[Politics] Proportional Representation

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

That's why it is a good thing. Parties would have to get used to trying to work together.

Like in Italy?

 

[larus]

The main argument against PR is that produces coalition governments and/or weak governments.

Not sure where everyone has been this Blair gave up the throne.

All the current system is giving is weak governments or coalitions where a minority party (i.e. the Anti Falmer Party) has a disproportionate degree of power.

I know [MENTION=409]Herr Tubthumper[/MENTION] likes to go on about how wonderful PR is in Germany, but its shortcomings have been exposed in the last election and the on-going limping along of Merkel and her coalition. She’s widely viewed as weak and ineffective now (from what I’ve read), so PR is not the panacea some think.

However, I do feel as though the confrontational style/design of the HoC diminishes what politicians should be doing, which is genuinely working for the best outcome of the country. This is clearly not the case from either party. It’s all about disagreeing with nearly everything the other side says, even if it’s not unreasonable.

There should be more cross-party support/involvement in planning for long term issues for the country. NHS, education, rail network, pensions. Too much energy is spent dismantling/changing what the previous administrations started. All that most of them want is power.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

As sevral have pointed out, PR is duff for 3 reasons:

1. You NEVER get the government you voted for because coalitions require partis to compromise, thn the peeople who voted for them feel chated. Look what the last coalition (university fees, was it?) did for the Libdems (it did for them).

2. Almost half the electorate won't get what they want at all because you either get a left or right wing coalition. A 'true' coalition would mean all voters getting something. Even in our system we have the baleful presence of the ulster unionists' glovemaster hands up May's arse. How many tories voted for that?

3. PR is how Hitler got in. Give legitimacy (seats) to headbangers and they suddenley look statsmanlike, with free airtime and unedited party political brodcasts, attracting more voters, and Bob's your uncle, its Holocaust all over agan. *cough* Farage *cough* would be the least of our worries. SWP. Britain First. **** me if that is on th cards I'm going to go and buy myself a gun.

Basically FPTP means you have to have big support to win, and when you win you can deliver your manifesto. If you **** up then next time another lot will get in. Italian politics with its PR is about as stable as an Italian waiter. PR works only when most people already agree and there is nothing much at stake. It has about as much traction here as the unreconstructd EU has. Sadly, perhaps.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Most countries have it. Germany being a good example. It's a myth that it doesn't work.

Where there's a will..

Special conditions (see above). Also, where there are two lost wars and a history of fascism there is a will and a way.

 

[Brian Parsons]

Given that the average turnout for General elections sits around 66.1% and proportional representation usually involves two or three visits to the polling booths, unless the voting public be more involved/ interested in actually voting I think we are looking at hung parliaments every time. Which may or may not be such a bad thing. Governments with huge majorities can pass unsavoury laws etc.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

In a similar manner as potential Britons have to take the UK British citizenship test, I feel that there should be some sort competence level that needs to be achieved in order to be eligible to cast a vote in our local and national elections. Surely a voter should be able to demonstrate that they understand the basics of what they are voting for rather than blindly following family traditions, peer pressure or brain washing by the media. How this would be achieved, I have no idea, but it just seems wrong to me that someone who has taken the time to try and understand pros and cons of an argument, listened to and taken part in debates, and cast a vote for whatever candidate or cause they feel will be best for their constituency or country, can have their vote negated by someone who really doesn’t care about the issues but just puts a cross in a box for no reason other than “my parents / friends / workmates” vote for them. My thoughts are not party biased as there are people in all spectrums of society who make reasoned decisions and have wholly valid opinions as they should do.

While I deplore thicky voters, it would be wrong to take away their right to vote. What next? A grammar exam and a history test (MCQ) on the history of the Albion before you can join NSC? **** me, do that and we'd have nobody to sneer at.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Given that the average turnout for General elections sits around 66.1% and proportional representation usually involves two or three visits to the polling booths, unless the voting public be more involved/ interested in actually voting I think we are looking at hung parliaments every time. Which may or may not be such a bad thing. Governments with majorities can pass laws .

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

edited for you

 

[Weststander]

As sevral have pointed out, PR is duff for 3 reasons:

1. You NEVER get the government you voted for because coalitions require partis to compromise, thn the peeople who voted for them feel chated. Look what the last coalition (university fees, was it?) did for the Libdems (it did for them).

2. Almost half the electorate won't get what they want at all because you either get a left or right wing coalition. A 'true' coalition would mean all voters getting something. Even in our system we have the baleful presence of the ulster unionists' glovemaster hands up May's arse. How many tories voted for that?

3. PR is how Hitler got in. Give legitimacy (seats) to headbangers and they suddenley look statsmanlike, with free airtime and unedited party political brodcasts, attracting more voters, and Bob's your uncle, its Holocaust all over agan. *cough* Farage *cough* would be the least of our worries. SWP. Britain First. **** me if that is on th cards I'm going to go and buy myself a gun.

Basically FPTP means you have to have big support to win, and when you win you can deliver your manifesto. If you **** up then next time another lot will get in. Italian politics with its PR is about as stable as an Italian waiter. PR works only when most people already agree and there is nothing much at stake. It has about as much traction here as the unreconstructd EU has. Sadly, perhaps.

4. Unpopular/nasty individuals get to stay in parliament, if their face fits within a party, against the wishes of their constituents. Constituents do not get the chance to specifically kick out such an MP at the ballot box. I know this depends on the PR system, but essentially the party hierarchy get to choose in advance the make up of their candidates within their x percent of the vote. The direct link between a candidate and particular voters is broken.

Going back to your points, it can not be understated how extremists would gain a platform for their views, legitimising those views and growing that support. Especially in a digital age of fake news (lies), it's easy to envisage a virtuous cycle for extremists with PR.

 

[clapham_gull]

As sevral have pointed out, PR is duff for 3 reasons:

1. You NEVER get the government you voted for because coalitions require partis to compromise, thn the peeople who voted for them feel chated. Look what the last coalition (university fees, was it?) did for the Libdems (it did for them).

2. Almost half the electorate won't get what they want at all because you either get a left or right wing coalition. A 'true' coalition would mean all voters getting something. Even in our system we have the baleful presence of the ulster unionists' glovemaster hands up May's arse. How many tories voted for that?

3. PR is how Hitler got in. Give legitimacy (seats) to headbangers and they suddenley look statsmanlike, with free airtime and unedited party political brodcasts, attracting more voters, and Bob's your uncle, its Holocaust all over agan. *cough* Farage *cough* would be the least of our worries. SWP. Britain First. **** me if that is on th cards I'm going to go and buy myself a gun.

Basically FPTP means you have to have big support to win, and when you win you can deliver your manifesto. If you **** up then next time another lot will get in. Italian politics with its PR is about as stable as an Italian waiter. PR works only when most people already agree and there is nothing much at stake. It has about as much traction here as the unreconstructd EU has. Sadly, perhaps.

Mention Hitler, lost argument etc...

I'd like to see a preference system introduced as we have up here in the enlightened capital when we vote for the major.

 

[Tim Over Whelmed]

Given that the average turnout for General elections sits around 66.1% and proportional representation usually involves two or three visits to the polling booths, unless the voting public be more involved/ interested in actually voting I think we are looking at hung parliaments every time. Which may or may not be such a bad thing. Governments with huge majorities can pass unsavoury laws etc.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

But I'd argue the 34%+ that don't vote is down to them thinking that their vote doesn't count. Imagine living in Arundel & South Downs and thinking about walking down to the Polling Station to vote for The Green's, a local independent supporting a national cause or Labour, why would you bother given the significant majority the sitting Conservative MP has?

 

[Tim Over Whelmed]

4. Unpopular/nasty individuals get to stay in parliament, if their face fits within a party, against the wishes of their constituents. Constituents do not get the chance to specifically kick out such an MP at the ballot box. I know this depends on the PR system, but essentially the party hierarchy get to choose in advance the make up of their candidates within their x percent of the vote. The direct link between a candidate and particular voters is broken.

Going back to your points, it can not be understated how extremists would gain a platform for their views, legitimising those views and growing that support. Especially in a digital age of fake news (lies), it's easy to envisage a virtuous cycle for extremists with PR.

But if people with extreme views feel they have no platform what other options are open to them? Giving women the vote was considered an extreme view, as was same sex marriage and banning smoking, they have all evolved and made for a better country. Clearly I'm not advocating that extreme religious or political views are right in any shape or form, in my opinion, but others may need to air them in an open platform for them to be challenged rather than build a head of steam underground.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

But if people with extreme views feel they have no platform what other options are open to them? Giving women the vote was considered an extreme view, as was same sex marriage and banning smoking, they have all evolved and made for a better country. Clearly I'm not advocating that extreme religious or political views are right in any shape or form, in my opinion, but others may need to air them in an open platform for them to be challenged rather than build a head of steam underground.

I totally agree.

As an aside I’m very pro PR. The main reason is that it keeps a country moving forward and in the middle of the road, no more wild swings of education, health and economic reform due to political ideology only for it all to happen again when the next party comes in . It forces parties to talk and collaborate and find the centre ground.....which is where most of the electorate actually are. It clips the excesses of the major parties. It enables newly formed parties to gain some traction.

 

[Brovion]

Never going to happen unless a sitting government decides to change the system, which would dilute their power so effectively a non starter

I know it's been massively overshadowed since by the Scottish and Brexit referenda - but there WAS a public vote on changing the voting system less than a decade ago. (This always seems to be forgotten). People always seem to think that the only reason we don't have PR is because 'they' don't want us to have it, whereas WE decided we didn't want to change from FPTP.

Give it a rest for at least another decade, or will this be another area of 'neverendums' where groups want us to keep on voting until we come up with the result they want?

 

[Gritt23]

With PR you would have a hung Parliament pretty much every time. Would not be a recipe for strong leadership, although to be honest none of the party leaders inspire any confidence in me at the moment!

The other issue with PR is that the local constituency you reside in will be 'allocated' an MP as opposed to voting for someone who you think represents the local area adequately.

Exactly, and I'm not sure anyone thinks the last coalition government was anything to get hugely excited about. Ironically, it was the (near) death of the Liberals, who everyone always thought would be the party to benefit most from PR. Reality is that they would always hold the balance of power, until their unpopularity for doing so relegates them from that role, and a regional party such as the DUP find themselves being the party that get a coalition to work.

While I understand the "fairness" of PR, the reality doesn't seem to play out well in UK politics.

 

[strings]

Never going to happen unless a sitting government decides to change the system, which would dilute their power so effectively a non starter

However, this can also be an issue with the 'traditional' Westminster system of Government. There are some really good constituency MP's out there, who really stand up for their constituent's interest. However some (many...?) MP's get elected to parliament and then simply vote whichever way their party whip tells them to. This mean's that the wishes of the constituency aren't really represented anyway (except perhaps in internal party policy making).

 

[Goldstone1976]

Mention Hitler, lost argument etc...

I'd like to see a preference system introduced as we have up here in the enlightened capital when we vote for the major.

 

[Perkino]

The coalition government from 2010 was the best government I have seen in my lifetime. The Conservatives made many financial decisions to try and stop the huge wastage of money thrown away by the previous Labour government anthe Lib Dems kept them honest and only approved certain policies that they thought was best for the country.

It was when the Lib Dem voters got all upset about the university promise and in protest left the Lib Dems that gave power solely to the Conservatives and like most Conservative governments the power went to their head and they did whatever they pleased and now we have this mess. A brexit promised by people who are not in power and delivered by a team who are desperate to stay in power and would sell their own soul to remain in power.

PR may not be the best way to do it for each local constituency but a hung parliment where politicains from differing backgrounds have to work together is a good idea

 

[GT49er]

I know it's been massively overshadowed since by the Scottish and Brexit referenda - but there WAS a public vote on changing the voting system less than a decade ago. (This always seems to be forgotten). People always seem to think that the only reason we don't have PR is because 'they' don't want us to have it, whereas WE decided we didn't want to change from FPTP.

Give it a rest for at least another decade, or will this be another area of 'neverendums' where groups want us to keep on voting until we come up with the result they want?

'Neverendums' - excellent one! I like it.

 

[Simster]

I basically blame the Lib Dems for everything.

So did the rest of the country, as they were annihilated in 2015. The Tories remained unscathed and have proceeded to fck up the country since then, with the Brexit shambles, punishing the poor with austerity, and an ever increasing disparity of wealth. We get the government we deserve. As for PR, well as much as the current system works from the point of view of stability, we are in the situation where only a handful of votes ever actually count. 79% of UK constituencies are safe seats, and whichever way you slice it, that cannot be right.

Plus, the argument that MPs look after a constituency rather than being allocated doesn't seem to hold water either. Consider the example of dreadful, fat, bumbling career politician, MP in West London Boris Johnson, who would have you believe he fought tooth-and-nail to oppose a 5th terminal at Heathrow. The government disagreed, so he bravely voted against them on behalf of his constituents. No wait, he didn't. He was part of the cabinet that made the decision, so instead he flew off abroad to shamelessly avoid the vote. I doubt he'll stand in that constituency next time round as those constituents will have long memories. No worries though, he'll just be parachuted into a blue shire somewhere they don't give a shit about Heathrow and Heathrow will be given a Tory who WAS sympathetic to the residents now that it's too late to matter.

Tell me again how FPTP politics benefits its constituents?

I know it's been massively overshadowed since by the Scottish and Brexit referenda - but there WAS a public vote on changing the voting system less than a decade ago. (This always seems to be forgotten). People always seem to think that the only reason we don't have PR is because 'they' don't want us to have it, whereas WE decided we didn't want to change from FPTP.

Give it a rest for at least another decade, or will this be another area of 'neverendums' where groups want us to keep on voting until we come up with the result they want?

This is massively disingenuous. The Lib Dems wanted PR, but the Tories wouldn't let them have one. Instead, they offered a fudged alternative, an alternative vote, which nobody was advocating. The LibDems accepted it only because they considered it better than FPTP - a system which once saw them garner about 15 out of 650 seats from a share of the vote of around 13%. (UKIP suffered too, they once got 12.6% of the vote and ONE seat. How can that be right?) With hindsight, the LibDems should have rejected the chance of setting up that referendum.

The current situation really should set alarm bells ringing. Thanks to our FPTP system, we currently have to choose between two of the most incompetent, un-electable front benches I can ever remember.

 

[Tim Over Whelmed]

Exactly, and I'm not sure anyone thinks the last coalition government was anything to get hugely excited about. Ironically, it was the (near) death of the Liberals, who everyone always thought would be the party to benefit most from PR. Reality is that they would always hold the balance of power, until their unpopularity for doing so relegates them from that role, and a regional party such as the DUP find themselves being the party that get a coalition to work.

While I understand the "fairness" of PR, the reality doesn't seem to play out well in UK politics.

Yes, not as currently played out, but could change?