Time for PR, surely?

[severnside gull]

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?

but it could mean that the wishes/views of more than 50% of popular voters are reflected in government rather than those of 36% of the electorate

 

[Guy Fawkes]

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?

But it is, each constituancy holds its own vote and the people who live there are free to vote for any of the candidates standing in that constituancy. The one with the most votes wins the seat.

Because someone feels a party hasn't won enough seats to reflect their share of the vote doesn't mean that they should be rewarded for not being good enough, should a candidate who loses by a couple of votes still become an MP because they were so close but were rejected by the voters?

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

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?

A beauty of a preferential voting system such as the Single Transferable Vote is that as you are able to indicate second and third preferences and who you definitely don't want in. It is also sophisticated enough to reflect those preferences in the results at both ends of the scale i.e. if you vote for someone who has no chance of winning, your second choice will then be allocated. Also, if loads of people unite behind a particular candidate, their second preference will also come into play.

One of the problems of First Past The Post is that it puts pressure on people to vote tactically i.e. not for the party they most agree with.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

but it could mean that the wishes/views of more than 50% of popular voters are reflected in government rather than those of 36% of the electorate

Its not 50% of the electorate, if it was, they would have all voted for the one party giving it an overall majority, in essance your guessing as you cant say for sure that the voters wanted one or both of the parties who form a coalition in charge of running the country.

What if a party like the BNP carried the decisive votes?

 

[Juan Albion]

should a candidate who loses by a couple of votes still become an MP because they were so close but were rejected by the voters?

Well, if those two candidates were particularly good politicians, the likelihood is they would both end up in parliament under PR if all parties put their candidates in order of ability (big if!), whereas under your system, one excellent representative would be excluded entirely. Again, democracy wins under PR.

 

[Juan Albion]

What if a party like the BNP carried the decisive votes?

That wouldn't be a problem, as far as I can see. First, to hold the balance of power, a significant number of people would have to have voted for them - and we might not like it, but that is democracy for you.

Second, the BNP policies that people dislike are likely to be voted against by the vast majority of other parties, whatever their political colour.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

Under a preferential voting system, the BNP would be very unlikely to hold the balance of power as they are most disliked and would be unlikely to win any seats.

 

[Juan Albion]

Just for fun, this would have been the seat distribution using a straight PR system with no tweaks. (Yeah, I know the numbers don't quite add up, but I have rounded numbers because I couldn't be bothered).
First number is seats won this election, second is number of votes, third is number of seats under basic PR.

Conservative 306 10,706,647 234
Labour 258 8,604,358 188
Liberal Democrat 57 6,827,938 149
Democratic Unionist Party 8 168,216 4
Scottish National Party 6 491,386 11
Sinn Fein 5 171,942 4
Plaid Cymru 3 165,394 4
Social Democratic & Labour Party 3 110,970 2
Green 1 285,616 6
Alliance Party 1 42,762 1
UK Independence Party 0 917,832 20
British National Party 0 563,743 12
Ulster Conservatives and Unionists - New Force 0 102,361 2
English Democrats 0 64,826 1
Respect-Unity Coalition 0 33,251 1
Traditional Unionist Voice 0 26,300 1
Christian Party 0 18,623 0
Independent Community and Health Concern 0 16,150 0
Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition 0 12,275 0
Scottish Socialist Party 0 3,157 0
Others 1 319,891 7

 

[BensGrandad]

Just looking at the above figures of votes cast etc a simple question with PR would any party ever get an overall majority. It would appear not if these figures are representative of how it would work.

 

[withdeanwombat]

Most parties are coalitions anyway.Thus right wing Tories and left wing Tories.Left wing labour/right wing Labour.

The ,err,today I'm Liberal/Liberal,tomorrow I'm a Conservative Liberal (cf Winston Churchill.)

 

[Juan Albion]

Just looking at the above figures of votes cast etc a simple question with PR would any party ever get an overall majority. It would appear not if these figures are representative of how it would work.

Surely the answer to that question is the same as asking when was the last time a 'winning party' achieved 50%+1 of the vote? It does happen, but not that often.

It may happen less often under PR because more people would vote (how many people don't vote because they live in a safe seat and think it a waste of time?) - and more would vote the way they really wanted to vote (as opposed to tactically).

 

[BensGrandad]

Using those figures of;

Conservative 234 seats
Labour 188 seats
Lib Dem 149 seats

There is no way that any government could get any legislation passed that the others didnt want not even a budget. So I do not see how it could possibly work.

 

[looney]

So all those expenses fiddling MPs that where ousted would be safe on party lists?

the only situations where various countries Operate a PR system is the EU. Works well does it?

Its a system for compromising with exstremes, its a really f***ed up system. Better the devil you know. This haggling and dealing is what PR would produce every Election.

the Nats want bribes to join a coalition, at a time when we have to make loads of cuts, especially those over funded dominions.

Its a joke, the countries f***ed.

 

[Juan Albion]

Using those figures of;

Conservative 234 seats
Labour 188 seats
Lib Dem 149 seats

There is no way that any government could get any legislation passed that the others didnt want not even a budget. So I do not see how it could possibly work.

But it does work. It simply moderates things sometimes. We have the same three parties over here (well, in effect) plus the traitorous Bloc Quebecois to make life even more interesting, although we too are a first-past-the-post system. You would think nothing would get done, but it does. You have to remember that although the smaller parties could bring down the government any time, it isn't always in their interest to do so. Plus the biggest party has to consider what it can get agreement to do, which in the end usually is a better representation of how the people voted.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Just for fun, this would have been the seat distribution using a straight PR system with no tweaks. (Yeah, I know the numbers don't quite add up, but I have rounded numbers because I couldn't be bothered).
First number is seats won this election, second is number of votes, third is number of seats under basic PR.

Conservative 306 10,706,647 234
Labour 258 8,604,358 188
Liberal Democrat 57 6,827,938 149
Democratic Unionist Party 8 168,216 4
Scottish National Party 6 491,386 11
Sinn Fein 5 171,942 4
Plaid Cymru 3 165,394 4
Social Democratic & Labour Party 3 110,970 2
Green 1 285,616 6
Alliance Party 1 42,762 1
UK Independence Party 0 917,832 20
British National Party 0 563,743 12
Ulster Conservatives and Unionists - New Force 0 102,361 2
English Democrats 0 64,826 1
Respect-Unity Coalition 0 33,251 1
Traditional Unionist Voice 0 26,300 1
Christian Party 0 18,623 0
Independent Community and Health Concern 0 16,150 0
Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition 0 12,275 0
Scottish Socialist Party 0 3,157 0
Others 1 319,891 7

So a party that gets 10,706,647 votes gets 234 MPs, yet a party with just 26,300 votes gets an MP - if each seat was worth the same number of votes, so dividing the Tory figure by the 26,300 votes the Trade Unionist Voice polled the Tories would have 407 seats - so the TUV condidate would get in ahead of a (more worthy?) Tory based on average votes per seat.

So is PR a fairer system, or just one that leads to continual coalition Governments which suits a party like the Lib Dems who are never going to win outright but this gives them more power and more say in running the country.

 

[Marshy]

PR will give the BNP and similar a far greater voice....

 

[Race]

just out of interest, does anyone know the number of seats that would have been won if the scottish votes didn't count? heard it on the radio this morning and it was quite interesting. on nicky campbell's show someone said that they shouldn't be able to vote due to devolution, as we dont get a say in what they do.

 

[BensGrandad]

just out of interest, does anyone know the number of seats that would have been won if the scottish votes didn't count? heard it on the radio this morning and it was quite interesting. on nicky campbell's show someone said that they shouldn't be able to vote due to devolution, as we dont get a say in what they do.

Sounds a reasonable argument to me.

 

[beorhthelm]

Using those figures of;

Conservative 234 seats
Labour 188 seats
Lib Dem 149 seats

There is no way that any government could get any legislation passed that the others didnt want not even a budget. So I do not see how it could possibly work.

it wouldnt and doesnt aborad. most countries with PR see coalitions and alliances forged after each election. some say this is great and it does have merit. however, the flaw is that you end up with a large madate for a party which might then be unable to actually deliver its manifesto upon which it was elected. so much for democracy, ultimatly the price of everyone's vote counting is noones votes rally counts for much.

and the parties splinter. you end up with 3 shades of Conservative, 4 shades of Labour, a couple of Liberal groups, the Greens, the Nationalists, the Communists and various looney groups chipping in. i recall Italy has a pro-prostituion party, Sweden has a party dedicated to opposing copyright legislation. its great they have a voice, but what gets done in all the noise?

just out of interest, does anyone know the number of seats that would have been won if the scottish votes didn't count?

dont know the numbers, but suffice to say Labour wouldnt have formed a government in the past 2 elections or probably most in their history without the Scottish seats.

 

[Gwylan]

Surely the answer to that question is the same as asking when was the last time a 'winning party' achieved 50%+1 of the vote? It does happen, but not that often.

I answered this on another thread. It's happened three times since 1900: once when women didn't have the vote and twice when we had a National Government. So, under universal suffrage, in straight election, we've never had an instance of a winning party receiving 50 percent of the vote.

Sweden has a party dedicated to opposing copyright legislation.

As does the UK; The Pirate Party stood in ten seats.

dont know the numbers, but suffice to say Labour wouldnt have formed a government in the past 2 elections or probably most in their history without the Scottish seats.

The most paradoxical aspect of this is that the party that's most in favour of the Union of the United Kingdom is the party that would benefit most from its break-up.