[Politics] Proportional Representation

[Mtoto]

under PR, 80 seats for UKIP puts them in government with group of liberal-conservative parties on current voting.

But you can't simply transpose the current parties, policies and vote shares to those that would operate following the introduction of PR. The need to reach 51pc of votes would force both of the current big two towards the centre ground in policy terms *before* the election, while the Lib Dems, who are there already, will also expect to increase their representation significantly. Under PR, coalitions are built from the middle out, not the other way around. "A group of liberal-conservative parties" will get to 51pc without needing to reach out to the extremes.

 

[Blue3]

[MENTION=15734]harry[/MENTION] Wilson Tackle I like a good few of your ideas and particularly the idea of a test to vote a voting licence and the link to feeling that by doing so you are an active member of society.

I was in favour of compulsory voting but I am less keen these days instead I favour incentivised voting which would fit in well with your licence to encourage taking the test to gain the licence.

The funding of political parties is all very shady just look at the referndum and Mr Farages Flat Earth Society the funding of this is proving to be very Byzantine in its complexity and I would not be supprised if it did not go back to Russia but 3 years after the event it's still proving impenetrable, funding from members standard subscriptions and the topped up from central state funding would ensure all parties that have membership numbers above a certain threshold would all receive a set amount to fund elections.

Finally in princable speaking the language is somthing to be encouraged but I am not comfortable with making it compulsory people no matter what language they speak should if they are valid citizens have the opportunity to study for take any test and vote.

Everything else you mention I think has some merit and are the types of ideas that a citizens assembly could discuss.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Interesting. I'd argue that the precise opposite is the case. Over decades, FPTP erodes the middle ground and when the pendulum swings, it swings a little bit further. If - or rather when - it swings again in the UK, it will be much further left than last time, even if Corbyn gets dumped in the meantime. The Conservatives have also been edging to the right over the last 40 years though it is, of necessity, a broad church. The likes of Grieve, Boles and Heseltine have so little in common with the ERG that they could easily be in different parties - and, with PR, they would be.

PR would absolutely be a shock absorber with regard to someone like Farage. 80 seats gives them representation in Parliament, which is only right given the votes they have received, but 80 seats in a PR parliament is very different to 80 seats in a FPTP parliament. You just cannot look at them as one and the same. Under PR, by definition, the government that forms after an election commands the support of at least 50 per cent of the voters. That has never happened here under FPTP since universal suffrage, even in the Labour landslide in 1945 when they got 47.7pc.

A government in a PR parliament is obliged to form around the centre - centre-left or centre-right yes, but centre is the key. Any proposed coalition that includes an 80-seat party promoting an extremist policy is not going to get over the 50pc line. The centre won't accept it, and a different coalition with 50pc+ will form against it.

I understand what you are saying but the two things I disagree with are this. Letting Farrage have his deserved 80 seats gives him legitimacy. Pary political broadcasts. His voice and his baying hoards every day at question time. That is how (ahem, I stand by for the usual sneering) how Nazi Germany began. In my game we used to debate with antivivisectionists, until we realised all it did was allow people to be swayed by bullshit ('No I cannot guarantee that every time I kill an animal it leads to a new medicine' 'Well you shouldn't do it, then'). Don't feed the trolls.

The other thing I disagree with is your argument that every government in PR commands the support of more than 50% of the electorate. No, it is made up of at least 50% of elected MPs. Not the same thing at all (even if 100% of the electorate voted and liberals were happy having a coalition with the tories, etc). What actually happens is uncomfortable alliances of convenience and supporters of liberals (say) annoyed their MPs have coalesced with Conservatives (or socialists, even!).

Anyway, who knows - we'd need to have it and see what happens before we knew for sure

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

And I was about to say that I liked some of your points above

Proportional representation would mean Colin can't take someone else's seat who has beaten him, as that is a FPTP system. And just like FPTP, it is only ever the proportion of those that have actually voted that can be counted.

What I am advocating is a system that (and I believe that Proportional Representation would) favours smaller parties with more focused political policy over the current situation whereby large parties of hugely varying political views are being held together 'artificially' by the single driving policy of 'winning' a FPTP system regardless of what else happens to the country as a result.

I genuinely believe that there may be parties, with very specific policies for whom, Jeremy Corbyn and Boris Johnson would be the ideal leaders as they would believe in and represent those policies.(OK, only for 5 mins in Johnson's case, but you get the gist).

Governments would then be made up of a coalition of a number of parties (as in most places throughout Europe) and those coalitions would tend to form around 'middle ground' policies as those are the things that can be agreed on. There will be occasions where extremely minor parties will have more 'influence' than their size of vote would normally dictate, but again this influence would be 'managed' to agreed policies by the other larger parties.

It's certainly no worse than 'majority' FPTP governments having completely free reign to do whatever they want on very small majorities.

Anyway, I'm sure I've read somewhere that you FPTPers always revert to hunting in packs and calling all of us Proportional Representationers Thick, Racist and claim we don't know what we are voting for

Interesting points. I am more than happy to consider such erudite hypothecating. Especially with it being completely devoid of the common complaint of PRers that the FPTP system is unfair to the liberals because it makes it impossible for them to win. I am open to the argument it leads to collaboration between smaller parties. Perhaps I am also intrigued by the point (made by [MENTION=1078]Mtoto[/MENTION]) that lots of countries including Germany have it and it works.

I guess, that taken into consideration, I feel that it is a big change, with risks, that guarantees nothing, and that is not really on the agenda because there isn't really a widespread feeling that a change is needed (a bit like Brexit before the prick Cameron let us have a referendum on it). I suppose if you deplore a Boris or Corbyn reign then, if you think PR would prevent this (or limit their powers), then you'd favour PR. I'm not so sure.

I also maintain that if I support the Liberals, and find them in coalition with the Conservatives, I may feel betrayed. Would you put up with a merger with Palace (even if only for 5 years) if it guaranteed 5 years of (shared) PL status?

I also doubt that politics would suddenly become less nasty with fewer mendacious psychopathic charismatic gobshites if we had PR.

Thus, despite having PR, the odious Netenyahu has held sway in Israel for decades. And France came close to electing the NF twats (and ended up with Macron, the French equivalent of Des O'Connor). As for Italy....andyway, forgive me if I have mixed up which nation has PR and which doesn't.....

Proof of the pudding would be to change the system and see what happens.....whether pleased or sad about it, this won't happen.

Good chat

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

under PR, 80 seats for UKIP puts them in government with group of liberal-conservative parties on current voting.

Exactly my concern.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

[MENTION=15734]harry[/MENTION] Wilson Tackle I like a good few of your ideas and particularly the idea of a test to vote a voting licence and the link to feeling that by doing so you are an active member of society.

I was in favour of compulsory voting but I am less keen these days instead I favour incentivised voting which would fit in well with your licence to encourage taking the test to gain the licence.

The funding of political parties is all very shady just look at the referndum and Mr Farages Flat Earth Society the funding of this is proving to be very Byzantine in its complexity and I would not be supprised if it did not go back to Russia but 3 years after the event it's still proving impenetrable, funding from members standard subscriptions and the topped up from central state funding would ensure all parties that have membership numbers above a certain threshold would all receive a set amount to fund elections.

Finally in princable speaking the language is somthing to be encouraged but I am not comfortable with making it compulsory people no matter what language they speak should if they are valid citizens have the opportunity to study for take any test and vote.

Everything else you mention I think has some merit and are the types of ideas that a citizens assembly could discuss.

Cheers.

One point. To get UK citizenship today (and at least 12 years ago) you first have to pass a citizenship test that has a language component. My son (born in Canada, and too idle to get his automatic citizenship when it was available and he had an entitlement) had to take the test. I think my anti-racist anti-right-wing-nutter credentials are well established on NSC, so I do feel comfortable enough to advocate language requirements for eligibility to vote. These days English citizens with no English language capability are few and far between and are elderly relatives of immigrants who came to the UK before the early noughties and the citizenship laws were changed and who live in tight communities where English is not required. Some of them are the same people who have been part of the electoral fraud accusations where old folk were told who to vote for by community leaders, in recent years, in some caes with ballot papers collected by 'helpful volunteers' (council elections I think it was). This is not a big deal in the great scheme of things, but it is wrong and fixing it makes sense. I am not saying chuck people out who came here before the laws changed and who still can't speak English (definitely not!). I am saying encourage them to learn English in order to qualify for the right to vote (according to my right to vote scheme).

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Oh, and I think we need laws to define when a referendum can be called. 'To save my sorry arse' (Cameron) should not be part of that rubric.....

 

[Hastings gull]

Our political system summed up by my 7 year old son....

My Son "Daddy why are those people on the radio making those strange shouting noises"
Me "thats a debate in our house of parliament, the prime minister is speaking and if they agree with what she says they will shout 'Yaaaaaay' and if they don't agree they will shout 'Boooooooo'"
My Son "thats a bit stupid"

The solution to more engagement is having a system that people feel actually represents them and where politicians work together for the common good rather than one where a bunch off toffs get drunk in the subsidised bars and then shout at each other from opposing benches/ sides of the room.

My hope is that in the 11 years between now and when my son gets old enough to vote, something will change which means that he doesn't have to do what I have had to do for most of my life and vote tactically for one of two parties based on which one he dislikes the least.

Yes, I see what you are saying, but it is somewhat naive to assume that with PR or whatever system you want, MPs won't shout at each other, and also work together for the country -they will still be of the same ilk, with allegiances that sadly mean that the party will always come first irrespective. Sad, but true, i fear.

 

[Wardy's twin]

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.

Agree that PR is not necessarily a good thing - just look how the DUP manipulated the situation of small party but a lot more power.

But FPTP is not necessarily good either , in our life time a party with the most votes did not get the most seats and it can mean that in a polarised country a slightly bigger proportion of the population could screw the rest.

My person view is we need to get away from that polarisation and move towards honest consensus politics where people do what is right not what is right for the few (or indeed 51%).

 

[Hastings gull]

Agree that PR is not necessarily a good thing - just look how the DUP manipulated the situation of small party but a lot more power.

But FPTP is not necessarily good either , in our life time a party with the most votes did not get the most seats and it can mean that in a polarised country a slightly bigger proportion of the population could screw the rest.

My person view is we need to get away from that polarisation and move towards honest consensus politics where people do what is right not what is right for the few (or indeed 51%).

All very well in theory - but what is right exactly? Your mention of the few gives the game away and I can't help feeling that your final mention of 51% contradicts what you actually say you want. Presumably you want to deny the 51% the right to have what they voted for? That is presumably consensus politics.

 

[Weststander]

Agree that PR is not necessarily a good thing - just look how the DUP manipulated the situation of small party but a lot more power.

But FPTP is not necessarily good either , in our life time a party with the most votes did not get the most seats and it can mean that in a polarised country a slightly bigger proportion of the population could screw the rest.

My person view is we need to get away from that polarisation and move towards honest consensus politics where people do what is right not what is right for the few (or indeed 51%).

I get your last paragraph. For a government, which might be a coalition, to do what it takes to leave the overwhelming majority of voters happy or at least not dissatisfied on major policy areas.

Probably very hard to achieve in reality.

The 2010-15 coalition largely sticking it out together was a bit of a miracle. Normally factions within would politic for position and catfight, plus the media of the left or right (including social media) opposed to that consensus would propagandise to destroy it.

 

[Wardy's twin]

[/B]

All very well in theory - but what is right exactly? Your mention of the few gives the game away and I can't help feeling that your final mention of 51% contradicts what you actually say you want. Presumably you want to deny the 51% the right to have what they voted for? That is presumably consensus politics.

The issue is about what is morally right. The fact that 51% of the population voted for it does not make it right it might just mean that 51% feel it is better for them. For example if 51% voted to kill the other 49% then it's 'democratic' but on the face of it my gut feel says that is wrong. In its truest sense democracy is about consensus where everyone agrees what happens next is for the benefit of everyone. Idealistic , yes but if we don't aspire to improving whats there now then we will have no hope.

 

[Surf's Up]

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.

Blimey, that would eliminate 95% of the Tory vote and 85% of the Labour vote!!!