[Politics] Proportional Representation

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

So, anyone up for a spot of PR now then?

I can see Mr Cable's gang getting larger with both Labour & Tory defections over the coming weeks and possibly needing to support one of the two parties to forma coalition, imagine if they'll only do it with a party that commits to PR? Although given the crib sheet of both parties a "commitment" won't be worth the paper it's written on.

Absolutely not. It would give that psychopathic clown Farrage 80 seats. FPTP is like a democratic shock absorber that precludes wild lurches from left to right, followed by a fragmented mess where coalitions are bought and sold by minority extremist parties (see Israel) or degenate into a mire of corruption and deals done in smoke filled rooms (see Italy).

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

FPTP is like a democratic shock absorber that precludes wild lurches from left to right, followed by a fragmented mess where coalitions are bought and sold by minority extremist parties (see Israel) or degenate into a mire of corruption and deals done in smoke filled rooms (see Italy).

Great description of the EU.

 

[Silverhatch]

Absolutely not. It would give that psychopathic clown Farrage 80 seats. FPTP is like a democratic shock absorber that precludes wild lurches from left to right, followed by a fragmented mess where coalitions are bought and sold by minority extremist parties (see Israel) or degenate into a mire of corruption and deals done in smoke filled rooms (see Italy).

Really difficult one, because many voters are disenfranchised living within boundaries where their vote will never count. At the very least there needs to be a completely independent (how can this happen?) look at constituency boundaries and the number of MPs needed to perform a representative democracy - plus a much overdue look at HOLords.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Really difficult one, because many voters are disenfranchised living within boundaries where their vote will never count. At the very least there needs to be a completely independent (how can this happen?) look at constituency boundaries and the number of MPs needed to perform a representative democracy - plus a much overdue look at HOLords.

Exactly, Soames in Mid-Sussex is a great example. He isn't going to lose anytime soon.

Representing c. 77k constituents, voting any other party is a waste of time.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Really difficult one, because many voters are disenfranchised living within boundaries where their vote will never count. At the very least there needs to be a completely independent (how can this happen?) look at constituency boundaries and the number of MPs needed to perform a representative democracy - plus a much overdue look at HOLords.

I think the disenfranchisement caused by FPTP is they key here. I'm 50, I've been voting for 30 + years and such is the Tory stranglehold in the parts of West Sussex where I've lived that I don't think I've EVER voted for a candidate who has ended up in power, be it District, County Council or Parliamentary elections.

 

[beorhthelm]

Exactly, Soames in Mid-Sussex is a great example. He isn't going to lose anytime soon.

Representing c. 77k constituents, voting any other party is a waste of time.

under PR that constituency would also return a Conservative MP, same as Bootle will return Labour MP. you only change this with systematic overhaul of constituency representation, maybe along district or country lines, returning multiple candidates, pick from a party list. and whatever happens, MPs still get in.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I think the disenfranchisement caused by FPTP is they key here. I'm 50, I've been voting for 30 + years and such is the Tory stranglehold in the parts of West Sussex where I've lived that I don't think I've EVER voted for a candidate who has ended up in power, be it District, County Council or Parliamentary elections.

That's democracy. I realise this isn't what you intend to mean but what it boils down to is: why are you or I entitled to be represented by our favourite guy and other people not? Only one candidate can win (unless you have ten MPs per constituency selected according to proportional vote - worse than VAR) and only one party (or cabal of allignments) can govern (effectively). On big issues (nuclear weapons or not, taxes up or down, more or less money for the NHS) the decisions are binary. Outcomes don't become a bit less tory just because you have representation proportional to the percent of the total your aligned voters voted for. Without your party preference in the majority the others will hold sway. If parliament is split then, as with the lib con coalition, neither set of electors get what they voted for. And the compromises necessary to move forward finished Cleggy.

The liberals have always wanted PR because they perceive it will give them more seats. The tories and labour have always been against it for exactly the same reason.

Nothing is perfect (apart from Fanny Ardant)

 

[Pavilionaire]

That's democracy. I realise this isn't what you intend to mean but what it boils down to is: why are you or I entitled to be represented by our favourite guy and other people not? Only one candidate can win (unless you have ten MPs per constituency selected according to proportional vote - worse than VAR) and only one party (or cabal of allignments) can govern (effectively). On big issues (nuclear weapons or not, taxes up or down, more or less money for the NHS) the decisions are binary. Outcomes don't become a bit less tory just because you have representation proportional to the percent of the total your aligned voters voted for. Without your party preference in the majority the others will hold sway. If parliament is split then, as with the lib con coalition, neither set of electors get what they voted for. And the compromises necessary to move forward finished Cleggy.

The liberals have always wanted PR because they perceive it will give them more seats. The tories and labour have always been against it for exactly the same reason.

Nothing is perfect (apart from Fanny Ardant)

View attachment 111777

You can have different electoral systems and still be a democracy. For me I think our systems turn off too large a proportion of the electorate and that is not healthy for society.

Despite being a rare and pivotal event, 13 million people chose not to vote in the EU Referendum. That is poor. What you get is policy being determined by 17 out of 46 million. Somehow the Brexit decision would have been a little bit easier to live with had everybody voted and the outcome been 23.5 to 22.5 Leave.

 

[Hastings gull]

You can have different electoral systems and still be a democracy. For me I think our systems turn off too large a proportion of the electorate and that is not healthy for society.

Despite being a rare and pivotal event, 13 million people chose not to vote in the EU Referendum. That is poor. What you get is policy being determined by 17 out of 46 million. Somehow the Brexit decision would have been a little bit easier to live with had everybody voted and the outcome been 23.5 to 22.5 Leave.

Yes, more would have voted, but I doubt that would have made the whole situation easier -there would still be the same arguments that it was a close-run thing and attention should be paid to the losers.

 

[Hastings gull]

I think the disenfranchisement caused by FPTP is they key here. I'm 50, I've been voting for 30 + years and such is the Tory stranglehold in the parts of West Sussex where I've lived that I don't think I've EVER voted for a candidate who has ended up in power, be it District, County Council or Parliamentary elections.

Yes, I can see that would be frustrating, but exactly the same happens in reverse in say urban areas where the broad mass of voters will always vote labour. as long as you are consisitent . .

 

[Pavilionaire]

Ignorance and disaffection is a lethal combination, so I think the more people feel included in political decision making the more interest they'll take, the more critical they'll become of lazy politicians and the healthier our society will be.

You only have to look across the pond to see where the UK is heading.

 

[GT49er]

If that really were the case then the name of the party that each candidate belonged to wouldn’t be on the ballot paper.

I think it's only in the last thirty or forty years that the party has been included on the ballot paper - any fellow senir middle-agers back me up on this?

 

[Hastings gull]

Ignorance and disaffection is a lethal combination, so I think the more people feel included in political decision making the more interest they'll take, the more critical they'll become of lazy politicians and the healthier our society will be.

You only have to look across the pond to see where the UK is heading.

Yep, they seem to be booming economically, so far as I can gather.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Yep, they seem to be booming economically, so far as I can gather.

Never mind about the planet, the Middle East the Mexican Wall, sexism, racism, etc - all about the money.

 

[GT49er]

Absolutely not. It would give that psychopathic clown Farrage 80 seats. FPTP is like a democratic shock absorber that precludes wild lurches from left to right, followed by a fragmented mess where coalitions are bought and sold by minority extremist parties (see Israel) or degenate into a mire of corruption and deals done in smoke filled rooms (see Italy).

.........and I wonder where the Italians got the idea of deals done in smoke filled rooms from..........we British should perhaps not be the ones to cast the first stone in this instance!

 

[Blue3]

What is needed is a complete overhaul of our politics I have for a long time thought we need to make a new system that is fit for the next 50 years;

1. Move Government out of the House of Parliament and out of London
2. Build new Parliment which should include acomidation, offices for all MPs, press facilities and effective security resturants to totaly eliminate second homes and all expenses
3. Make lobbying of MPs illegal
4. Make funding of political parties only through membership fees
5. All parties who have over a set number of members to receive a fixed rate of state funding for elections
6. All political parties to operate a one member one vote for selection of candidates who will be able to stand if they get a minimum number of other MPs to nominate them
7.General Elections Voting system to be reviewed by an indipendat group then put to a citizens panel to recommend Parliment
8. Abolish the post of Speaker of the House and replace with appointee of the queen
9. Abolish the House of Lords offer all the lords jobs as guides for the national trust showing tourists around the old Parliment buildings set up new second house of elected members
10. All citizens of voting age to be encouraged to vote by allowing a voting selection on the bat tot paper that says none of the above, a citizens assembly to look at possiblity of incentives to vote
11. Speed up public enquires maximum one year duration unless extenuating circumstances then only with permission of Parliament
12. Ministers heading posts to have experience working in role or given experience in role maybe six months working in hospital as a porter, teaching assistant, military support services, inner city community police etc
13. Complete separation of church and state
14. Total ban on MPs holding second jobs this should include regular articles for the press
15. The current Priminister of the day to attend an hour long TV debate with members of the public once a month
16. Promises made in manifestos to be indipendantly verified as possible and implemented
17. All ages over age 16 to vote in any future referendums issues that affect that term of Parliament if vote is on a subject thats effects are will be felt beyond the term of that Parliment then no one over the age of 50 to take part in the vote

 

[Half Time Pies]

Absolutely not. It would give that psychopathic clown Farrage 80 seats. FPTP is like a democratic shock absorber that precludes wild lurches from left to right, followed by a fragmented mess where coalitions are bought and sold by minority extremist parties (see Israel) or degenate into a mire of corruption and deals done in smoke filled rooms (see Italy).

Champions of FPTP systems always trot out the same argument which completely ignores the fact that the overwhelming majority of PR democracies are perfectly stable. You have mentioned a couple of countries that have particularly historical, cultural or political issues which would not be solved by implementing an alternative voting system!

I am not a Farage supporter but how can it be democratic or fair that a large proportion of the population do not have their views represented within our parliament and are completely denied a voice?

For example in 2015 7.3 million people voted for the either the greens, UKIP or the liberal democrats however this 24% of the overall votes cast resulted in just 10 seats! At the same election the conservatives were able to form a government with just 37% of the vote meaning that a party that nearly 2/3rds of us didn't vote for and didn't agree with had all the the power to govern the UK however they liked, whilst at the same time nearly a quarter of voters had literally no voice at all.

I know that no system is perfect but surely this can't be as good as it gets!

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You can have different electoral systems and still be a democracy. For me I think our systems turn off too large a proportion of the electorate and that is not healthy for society.

Despite being a rare and pivotal event, 13 million people chose not to vote in the EU Referendum. That is poor. What you get is policy being determined by 17 out of 46 million. Somehow the Brexit decision would have been a little bit easier to live with had everybody voted and the outcome been 23.5 to 22.5 Leave.

Solution?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

What is needed is a complete overhaul of our politics I have for a long time thought we need to make a new system that is fit for the next 50 years;

1. Move Government out of the House of Parliament and out of London
2. Build new Parliment which should include acomidation, offices for all MPs, press facilities and effective security resturants to totaly eliminate second homes and all expenses
3. Make lobbying of MPs illegal
4. Make funding of political parties only through membership fees
5. All parties who have over a set number of members to receive a fixed rate of state funding for elections
6. All political parties to operate a one member one vote for selection of candidates who will be able to stand if they get a minimum number of other MPs to nominate them
7.General Elections Voting system to be reviewed by an indipendat group then put to a citizens panel to recommend Parliment
8. Abolish the post of Speaker of the House and replace with appointee of the queen
9. Abolish the House of Lords offer all the lords jobs as guides for the national trust showing tourists around the old Parliment buildings set up new second house of elected members
10. All citizens of voting age to be encouraged to vote by allowing a voting selection on the bat tot paper that says none of the above, a citizens assembly to look at possiblity of incentives to vote
11. Speed up public enquires maximum one year duration unless extenuating circumstances then only with permission of Parliament
12. Ministers heading posts to have experience working in role or given experience in role maybe six months working in hospital as a porter, teaching assistant, military support services, inner city community police etc
13. Complete separation of church and state
14. Total ban on MPs holding second jobs this should include regular articles for the press
15. The current Priminister of the day to attend an hour long TV debate with members of the public once a month
16. Promises made in manifestos to be indipendantly verified as possible and implemented
17. All ages over age 16 to vote in any future referendums issues that affect that term of Parliament if vote is on a subject thats effects are will be felt beyond the term of that Parliment then no one over the age of 50 to take part in the vote

That won't work

What about cutting off the goolies?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Champions of FPTP systems always trot out the same argument which completely ignores the fact that the overwhelming majority of PR democracies are perfectly stable. You have mentioned a couple of countries that have particularly historical, cultural or political issues which would not be solved by implementing an alternative voting system!

I am not a Farage supporter but how can it be democratic or fair that a large proportion of the population do not have their views represented within our parliament and are completely denied a voice?

For example in 2015 7.3 million people voted for the either the greens, UKIP or the liberal democrats however this 24% of the overall votes cast resulted in just 10 seats! At the same election the conservatives were able to form a government with just 37% of the vote meaning that a party that nearly 2/3rds of us didn't vote for and didn't agree with had all the the power to govern the UK however they liked, whilst at the same time nearly a quarter of voters had literally no voice at all.

I know that no system is perfect but surely this can't be as good as it gets!

With time everything gets stable (if it doesn't go bang in the first minutes). Dictatorship can be stable (hello China, hello the Catholic church). But if starting from square one in change, nothing is stable. Things are what they are and it is tough to invoke a rightous change especially if you have a vested position (see uk libdems and pr).