Proportional Representation.

[Stadt]

I'm not very clued up about the repercussions it'd have but would this benefit Britain as there seems to be so much apathy toward the current parties? Obviously if there's too many parties it's detrimental but say if the next 5 general elections were conducted by proportional representation as opposed to the fptp system what would happen?

[Unabomber]

Blimey

[Stadt]

Blimey

I'm going to be more LargeAl than MTWG aren't I? 

[Captain...]

True PR is an interesting concept,

 

The upside would be that all votes would count, whereas now there are so many safe seats and entrenched voting views that a lot of people can't be arsed.

 

The downside is that there would be a lot more hung parliaments and uncomfortable coalitions, fringe lunatics like the BNP would get seats in the house commons, (they got nearly 2% of the votes in the last election which would mean they would hold 12 seats in the commons) and if that did happen then you would have to restructure the whole of the house of commons and the concept of constituencies being represented in the commons, otherwise boroughs that didn't vote for the BNP would have them representing their constituency.

 

The alternative vote was a much better option, but unfortunately we got conned out of a proper debate and referendum on it by powerful people wanting to maintain the status quo.

[Strokes]

PR is far from a fair perfect system, but I think it marginally is better, overall than FPTP. Surely there has to be a better option than those two?

[Stadt]

True PR is an interesting concept,

 

The upside would be that all votes would count, whereas now there are so many safe seats and entrenched voting views that a lot of people can't be arsed.

 

The downside is that there would be a lot more hung parliaments and uncomfortable coalitions, fringe lunatics like the BNP would get seats in the house commons, (they got nearly 2% of the votes in the last election which would mean they would hold 12 seats in the commons) and if that did happen then you would have to restructure the whole of the house of commons and the concept of constituencies being represented in the commons, otherwise boroughs that didn't vote for the BNP would have them representing their constituency.

 

The alternative vote was a much better option, but unfortunately we got conned out of a proper debate and referendum on it by powerful people wanting to maintain the status quo.

It is interesting, I'm studying Weimar atm and there was hung parliaments left, right and centre and you're right about the lunatics gaining seats but UK politics are steadily drifting into the doldrums and something needs to be done about it because it's only getting worse.

[Strokes]

PR is far from a fair perfect system, but I think it marginally is better, overall than FPTP. Surely there has to be a better option than those two?

Sorry I've got this mixed up with alternative vote.

[ADK]

One would have to decide exactly on the system. Would we have regional PR or national PR? How would a Government be formed?

 

National PR would take power away from nationalist parties like the SNP and Plaid, would we treat NI like the rest of the UK or would they still vote for the protestant party or catholic party like they currently do? On the other hand, Celtic supporters would probably vote Sinn Fein...

 

I do prefer PR, it is a better reflection of hat the public want, whether good or bad. I reckon the first parliament would be messy though with untested parties like UKIP and the Greens having a lot of seats with little depth of suitable MPs or government experience.

[ScouseFox]

you lost me at proportional 

[Guest MattP]

True PR is an interesting concept,

 

The upside would be that all votes would count, whereas now there are so many safe seats and entrenched voting views that a lot of people can't be arsed.

 

The downside is that there would be a lot more hung parliaments and uncomfortable coalitions, fringe lunatics like the BNP would get seats in the house commons, (they got nearly 2% of the votes in the last election which would mean they would hold 12 seats in the commons) and if that did happen then you would have to restructure the whole of the house of commons and the concept of constituencies being represented in the commons, otherwise boroughs that didn't vote for the BNP would have them representing their constituency.

 

The alternative vote was a much better option, but unfortunately we got conned out of a proper debate and referendum on it by powerful people wanting to maintain the status quo.

 

The BNP point is invalid, if 2% of the population want the BNP in as their representation in parliament then they should get it, the same goes for the Greens/Communists, Loonies, Britain First, SF and all the other lunatics, if anyone starts arguing against a voting system on the basis that it might bring a party into parliament that they don't like then they have already lost the argument for me.

 

As a Tory I shouldn't support PR but it's clear to me it's a far fairer form of democracy. It's quite outrageous in this day and age a party could even secure a majority in the house on less than 35% of the vote due to the boundaries and winning a shedloads of marginals whilst losing 200 areas by a country mile.

 

I have a feeling we'll be talking about this in May a little bit more, we could could have a party in UKIP taking 20-25% of the national vote in Britain yet ending up with less than 1% of the MP's in parliament, if situations like that occur no one will be able to defend the fairness of FPTP anymore.

 

 

I do prefer PR, it is a better reflection of hat the public want, whether good or bad. I reckon the first parliament would be messy though with untested parties like UKIP and the Greens having a lot of seats with little depth of suitable MPs or government experience.

 

Don't worry about that, if they knew PR was coming you'd have half the Tory party clambouring to join UKIP now to get a piece of the action, wouldn't be surprised to see some senior big name Liberals and Labour members be defecting to the Greens either if there position was under severe threat.

[Rincewind]

On this I agree with you Matt. I have been for PR for many years and still am.

[Captain...]

The valid point about the BNP was that they would be representing a constituency, unless PR completely did away with any sort of local representation in the House of Commons. No one borough would like to see their views represented by a BNP candidate even if 2% of the population voted for them.

I guess true PR would encourage more people to vote and less protest voting as every vote would count, hopefully minimising the number of Fringe loonies.

It would mean a total overhaul of our political system. Whereas AV allows us to keep the house of commons as is and vote for your local representative.

With PR does the party get to attribute their seats to whichever candidates they want? Do they have to declare beforehand who would take what seat and in what order?

[Guest Kopfkino]

FPTP is a system geared up for 2 or possibly three parties. It worked in days gone by when that was pretty much the situation but it doesn't work when you have 5+ competitive parties like we will see next year as well as the nationalist parties.

 

I'm not sure which I prefer myself, I'm probably not clued up enough on the different electoral systems. PR seems more democratic and AV is an interesting proposition

[ADK]

The valid point about the BNP was that they would be representing a constituency, unless PR completely did away with any sort of local representation in the House of Commons. No one borough would like to see their views represented by a BNP candidate even if 2% of the population voted for them.

I guess true PR would encourage more people to vote and less protest voting as every vote would count, hopefully minimising the number of Fringe loonies.

It would mean a total overhaul of our political system. Whereas AV allows us to keep the house of commons as is and vote for your local representative.

With PR does the party get to attribute their seats to whichever candidates they want? Do they have to declare beforehand who would take what seat and in what order?

 

In my opinion you would have to do away with constituencies and either have regional PR as it is done for the MEP elections or national PR where the house of commons MPs have no ties to a local area.

 

The regional PR would filter some of the more fringe parties which might be a good thing and could be tied in with regional assemblies which might be a good thing too. One vote would then elect both house of commons and regional assembly members.

[Alf Bentley]

Here are some things that will either happen or nearly happen in the 2015 General Election, under First Past The Post (FPTP):

- 90%-95% of constituencies are entirely predictable now, regardless of events or the campaign

- Labour or Tories could win an absolute majority by getting less than 35% of the vote on a 60% turnout

- Labour could form a govt with almost no rural/small town MPs, despite winning a couple of million votes in such areas

- Tories could form a govt with almost no big city MPs outside London, despite winning a couple of million votes in such areas

- UKIP could get 10%-20%+ of the national vote but very few MPs

- Greens could double their vote and lose their only MP

- Tories could get 15-20% of the Scottish vote but no Scottish MPs

- After being under-represented for years, Lib Dems could lose 80% of their vote, but only 30% of their MPs

 

FPTP worked for a 2-party system but is completely dysfunctional now. Just look at what happened in the Scottish referendum when every vote mattered: 85%+ turnout, massive political engagement, parties trying to win every vote, countless thousands now joining parties....that's much healthier for democracy, than what we've currently got. That could happen in England & Wales with electoral reform.

 

The effects of electoral reform on politics would depend on (a) the specific type of "PR" chosen; and (b) the other political institutions/systems in place (e.g. local/regional govt, 2nd chamber/House of Lords, Commons committees, lobbying)

 

I like the idea of Single Transferable Vote (STV) in Multi-Member Constituencies, which is much more proportional than First Past The Post (FPTP), but not as proportional as a national list system of PR. A national list system would centralise power nationally and within parties. It would completely eliminate constituency links and would allow tiny parties to exercise disproportionate influence in hung parliaments (e.g. 2% BNP holding balance of power at Westminster). This could involve party lists in each constituency (as per Euro elections), but transferring votes by preferences (e.g. "Greens 1, Labour 2, Lib Dems 3, Tories 4, UKIP 5" or vice versa). Alternatively voters could be allowed to prefer particular candidates on party lists or even on different party lists (more freedom for voters but potentially confusing and leading to spoilt ballots?)

 

There is no perfect system, but STV in multi-member constituencies eliminates or reduces the disadvantages of both FPTP and national list PR. Instead of having 3 MPs (all Labour) in Leicester and 7 (all Tory) in the county, you could have 10 MPs for Leicester & Leicestershire. Based on current polls, Leicester & Leicestershire would end up with something like 4 Tory MPs, 3 Labour MPs, 2 UKIP MPs & 1 Lib Dem MP. You'd also end up with more Tory MPs in major cities and Scotland, more Labour MP representing rural / Home Counties constituencies, and a scattering of Lib Dem, UKIP and Green MPs nationwide.

 

This would be much fairer and healthier for politics. Although a minority, large numbers vote Tory in big cities or Scotland and go unrepresented. The same applies to Labour voters in rural areas and the SE outside London, while the Lib Dems, UKIP and the Greens are likely to be under-represented everywhere under FPTP.

 

Yet, unlike national list PR, this system (a) doesn't completely eliminate the constituency link; (b) doesn't allow tiny parties like the BNP disproportionate influence. With multi-member constituencies of this size, you'd need to poll close to 10% of the vote across a large area to have even 1 MP at Westminster. As Matt said, if the BNP poll 10% in Leicestershire and get an MP, then that's democracy. They've won council seats and MEPs before, and have been pushed back by local campaigning (itself a very healthy thing) - and the main parties wouldn't do a deal with them at Westminster if that would be massively unpopular nationwide.

 

This system does dilute (but not eliminate) the constituency link, but that could be offset by strengthening local and/or regional government, as ADK has suggested.

 

Compared to the 1950s-1980s, it makes coalitions more likely. But coalitions are more likely now, anyway, due to the recent rise of the Lib Dems, UKIP, Greens & SNP, tactical voting, the party politics disconnect etc.....and major parties like Labour and the Tories are essentially coalitions of views within a single party, anyway.

 

The long-term effects of this system might include a party political realignment, but would be very unlikely to cause a major splintering into lots of small parties. It would mean that every vote mattered: Labour couldn't take Salford housing estates for granted and the Tories couldn't ignore them; the Tories couldn't take the home counties for granted and Labour couldn't ignore them. All parties would have a vested interest in attracting the interest of those who don't vote or are alienated from politics. All major national parties would represent a range of different areas and people. It would also eliminate the absurd concentration of policy and political parties on swing voters in the middle ground - there'd also be votes to win on the left and right, or from people mainly concerned about immigration or the environment. 

[ozleicester]

Proportional voting is a much better system.

 

Dennis the election koala has it nailed

 

[Rincewind]

What I do not agree with as things are now is when your MP is somebody you did not vote for. You cannot receive help from an MP outside your area. I have know people to write to their MP's on certain issues and just receive bog standard letters back which basically toes the party line and does not address the person's concern. The margin that the MP get in could be small. Maybe 2 to 3 hundred majority. So if you take the smaller parties votes and turnout  the difference would be negligible and the MP could even have fewer votes overall. Would it not be better to have more than one MP you could turn to?

I am lucky to have an MP who shares some of my views and is very vocal on them. If I lived afew miles away in the County I would be stuck with someone for five years who may refuse to help because they think what their party does is right.

This could be any party that is in power at any given time.

[Alf Bentley]

What I do not agree with as things are now is when your MP is somebody you did not vote for. You cannot receive help from an MP outside your area. I have know people to write to their MP's on certain issues and just receive bog standard letters back which basically toes the party line and does not address the person's concern. The margin that the MP get in could be small. Maybe 2 to 3 hundred majority. So if you take the smaller parties votes and turnout  the difference would be negligible and the MP could even have fewer votes overall. Would it not be better to have more than one MP you could turn to?

I am lucky to have an MP who shares some of my views and is very vocal on them. If I lived afew miles away in the County I would be stuck with someone for five years who may refuse to help because they think what their party does is right.

This could be any party that is in power at any given time.

 

Good point, Ken, and one that would be largely remedied by PR in multi-member constituencies, the system that I advocated (at length   ) above.

 

Regardless of their party, any decent MP will take up any reasonable personal grievance that doesn't specifically conflict with party policy. Some might take notice of negative side-effects of their party's policy and raise them. But they're not likely to do much about an objection that conflicts with their party's agreed policy, unless there's a lot of demand in their constituency (e.g. if their party plans to close down a local hospital).

 

If you had, say, 10 MPs elected for Leicester & Leicestershire, a Tory/UKIP voter living in Leicester could find a local Tory/UKIP MP who'd be sympathetic re. the effects of Labour support for the EU. Likewise, a Labour voter in Hinckley or Coalville could speak to a Labour MP sympathetic to the effects of Tory public spending cuts. Of course, if that party wasn't in government, there'd still be limitations on what they could achieve, but it would be better than the current set-up.

[Footballwipe]

Well, when there is literally no point in voting in next year's election because the Conservative candidate is a shoe-in for re-election, whether it still be Robathan or a laughing monkey, PR does sound fairer.

 

*(the Conservative point was not a swipe at the Tories, I know there are seats all over the UK with Lab, Ld, SNP and NI parties where the same scenario happens)

[peach0000]

It would be a fairer system if we can cope with constant coalitions and weak governments. Also there is usually an issue of having a representative for each area which is hard to implement with PR. Large multi member constituencies could work but then there is the problem of how large an area is as if we had an east midland constituency representation would still be lacking. 

 

For me other systems would work better which combine the two. Also with the issue of parties like the BNP, i personally would never support them but if just 1% of the public voted for them then i think its the role of a democracy to give them fair and proportional representation.

[loAf]

guy i follow on youtube explains it all quite well...

 

[Alf Bentley]

It would be a fairer system if we can cope with constant coalitions and weak governments. Also there is usually an issue of having a representative for each area which is hard to implement with PR. Large multi member constituencies could work but then there is the problem of how large an area is as if we had an east midland constituency representation would still be lacking. 

 

For me other systems would work better which combine the two. Also with the issue of parties like the BNP, i personally would never support them but if just 1% of the public voted for them then i think its the role of a democracy to give them fair and proportional representation.

 

Coalitions can be weak or strong - and can be improved by checks and balances elsewhere in the system (local govt, second chamber etc). Likewise, powerful single-party governments can be good or bad - at the extreme end of that, neither Hitler nor Stalin ran coalition governments, but I'm not sure their strong, single-party governments were very beneficial!

 

No system is perfect, but for Westminster multi-member seats at the level of a county, half a large county or a major conurbation could work (e.g. Leicestershire, East Kent, Greater Manchester, SE London). No need for them to be as big as the whole East Midlands region.

 

Re. your last point: any electoral system will deny representation to some parties/candidates because they don't get enough votes. It's just a case of where you draw the line through the voting system you set up. Under the current system, you have to get 25%-30% minimum (and be lucky) in a particular seat to get an MP, even if you average 25% nationwide. In theory, you could get 49% in every constituency and end up with no MPs at all. If the BNP deserve representation with 1%, what about the Cornish Nationalists or the Revolutionary Communists on 0.1% or whatever?

 

With larger, multi-member constituencies, you might need 8%-10% across a particular area (roughly what happened with the Euro elections). If a national system was preferred, you could have a minimum percentage for MPs under PR. The Germans do this, I think at 5%: so no party winning less than 5% nationally gets any seats under PR, unless they win individual constituencies outright (a mixed system, I think). That allows smaller parties to have fair representation without allowing truly tiny factions to potentially hold the balance of power in parliament despite having very little support at all.

[ADK]

I do think the regional blocks would be good.

 

I wouldn't mind a system where we elected regional assemblies and MP's based on the same ballot but with different quantities elected.

[peach0000]

Coalitions can be weak or strong - and can be improved by checks and balances elsewhere in the system (local govt, second chamber etc). Likewise, powerful single-party governments can be good or bad - at the extreme end of that, neither Hitler nor Stalin ran coalition governments, but I'm not sure their strong, single-party governments were very beneficial!

 

No system is perfect, but for Westminster multi-member seats at the level of a county, half a large county or a major conurbation could work (e.g. Leicestershire, East Kent, Greater Manchester, SE London). No need for them to be as big as the whole East Midlands region.

 

Re. your last point: any electoral system will deny representation to some parties/candidates because they don't get enough votes. It's just a case of where you draw the line through the voting system you set up. Under the current system, you have to get 25%-30% minimum (and be lucky) in a particular seat to get an MP, even if you average 25% nationwide. In theory, you could get 49% in every constituency and end up with no MPs at all. If the BNP deserve representation with 1%, what about the Cornish Nationalists or the Revolutionary Communists on 0.1% or whatever?

 

With larger, multi-member constituencies, you might need 8%-10% across a particular area (roughly what happened with the Euro elections). If a national system was preferred, you could have a minimum percentage for MPs under PR. The Germans do this, I think at 5%: so no party winning less than 5% nationally gets any seats under PR, unless they win individual constituencies outright (a mixed system, I think). That allows smaller parties to have fair representation without allowing truly tiny factions to potentially hold the balance of power in parliament despite having very little support at all.

There has to be a cut of point so a party with 1% of the vote could say have 6 mps and a party would need roughly 0.15% of the vote to get any mps providing we stick with 650 mps so that would be the natural cut of point.

However although i said i don't think pure PR would work i do think there needs to be some kind of representation for the smaller parties.

An interesting solution for me would be a two tiered system where you have one house elected with PR where more obscure parties like the BNP get represented and also a house which represents constituents rather like the current system, the PR house could deal with national and international issues while the second house could deal with regional issues on the national stage.

[Alf Bentley]

There has to be a cut of point so a party with 1% of the vote could say have 6 mps and a party would need roughly 0.15% of the vote to get any mps providing we stick with 650 mps so that would be the natural cut of point.

However although i said i don't think pure PR would work i do think there needs to be some kind of representation for the smaller parties.

An interesting solution for me would be a two tiered system where you have one house elected with PR where more obscure parties like the BNP get represented and also a house which represents constituents rather like the current system, the PR house could deal with national and international issues while the second house could deal with regional issues on the national stage.

 

Your second idea is an interesting one. It's certainly right to look at how all the different bits of the system fit together, too, not just at voting for the Commons.

 

0.15% of the national vote getting you an MP seems far too low for me, though that's a matter of opinion - and I agree that there should be more representation for smaller parties.....just not that small.

As well as at least 6 BNP MPs, you'd probably get a couple of Monster Raving Loonies, Respect, several different far left factions, probably another far right faction, the political wings of minor republican/loyalist terror groups and some other comedy group in parliament....and it would encourage the existence of a multitude of tiny parties. Coalition negotiations could get very interesting in a close election! If any of those groups can win a seat under the existing system or can muster 8%-10% in a multi-member constituency, fair enough, but I don't think 0.15% of the national vote is a serious level of support.