Time for PR, surely?

[Brian Fantana]

Conservatives - 10,706,647 votes = 306 seats
Liberal Democrats - 6,827,938 votes = 57 seats

Where's the logic?

 

[Notters]

Absolutely. And in Brighton & Hove:

Labour: 46,000, 0 seats
Lib Dem: 26,000, 0 seats
Green: 18,000, 1 seat

 

[Notters]

How many did labour get by the way?

 

[Juan Albion]

Or nationally:

Democratic Unionist Party 168,216 = 8 seats

UK Independence Party 917,832 = 0 seats

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

It is ludicrous to have a system of election for national elections that merely reflects whether a party has enough votes concentrated in a geographical area or not.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Great, never having one party in charge and running the country on its own ever again and having to rely on coalitions is a much better option because weve been left with a situation where we need a coalition in place to form a Government

The fact that the results for the elections since at least the 1950s show no party has gained at least 50% of the vote needed to have a clear majority, and possibly leading to politicians being able to endlessly "haggle and bicker and scheme" delaying decision-making and leading to paralysis.

 

[Notters]

Or nationally:

Democratic Unionist Party 168,216 = 8 seats

UK Independence Party 917,832 = 0 seats

f***. Me.

 

[Juan Albion]

Great, never having one party in charge and running the country on its own ever again and having to rely on coalitions is a much better option because weve been left with a situation where we need a coalition in place to form a Government

The fact that the results for the elections since at least the 1950s show no party has gained at least 50% of the vote needed to have a clear majority, and possibly leading to politicians being able to endlessly "haggle and bicker and scheme" delaying decision-making and leading to paralysis.

No, the politicians need to grow up, realize that no one party's policies are universally popular and work to come to a consensus, thus not only moderating any sudden swings from left to right (or vice versa) but also more accurately reflecting the wishes of the people.

How can a system that only rewards concentrations of popularity and ignores more widespread popularity, ever be a fair representation of the wishes of the people?

Much better to have government by negotiation than government by party dictatorship (in which party members are often not even allowed to vote according to their own beliefs).

 

[seagullwedgee]

and do you know what life under a PR government would be like? just like it is RIGHT NOW.

no clear leadership, slow decisions, horse-trading, uncertainty, committee based strategy, uncertain markets, stock market and currency collapse (I suppose will blame cameron now because their holiday pound has shrunk, or their pension fund collapsed).

Get real, PR is not an efficient structural mechanism anywhere on the planet, and just be careful what you pray for.............

 

[Juan Albion]

and do you know what life under a PR government would be like? just like it is RIGHT NOW.

no clear leadership, slow decisions, horse-trading, uncertainty, committee based strategy, uncertain markets, stock market and currency collapse (I suppose will blame cameron now because their holiday pound has shrunk, or their pension fund collapsed).

Get real, PR is not an efficient structural mechanism anywhere on the planet, and just be careful what you pray for.............

Get real? This is real: Canada has had a minority government through this economic crisis and has come out of it perhaps the strongest of all the developed nations. While it isn't technically a government elected by PR, it is very similar to the situation you have "RIGHT NOW".

Mind you, when painted into a corner, the ruling Conservatives here just close the government down and go on holiday. Maybe that's the answer - no government at all.

 

[severnside gull]

It's time but it won't happen with Cameron

 

[Half Time Pies]

Great, never having one party in charge and running the country on its own ever again and having to rely on coalitions is a much better option because weve been left with a situation where we need a coalition in place to form a Government

The fact that the results for the elections since at least the 1950s show no party has gained at least 50% of the vote needed to have a clear majority, and possibly leading to politicians being able to endlessly "haggle and bicker and scheme" delaying decision-making and leading to paralysis.

This argument that PR and coalition governments don't work and lead to paralysis does not stand up to scrutiny. In Germany a coalition government is the norm and it resides over the largest and most successful economy in Europe. In fact of the 16 countries worldwide with the top 'triple A' credit rating 10 are run by coalitions and 12 use a form of PR to elect their governments.

 

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

Conservatives - 10,706,647 votes = 306 seats
Liberal Democrats - 6,827,938 votes = 57 seats

Where's the logic?

There is none. PR is a MUST

 

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

and do you know what life under a PR government would be like? just like it is RIGHT NOW.

no clear leadership, slow decisions, horse-trading, uncertainty, committee based strategy, uncertain markets, stock market and currency collapse (I suppose will blame cameron now because their holiday pound has shrunk, or their pension fund collapsed).

Get real, PR is not an efficient structural mechanism anywhere on the planet, and just be careful what you pray for.............

Have you lived ina country with PR or is this your assumption. I have klived in 3 PR counties and all did fine with it.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

No, the politicians need to grow up, realize that no one party's policies are universally popular and work to come to a consensus, thus not only moderating any sudden swings from left to right (or vice versa) but also more accurately reflecting the wishes of the people.

How can a system that only rewards concentrations of popularity and ignores more widespread popularity, ever be a fair representation of the wishes of the people?

Much better to have government by negotiation than government by party dictatorship (in which party members are often not even allowed to vote according to their own beliefs).

So the party that wins the most votes in an election (or seats in this case) shouldn't ever be allowed to rule because politicians need to grow up?

The party that most people voted for to run this country in this election are the Tories, they received the most votes and won the most seats but could end up with no say in the running of the country because other parties could form a coalition with a higher majority, How does that reflect how people voted?

PR means that coalitions will almost always be needed to gain a majoity going on past voting patterns and what you end up with doesn't necessarily reflect what was voted for. It could also mean small parties having a disproportionate amount of power as their numbers are the key to passing acts.

Also what effect does this have on Independants, they are very unlikely to get elected directly yet the total number of votes for independants might mean that some MPs would have come from this group so who would get in? - most Independant MPs stand on local issues, and these could be ignored by this process, which surely can't be in the nations interest

 

[Frutos]

Conservatives - 10,706,647 votes = 306 seats
Liberal Democrats - 6,827,938 votes = 57 seats

Where's the logic?

There is none whatsoever.

Surely to really be able to call ourselves a democracy, we have to have a system which better reflects the views of the electorate than the current one does.

How can it be right that a difference of roughly 4 million votes between two parties can lead to one having 250 MPs more than the other?

 

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

So the party that wins the most votes in an election (or seats in this case) shouldn't ever be allowed to rule because politicians need to grow up?

The party that most people voted for to run this country in this election are the Tories, they received the most votes and won the most seats but could end up with no say in the running of the country because other parties could form a coalition with a higher majority, How does that reflect how people voted?

PR means that coalitions will almost always be needed to gain a majoity going on past voting patterns and what you end up with doesn't necessarily reflect what was voted for. It could also mean small parties having a disproportionate amount of power as their numbers are the key to passing acts.

Also what effect does this have on Independants, they are very unlikely to get elected directly yet the total number of votes for independants might mean that some MPs would have come from this group so who would get in? - most Independant MPs stand on local issues, and these could be ignored by this process, which surely can't be in the nations interest

By its very nature FPTP is a system that puts local interests before national interests. However since its inception the country has changed. We now have local council elections as well which deal with the local issues.

As this country is now more concerned about who runs the country rather than who runs the local borough, FPTP becomes outdated and PR become more reflective of the country's national interest.

 

[Juan Albion]

So the party that wins the most votes in an election (or seats in this case) shouldn't ever be allowed to rule because politicians need to grow up?

The party that most people voted for to run this country in this election are the Tories, they received the most votes and won the most seats but could end up with no say in the running of the country because other parties could form a coalition with a higher majority, How does that reflect how people voted?

Your scenario would only happen if enough parties got together to be able to outvote the Tories consistently, and they could only outvote the Tories if they represented more voters than the Tories. So what's the problem?

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

and do you know what life under a PR government would be like? just like it is RIGHT NOW.

no clear leadership, slow decisions, horse-trading, uncertainty, committee based strategy, uncertain markets, stock market and currency collapse (I suppose will blame cameron now because their holiday pound has shrunk, or their pension fund collapsed).

Get real, PR is not an efficient structural mechanism anywhere on the planet, and just be careful what you pray for.............

There is a lot of evidence that the current First Past The Post system is a broken system of election. To summarise:
- The votes cast bear very little relationship to the number of MPs each party has received, as others have pointed out. Indeed, I would add, how can it be fair that the Lib Dems win more votes this time round than last time and actually have less representation in Parliament?
- The votes cast don't even necessarily reflect what voters agree with. A lot of people didn't vote for the party they most agreed with in order to stop another party from winning.

I think it is possible to let all of this evidence in even if you have qualms about what PR might/will bring. Like you, I don't support Proportional Representation simply because proportional seats do not represent proportional power, especially in the case of a small party that holds the balance of power. Also, proportional representation destroys the link between local constituency and MP.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Your scenario would only happen if enough parties got together to be able to outvote the Tories consistently, and they could only outvote the Tories if they represented more voters than the Tories. So what's the problem?

Would anyone have voted for both parties? - No, they both got fewer votes that the winning party meaning more people want to see their policies in action rather than one of the other parties, yet we could end up with 2 parties who polled a minority, failing to recieve a mandate from the voters instigating their policies, how is that democracy?

What if you supported one and were deeply opposed to the other, how does that represent your vote?