reluctant to lose the idea of a constituency MP that FPTP provides - a *person* rather than a *party* who then serves his constituents.

Maybe some form of hybrid between the two is the way forward. Perhaps you could double the size of each constituency - half the MPs are then elected by FPTP, the other half are elected using PR. So each vote is double-counted but even if your candidate misses out serving your constituency, at least your vote counts towards the PR vote for the other half of MPs.

 

[Titanic]

Maybe some form of hybrid between the two is the way forward. Perhaps you could double the size of each constituency - half the MPs are then elected by FPTP, the other half are elected using PR. So each vote is double-counted but even if your candidate misses out serving your constituency, at least your vote counts towards the PR vote for the other half of MPs.

If you follow the Charter88 link above, you will see that is exactly what their report recommended to Tony Blair.