Proportional Representation - time to consider it?
Discussion
Skywalker said:
It would be a start to have each MP representing the same number of constituents (with a small + or - of 2 to 5%).
Devolution is simply an accelerated step away from national identities and towards the EU council of regions in the country of Europia.
There is no reason why we cannot break up the union and not let each "kingdom" decide what it wants to do, England would never vote to join EU.Devolution is simply an accelerated step away from national identities and towards the EU council of regions in the country of Europia.
odyssey2200 said:
Diderot said:
Ayahuasca said:
As title.
The UK population has been royally screwed over by a minority government led by a minority PM that very few people voted for.
Time for a fresh look at PR?
No. PR is fundamentally undemocratic.The UK population has been royally screwed over by a minority government led by a minority PM that very few people voted for.
Time for a fresh look at PR?
how so?
odyssey2200 said:
Diderot said:
Ayahuasca said:
As title.
The UK population has been royally screwed over by a minority government led by a minority PM that very few people voted for.
Time for a fresh look at PR?
No. PR is fundamentally undemocratic.The UK population has been royally screwed over by a minority government led by a minority PM that very few people voted for.
Time for a fresh look at PR?
how so?
tinman0 said:
odyssey2200 said:
Diderot said:
Ayahuasca said:
As title.
The UK population has been royally screwed over by a minority government led by a minority PM that very few people voted for.
Time for a fresh look at PR?
No. PR is fundamentally undemocratic.The UK population has been royally screwed over by a minority government led by a minority PM that very few people voted for.
Time for a fresh look at PR?
how so?
That said - PR is not the way forward either.
tinman0 said:
Because power is given to parties that the majority didn't vote for.
Not if you chose a decent proportional system. The biggest problem with the current system is that a minority of seats, and therefore voters, decide the outcome of the election because the rest of the seats are safe. If there is a majority of 10,000 in a particular seat no opponent is ever likely to beat that, so not only 9,999 of those 10,000 votes irrelevant, but so are those of everybody else who voted - they might as well have not turned up.
This also means that there is virtually no chance of getting rid of individual unpopular politicians because the party can put them in safe seats where a pig wearing the right colour rosette would win.
If you use a directly proportional system, where the number of seats directly correlates to the number of votes across a national scale, then you introduce a number of problems. Firstly it gives complete control to the parties over who gets the safe seats, which would be even safer than before, and secondly is the one that you mention, that it is not possible to form a working majority. This results in extremely weak and unstable governments such as that of the Weimar republic.
If you use a system such as single transferable vote, then everybody's vote is used, unpopular politicians can be ejected regardless of the parties wishes (as there is no such thing as a safe seat), and a link is maintained to the local constituency. Because people only vote for those who they actually want to receive a vote then minority parties still remain very much in the minority and will win very few if any seats. Importantly, it still allows governments to have a working majority.
Ireland use this system and it works extremely well, so much so that the politicians have tried to change it twice, and the electorate voted to keep it.
Unfortunately, getting a consensus in parliament to introduce such a system will be extremely difficult because you would need the politicians to vote against their own interest, as demonstrated by Brown trying to introduce Alternative Vote - precisely because he thinks it would benefit Labour's electoral prospects while trying to appear like he is reforming.
Edited by tank slapper on Monday 5th April 17:51
tank slapper said:
tinman0 said:
Because power is given to parties that the majority didn't vote for.
Not if you chose a decent proportional system. There are some countries that are able to deliver clear leaders in their elections, like Ireland. But then there are countries that don't, like Italy. Even Germany is generally a mishmash of coalitions for the most part, hence some of their daft green laws regarding washing a car on your driveway.
tinman0 said:
Totally understand what you are saying, but unless the electorate is comfortable with the idea of Al Mujaroon and the BNP having seats in our national Parliament, I still think PR is a bad idea.
You don't get it. STV would most likely not result in the BNP or any other extremist party ending up with any seats in parliament because the majority of people would be voting for more mainstream parties who would be elected beforehand.This is how the system works:
Electoral reform society said:
1. The ballot paper lists the names of the candidates from each party. Voters vote by putting a '1' next to the name of their favoured candidate, a '2' next to the name of their next favoured candidate and so on. They stop allocating preferences when they cannot decide between the candidates – they do not need to vote for them all.
2. At the count, the number of votes which candidates need in order to be elected (the 'quota') is calculated by dividing the total number of valid ballot papers by the number of people to be elected plus one. For example, with 100 valid ballot papers and three places to be filled, the quota would be 25.
3. The ballot papers are sorted into piles according to the first preferences – the '1's. If any candidate has more first-preference votes than the quota, they are immediately elected.
4. The next stage is to transfer any surplus votes for these elected candidates, i.e. the difference between their vote and the quota needed to be elected. To avoid the problem of deciding which of the votes are surplus, all ballot papers are transferred but at a reduced value so that the total adds up to the number of surplus votes.
5. After all the surpluses have been transferred, we look to see whether all the places to be elected have been filled. If they have not, then the candidate with the fewest votes is excluded and his or her votes are transferred to the voters' second preferences.
6. This process of transferring surpluses and excluding candidates continues until enough candidates have reached the quota to fill all the places to be elected.
You can read more about the system here.2. At the count, the number of votes which candidates need in order to be elected (the 'quota') is calculated by dividing the total number of valid ballot papers by the number of people to be elected plus one. For example, with 100 valid ballot papers and three places to be filled, the quota would be 25.
3. The ballot papers are sorted into piles according to the first preferences – the '1's. If any candidate has more first-preference votes than the quota, they are immediately elected.
4. The next stage is to transfer any surplus votes for these elected candidates, i.e. the difference between their vote and the quota needed to be elected. To avoid the problem of deciding which of the votes are surplus, all ballot papers are transferred but at a reduced value so that the total adds up to the number of surplus votes.
5. After all the surpluses have been transferred, we look to see whether all the places to be elected have been filled. If they have not, then the candidate with the fewest votes is excluded and his or her votes are transferred to the voters' second preferences.
6. This process of transferring surpluses and excluding candidates continues until enough candidates have reached the quota to fill all the places to be elected.
tank slapper said:
Mojooo said:
How about a pure vote off system where whichever party gets the highest number of votes completley controls the HOP?
Are you nuts? Can you imagine what Labour would have done over the last decade with no accountability whatsoever?tank slapper said:
Mojooo said:
How about a pure vote off system where whichever party gets the highest number of votes completley controls the HOP?
Are you nuts? Can you imagine what Labour would have done over the last decade with no accountability whatsoever?Just look at the 2005 elections:
Labor: 35.3 of the Vote
Conservative: 32.3 of the Vote
In a proportional system that would mean that both major parties have a slight different of only 3% and that turns into only roughly that differences in seats. But...
Labor: 55.2 of Seats
Conservative: 30.7 of Seats
As you can see Labor only got 35% of the vote but that turns into a majority of the Seats. It real terms it means that 35% of your population rules as a majority and in turn has vastly more influence that what they "should" have.
It is a classic example of a unequal system of government and it seems to be designed to create polarization of politics.
tinman0 said:
tank slapper said:
tinman0 said:
Because power is given to parties that the majority didn't vote for.
Not if you chose a decent proportional system. Righteo.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff