Proportional Respresentation

[TAE]

Personally I can't see it making a jot of difference either way.

That's my point, such 'disproportionate influence' can happen under any system, and so I really don't think that is a good argument against P.R.

Well as I understand it, the main two arguments against are that it allows parties with a very small proportion of the vote to have a disproportionate influence because it encourages coalitions (the only way to get a majority, usually) and that without local MPs, people have less direct influence over their representatives.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

You wouldn't end up with millions of wasted votes like the Libs did in '83.

Actually millions of wasted votes for the traitorous shits of the SDP and their Alliance partners is about the only good argument *for* First Past the Post I've seen.

 

[In Bloom]

That's my point, such 'disproportionate influence' can happen under any system, and so I really don't think that is a good argument against P.R.

Surely it happens more often with PR though, because no party is likely to get a majority of seats in the commons with such a system.

I'm just pointing out the arguments against, really, I'm not particularly invested in it as it's never going to happen and it wouldn't make much difference if it did.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Interesting article here about supposed talks between Labour and the LibDems about a coalition government...

 

[tbaldwin]

It would be good to have the House of Lords fully elected by PR and keep ist past the post for the House of Commons.The MP for Kidderminster the Independent would never be elected under PR and the party lists would keep dissenting voices down.But sme form of PR would be good to give parties like the Greens a fairer say.

 

[TAE]

Surely it happens more often with PR though, because no party is likely to get a majority of seats in the commons with such a system.

Even if it does, it only reflects the views of the population - so I don't see a problem at all.

It would be good to have the House of Lords fully elected by PR and keep ist past the post for the House of Commons.

Personally, I'd prefer the opposite - FPTP in the Lords, and PR in the Commons.

 

[atitlan]

Even if it does, it only reflects the views of the population - so I don't see a problem at all.


Personally, I'd prefer the opposite - FPTP in the Lords, and PR in the Commons.

If I was using the current system as a starting point i'd go with a similar model to that ...

STV for the 'Lords' with rolling elections (a proportion of the seats up each year)

Pure PR in the 'commons' with fixed terms and general elections.

 

[tbaldwin]

Personally, I'd prefer the opposite - FPTP in the Lords, and PR in the Commons.

Yeah i think that is probably a better way round.

 

[Fledgling]

A Labour supporter once told me that PR was only supported by parties that would benefit from it; which (he said) was ironic because if they ever got into a position to implement it, they'd no longer need it.

I think Blair promised to look into PR before 1997, but now he's against it too.

The only hope of getting PR is for a hung parliament with the Lib Dems in coalition insisting on PR as the price of the coalition.

url]

Good post.

Blair seemed in favour of PR or at least coalitions (we remember the talks held with Ashdown in the anticipation of a deal between the parties) but I think it was always pragmatism rather than ideology with Blair (or maybe he just lied). The Labour party I think has made a bit of a cop-out in regards to PR. Whenever they are asked about it they simply point out that they have implemented PR for Scotland, Wales, NI, Europe but of course the real question is about Westminster. The Jenkins commission was regarded by the government (Straw acknowledged it, probably before binning it) and I actually agreed with some of its proposals. I liked the AV plus system.

In terms of defending FPTP I guess you maintain the constituency link and you allow for broad based parties able to make legislation. Lots of smaller parties in one coalition could really slow down the legislative process. Unfortunately I think that FPTP is not only unfair (I live in a two horse race constituency so greens, lib dems, socialists, UKIPs etc don't have a look in) which prevents pluralism at the political level but also the party whip system is terrible. I'm a free minded person keen on seeing a plural political chamber with a lot wider interests and in the main MPs free to vote with their conscience and local concerns. At present we have party before public.

In regards to the Lords I think this is a separate issue. I'm gonna be radical for U75 and suggest that some appointment is actually a good thing. We could try a mixture of electives, existing hard-working peers and some sort of public appointment board, try to get a better cross section of people into the Lords, more people who aren't party affiliated.

However I cannot see PR being implemented for Westminster due to the simple majority rule. Governments with big majorities don't care about PR and governments with small majorities are more concenred with staying above water than thinking about new systems. This issue though needs more press, we have to unite around PR system and push push push because debates always come down what PR system. This makes PR campaign look A boring and B divided and commenators asign the debate to politicos only.

If people could see the benefits of more proportionality I think they may accept it. However as stated electoral reform needs to be combined with other political reforms.

 

[e-fluent]

I don't agree with centralised politics anyway. Why should a geordie who spends all her time in London make decisions that effect people in Milton Keynes?