[Politics] Proportional Representation

[Simster]

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).

This is a stupid argument. How is it any better that 70% of the nation gets the worst excesses of the will of 30% foisted upon them, as is the case now?

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?

Again, as opposed to 70% of the electorate now, who don't get any of what they want at all.

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.

Godwin's law invoked. You lose.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

Absolutely. This is arguably the biggest driving factor behind Brexit - the fact that the current status of our Parliament simply doesn't represent anyone but themselves (and I include both main parties in that, as they're as bad as each other).

 

[gazingdown]

This is a stupid argument. How is it any better that 70% of the nation gets the worst excesses of the will of 30% foisted upon them, as is the case now?

Again, as opposed to 70% of the electorate now, who don't get any of what they want at all..

Tha’s not quite right. Over a long period we either have Lab or Cons, about 70/80% one for either of these. So 70/80% get what they want for half the time. Under PR, arguably due to compromise etc., we have 100% not getting what they want for any of the time!

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

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?

This is absolutely it. There is a large portion of this country who don't vote because they live in a safe seat. This also makes the MPs lazy - I can genuinely say I've never seen or heard of any MPs in my local surrounding towns doing any form of campaigning or interaction with local communities because they simply know they don't have to. It's a Conservative area and it's highly unlikely to change.

 

[Simster]

Tha’s not quite right. Over a long period we either have Lab or Cons, about 70/80% one for either of these. So 70/80% get what they want for half the time. Under PR, arguably due to compromise etc., we have 100% not getting what they want for any of the time!

Eh? On an election by election basis, the winning party gets in with around 33% of the vote. That means 67% of the electorate don't get what they want. That is what is relevant.

Your argument, if I understand it correctly, is nonsensical. You may as well say that 90% of the country vote LibDem or Labour or Cons, so 90% get what they want 100% of the time. That'll be comforting to LibDems or UKIP or Green voters then, who at times have made up more than 25% of the electorate between them.

 

[Tim Over Whelmed]

This is absolutely it. There is a large portion of this country who don't vote because they live in a safe seat. This also makes the MPs lazy - I can genuinely say I've never seen or heard of any MPs in my local surrounding towns doing any form of campaigning or interaction with local communities because they simply know they don't have to. It's a Conservative area and it's highly unlikely to change.

Agreed, but the 10% labour vote, 2.5% Lib Dem vote and say .5% Green vote could increase if people thought there was something to vote for?

 

[strings]

As an aside, some of the arguments in this thread assume that everybody currently votes for the party they want to get into Government. Many voters will vote tactically (for example in a safe Tory seat, a Labour voter may vote Lib Dem if they have a more realistic chance of unseating the sitting MP).

Certainly, I have voted for a party before as a 'least worst' option out of the two that had a realistic chance in the constituency I used to live.

 

[Brovion]

..
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.

I'm well aware of the facts and I'm being disingenuous with a reason. At the time there were PR supporters who voted for FPTP; obviously not because they wanted it keep it, but because the proposed system wasn't one that they wanted to change to. I pleaded with people to vote for the change even if it wasn't ideal as at least that would kick off the process of electoral reform. If they voted the proposal down their opposition would simply be interpreted as the usual British conservative (small 'c') support for the status quo and the whole thing could be put to bed for at least another generation. So I'm having a dig at PR supporters who voted to keep the current system - you've got exactly, 100% what you voted for.

 

[Dick Head]

Given that the Lib Dems received 7.4% of the vote at the last election and the Greens 1.6% but only ended up with 2% and 0.15% of the seats in Parliament do you think it's time to change the voting system and adopt PR or a similar variant of it?

My main concern is all MPs have to tow the party line and therefore we end up with Left or Right and none of the extremes, we have no "characters" and a lot of very safe career politicians, be that left, right or centre. The most worrying aspect of people not having a platform to explain their views and have these views challenged through debate is that they adopt more violent or disruptive means to be heard or fail to be heard and become detached from the process. Introducing PR now would mean EVERY vote counts.

Surely it would be better to have a parliament that allowed you to be represented if your views were shared by say 0.25% of the electorate; you'd have at least one seat so you knew someone in there was fighting your corner for what you felt was right?

People worry about decisions not being made but like anything in life you need to achieve a majority and if you don't then maybe it's not the right thing to do or we introduce a consensus policy depending on whether you are debating the lesser spotted newt or going to war with Syria! People also worry about extreme politics being included in mainstream politics, bust it should be surely rather than forced underground?

 

[Tim Over Whelmed]

With PR though every vote counts, if you have an Animal Welfare Party or Civil Liberties and enough people across the country share your views you should, if you raise enough votes, be represented nationally. Everyone states this may mean people don't get the MP they voted for so maybe we should change it. Let's face it, the status quo isn't particularly engaging and better representation would help. One person that recently argued against this went on to say, when asked who his MP is, "I can't remember her name as she's new after the last election.

We have a FPTP system and challenger politics, but it's broken and the disengagement will get larger. Let's make elections for the people NOT a rubber stamp of whatever party has the support of the media, let's get people free of mind so they feel comfortable following that rather than trying to work out which party will be less against it.

We need more independents, more characters, less towing the party line and less "jobs for the boys supported by their media paymasters" .... and I'M A BLOODY TORY!!!!! (or am I?)

 

[Simster]

I'm well aware of the facts and I'm being disingenuous with a reason. At the time there were PR supporters who voted for FPTP; obviously not because they wanted it keep it, but because the proposed system wasn't one that they wanted to change to. I pleaded with people to vote for the change even if it wasn't ideal as at least that would kick off the process of electoral reform. If they voted the proposal down their opposition would simply be interpreted as the usual British conservative (small 'c') support for the status quo and the whole thing could be put to bed for at least another generation. So I'm having a dig at PR supporters who voted to keep the current system - you've got exactly, 100% what you voted for.

You said we voted to keep FPTP, and more specifically "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." You can't tell us the only reason we don't have PR is because people voted against change, because we've never actually been offered PR as an alternative.

How exactly is what you wrote "a dig at PR supporters who voted to keep the current system"? It's nonsense.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

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

Where there's a will..

Lots and lots of countries have coalition governments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_coalition_governments

 

[Thunder Bolt]

As an aside, some of the arguments in this thread assume that everybody currently votes for the party they want to get into Government. Many voters will vote tactically (for example in a safe Tory seat, a Labour voter may vote Lib Dem if they have a more realistic chance of unseating the sitting MP).

Certainly, I have voted for a party before as a 'least worst' option out of the two that had a realistic chance in the constituency I used to live.

Exactly. Labour have no chance in Lewes but vote Lib Dem to get the Tory out, especially the current incumbent.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

Agreed, but the 10% labour vote, 2.5% Lib Dem vote and say .5% Green vote could increase if people thought there was something to vote for?

Maybe, maybe not. I don't think any voting changes would be immediate because the two biggest parties are currently so prominent. But I think there would at least be the potential for other views to come into the mix in the long term and, most importantly, I think MPs and parties would have to fight much harder for votes and work harder during their period in office. It's also much more likely that you'd see a bigger turn out in voting and more engagement in politics - if people want real democracy, then engagement from a large majority of people in this country is an absolutely must, and the reality is we just don't have that as people feel so isolated by politicians.

 

[Eeyore]

View attachment 100853

Morning major !

 

[Tim Over Whelmed]

Maybe, maybe not. I don't think any voting changes would be immediate because the two biggest parties are currently so prominent. But I think there would at least be the potential for other views to come into the mix in the long term and, most importantly, I think MPs and parties would have to fight much harder for votes and work harder during their period in office. It's also much more likely that you'd see a bigger turn out in voting and more engagement in politics - if people want real democracy, then engagement from a large majority of people in this country is an absolutely must, and the reality is we just don't have that as people feel so isolated by politicians.

So I vote Tory in Arundel, on a wet day my Wife, who may also vote Tory, may decide to stay indoors. However, if all votes counted and we decided to vote for a national movement looking to free schools of religion, introduce a wealth tax or reduce the chance of bat / vehicle collision then we may be more likely to vote.

We need people to reengage with politics in whatever way they wish, you can't force people down a two party system it needs to open up to make it more relevant.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

So I vote Tory in Arundel, on a wet day my Wife, who may also vote Tory, may decide to stay indoors. However, if all votes counted and we decided to vote for a national movement looking to free schools of religion, introduce a wealth tax or reduce the chance of bat / vehicle collision then we may be more likely to vote.

We need people to reengage with politics in whatever way they wish, you can't force people down a two party system it needs to open up to make it more relevant.

I totally agree. I just think that would take time to develop away from a 2 party system, even if the voting system was changed to PR tomorrow.

 

[darkwolf666]

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.

You mean unlike the strong and stable government we have at present?

 

[darkwolf666]

So I vote Tory in Arundel, on a wet day my Wife, who may also vote Tory, may decide to stay indoors. However, if all votes counted and we decided to vote for a national movement looking to free schools of religion, introduce a wealth tax or reduce the chance of bat / vehicle collision then we may be more likely to vote.

We need people to reengage with politics in whatever way they wish, you can't force people down a two party system it needs to open up to make it more relevant.

People did re-engage with politics for the referendum and look how that's turned out!

 

[Tim Over Whelmed]

I totally agree. I just think that would take time to develop away from a 2 party system, even if the voting system was changed to PR tomorrow.

But that wouldn't be a reason not to do it?