Proportional representation - is it better than first-past-the post?

I would say it is, because it can't be right if a political party could gain 1 million votes nationally, but be not represented at Westminster by failing to win a seat. Plus it would mean every vote would count, as opposed to votes 'wasted' in seats where a party can never do quite enough to win.

Detractors could point out that it would be very difficult for a party to gain an overall majority in government, but there again, I'm sick of arrogant Tory and Labour governments doing whatever they want, safe with their large parliamentary majorities.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Northumbrian:
Proportional representation - is it better than first-past-the post?

I would say it is, because it can't be right if a political party could gain 1 million votes nationally, but be not represented at Westminster by failing to win a seat. Plus it would mean every vote would count, as opposed to votes 'wasted' in seats where a party can never do quite enough to win.

Detractors could point out that it would be very difficult for a party to gain an overall majority in government, but there again, I'm sick of arrogant Tory and Labour governments doing whatever they want, safe with their large parliamentary majorities.

This is a poorly argued case for PR!

You have not explained why "it can't be right if a political party could gain 1 million votes nationally, but be not represented at Westminster by failing to win a seat".

We have a system whereby voters in each Parliamentary Constituency elect a 'Member' to represent them. Moreover, all 'Members' thus elected are equal - or are supposed to be - and, constitutionally, the Prime Minister is the 'Member' who 'commands a majority in the Commons' ie he is [in theory at least] elected by MPs, NOT political party members who are not MPs!

Under this system, it is possible for all the votes of unsuccessful candidates put up by a particular party to be aggregated, and they may well amount to one million, or more, but that does not render the situation wrong [or, to use your term, not right]!

Political parties have corrupted our largely unwritten system of 'representative parliamentary democracy' in a number of ways. They have drafted in candidates not only from outside particular constituencies, but from much further afield and outside adjoining constituencies. Such candidates often have no affinity and no loyalty to the constituency, the community they purport to represent. Indeed, some party candidates were not even born in England or even within the UK, never mind the constituency itself and its surrounds! It is perfectly legitimate to ask why a nation confident in its own identity should want to be governed by foreign born individuals? Does not such a nation possess, within its own ranks, sufficient individuals of the requisite calibre to sit in its legislature and to administer its affairs?

Political parties also purvey the fiction that a general election is (for example) an opportunity to 'pass judgement on Tony Blair/Gordon Brown/David Cameron etc' as the case might be! In reality, the only voters who can affect such individuals are the voters in their respective constituencies. I repeat: "voters in each Parliamentary Constituency elect a 'Member' to represent them".

In tinkering with a voting system, the question to be answered is why? Simply because a political party [or a section of the community for that matter] has aggregated your arbitrary total of one million votes nationwide does not entitle or bestow upon them a right to be 'represented at Westminster'! Moreover, by adopting a PR system the role of political parties becomes further institutionalised in our parliamentary system. This may be acceptable, but the fact of it is never pointed out.

The severe malaise in British politics may be largely attributable to the lack of accountability, not least during elections when, in no small measure due of political parties, it is more difficult to divest oneself of particular candidates, not least because many voters are gulled into believing that they are 'voting for a Conservative/Labour/LibDem government' rather than voting for candidates on their merits.

Yes, tinker with voting and whether it should be PR or Postal or extended to fifteen year olds, but who choses the candidates to be voted for? Why, it's the dear old political parties, which are quite happy to divert voters into wasting time on voting details as long as the parties can be left to 'fix the menu' between them.

Introduce PR and the next step will be to introduce the system used in EU elections - multi-member constituencies in which the parties themselves effectively select which of their candidates will be elected, and individual accountability to the electors is almost totally eliminated for all practical purposes! Independent candidates will have even less chance of being elected, and democratic choice severely curtailed.

One of the most unacceptable things that the Labour Government under Blair and then Brown has done is to breach the compact between voter and party candidate as set out in the manifesto of the candidate's party. First Blair did so over the issue of top up university tuition fees, which he had introduced in England despite having previously given a voluntary and express commitment to the contrary. More recently, both Brown and Clegg reneged on their respective party manifest commitments to hold a referendum on the question of adopting a EU Constitution.

There are clear signs that Brown, Cameron and Clegg - despite individual professed equivocations from time to time - want their political parties to receive Exchequer funding. Combined with restrictions on other types of funding, this will enable them not only to ignore the respective memberships much more, but also the electorate AND to squeeze out small parties and independents.

Yes, you're doing a grand job Northumbrian, bothering yourself with the relative minutiae of PR v FPTP voting, rather than look at the much more sinister bigger picture!


:-) :-)

______________________________
[Rep]

In some ways I support PR, in other ways I don't.

One of the biggest negatives is it removes geographical seats which prevents local interests being represented and helps to further centralisation which is the grreat disease of our society. I think a local level it is very good however.
[Rep]

My biggest gripe with PR is actually one of its 'advantages' - it normally leads to petty coalitions of a million tiny parties (hyperbole is intentional), which are highly unstable and often lead to long periods of ineffective 'government'.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Westcountryman:
My biggest gripe with PR is actually one of its 'advantages' - it normally leads to petty coalitions of a million tiny parties (hyperbole is intentional), which are highly unstable and often lead to long periods of ineffective 'government'.

By "a million tiny parties", you don't mean individual persons do you? :-)



_________________________
[Rep]

There are downsides to PR.
The Austrian Corporal came to power under PR.
The Italians now have their 62nd government since the end of WW2-this is stability?
Our current system of democracy is not perfect but-IMHO-PR is an excuse for LOOT:
Lack Of Original Thought.
Do I really want to see members of the SWP/SLP/Trotskyite/Leninist/BNP/Aryan Brotherhood and other wierd parties elected to the HoC? I'd rather boil my head.
[Rep]

Can't make my mind up on this one. I'll try and do pros and cons.

FTTP
Pros
Elects a member at local level to represent you
Usually get a majority government
Eliminates extreme parties/candidates?
Easy to understand

Cons
A majority seat wise doesn't necessary mean a majority popular vote. Labour 36% in 2005 general election, for example.
Constituencies become predictable as voters tend only to vote for those who they think can win.
Voter apathy if they think vote has no value.
Politics in Westminster more confrontational.

PR
Pros
Vote has more value. Voters vote for who they really want.
Minority parties who have reasonable size national vote are represented at national party
More government by consensus

Cons
Minority/coalition governments (is that so bad?)
Less localised element to politics
Complex system, normally

Perhaps a combination of FTTP and PR, then? I believe this was suggested in the Jenkins report with a system of AV plus.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Northumbrian:
Can't make my mind up on this one. I'll try and do pros and cons.

FTTP
Pros
Elects a member at local level to represent you
Usually get a majority government
Eliminates extreme parties/candidates?
Easy to understand

Cons
A majority seat wise doesn't necessary mean a majority popular vote. Labour 36% in 2005 general election, for example.
Constituencies become predictable as voters tend only to vote for those who they think can win.
Voter apathy if they think vote has no value.
Politics in Westminster more confrontational.

PR
Pros
Vote has more value. Voters vote for who they really want.
Minority parties who have reasonable size national vote are represented at national party
More government by consensus

Cons
Minority/coalition governments (is that so bad?)
Less localised element to politics
Complex system, normally

Perhaps a combination of FTTP and PR, then? I believe this was suggested in the Jenkins report with a system of AV plus.

I'm afraid your Pros & Cons indicate limited imagination!

First, you have not addressed the issue of greater accountability. It's all very well electing candidates who are supposed to be more representative, but how are they to be made more accountable? It is this factor which seems to make voting largely a waste of time and, all the more so, if one has a complicated system which makes it virtually impossible to remove bad 'uns eg EU elections!

Second, it is arbitrary and skewed to characterise FTTP as 'more confrontational' especially when one considers that a FTTP Parliament can range from one with a single party having a huge majority [Liberals in 1906, Labour in 1945, 1997 and 2001] to coalitions [Liberal Coalition 1916-18, Coalition 1940-45, Labour Coalition 1974-79] and PR as 'more government by consensus'! One might equally assert 'more government by back-door dealings'!

Finally, with IT properly and efficiently applied [which seems to exclude all the present incumbents of Westminster being involved in making the necessary arrangements!], the system used in the French Presidential elections could be adopted, but over a much shorter period ie days rather than weeks!



____________________
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Westcountryman:
My biggest gripe with PR is actually one of its 'advantages' - it normally leads to petty coalitions of a million tiny parties (hyperbole is intentional), which are highly unstable and often lead to long periods of ineffective 'government'.

That could be a good thing. It means more people are represented and gov't has to be more cautious and popular. But it rathers shoots itself in the foot in my book because it is amazingly centralised.
[Rep]

Nigel Farage has made the best argument for this which solves the problem. Lets have 75% of the house First past the post as we do now. Then have the other 25% of the house elected on PR. That way you still have an mp that represents your town and you can lobby him. There is still that connection between mp and constiuent. However it also gives smaller parties the chance to make a breakthrough in Westminster.
[Rep]