Should there be proportional representation in the UK?

[zulu9812]

One thing that's always bugged me about Britain's first-past-the-post election system is that huge swathes of the country go unrepresented. For example, because the winner is the person with largest share of the vote only, they can be elected to parliament when only 30% of the electorate voted for them. To take an even more pressing example, the Labour party had just 34% of the vote share in the last general election - that's only 2% more than the Tories, yet Labour got 100 more seats.

The current election system is designed to produce strong government. Yet that has serious implications for legitimacy. With whipping, the Labour party can pass any legislation, purely because they do not need the support of any other party. This makes parliament a sham, since Labour MPs simply do as their told - thus what should be 300+ members' views is really only 1 person's view (that of the PM).

Why is legitimacy an issue? Let's take the debate over ID cards as an example. The House of Lords wouldn't let the bill through because it said that the cards would be compulsory. Charles Clarke's response was the House of Lords had no business overriding the democratic mandate that the Labour party had. Erm, would this be the mandate that 65% of the electorate voted against, Charles?

What we have at the moment is a party with a minority of support amongst the people, but with a majority control over parliament. They do not speak for the people, yet they have dominion over the people. I believe this to be incompatible with democracy, which as government of of the people, by the people and for the people.

A much better system would be for a proportional system, where (and this is only an example) the 2nd or even 3rd placed candidates in a constituency also got elected, provided that they passed the threshold of votes. For example, if we set the threshold at 10,000 votes, and in one constuency of 60,000 voters, the Labour candidate gets 15,000 votes (a 25% share), the Tory gets 11,000 votes, the Lib Dem gets 13,000 votes, and 21,000 people don't vote at all - all 3 of those candidates would be elected to parliament. After all, getting a 25% share of the vote and only 3% more than your closest rival is hardly a mandate to govern the country, is it? But with this system, with all 3 candidates going to parliament, the interests of almost two-thirds of the electorate (and 100% of those who voted) would be represented, with 3 diverse views.

I'm not trying to sell any difinitive system, I just want there to be some form of PR. What do people think?

 

[Hitro]

thus what should be 300+ members' views is really only 1 person's view

That is the real problem with the first-past-the-post system.

Its theoretical advantage over proportional representation is that small constituencies are represented more directly and that it would lower the power of political parties. But the actual real effect is the opposite, it even strengthens the big political parties, as de facto MPs vote neither their conscience nor for their constituency's interests but instead the party line. Except for very few cases that is the case in pretty much all countries that have such representation.

For that reason I strongly favour proportional representation because it simply is more representative of the people's wishes, which of course should be the decisive factor when comparing such things.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Yo Zulu, i'm the local proportional representation nut, your stealing my thunder!

I firmly believe the numbers a seats a party gets should be related to the number of votes it gets nationwide. If a party gets 22% of the votes then tehy should get 22% of the seats!

I understand concern about small extremist groups getting seats with only 1%of the vote or something, so I like the idea of a cut off mark of around 3-4% (as in you have to get that many votes before you get seats).

Of course many people say this gives 'weak coalition' governments. Personally I prefer a representative coalition government to a strong government which forces through unpopular legislation.

I also understand people's concerns aboput loosing the whole 'local' MP thing - to which I would point out that local politics deserve local politicians, and we have councilers/council elections for those, so let MP's get on with national issues.

 

[sysyphus]

We've been debating the issue in Canada for quite some time now. The biggest argument against is taht we'll always end up with minority governments. The record shows though (at least here) that minority governments don't necessarily mean ineffective governments.

Seems to me that in Aus and NZ where they've adopted PR the voters are happy with it.

 

[Babbler]

I mildly for some kind of PR. Some people seem (to me) overenthusiastic about it; it consider any changes to the electoral system very carefully.

 

[El_Machinae]

In Canada, while it seems impossible that we'll change the system much, there's one thing I would like.

Run-off elections. If a member gets less than 50% of the votes, then there should be a second election between him and the next closest person. Because right now, vote splitting is a huge problem in some ridings, and the voted member does not represent the views of people in his riding.

I think it would reduce strategic voting, too.

 

[ComradeDavo]

I mildly for some kind of PR. Some people seem (to me) overenthusiastic about it; it consider any changes to the electoral system very carefully.

I am very enthusiastic for it because we here have a government which only got 37% of the vote yet has a 60+ seat majority.

 

[ComradeDavo]

In Canada, while it seems impossible that we'll change the system much, there's one thing I would like.

Run-off elections. If a member gets less than 50% of the votes, then there should be a second election between him and the next closest person. Because right now, vote splitting is a huge problem in some ridings, and the voted member does not represent the views of people in his riding.

I think it would reduce strategic voting, too.

If that happened in the UK, basically 99% of all seats would be decided by a 'run-off'. Of course, you don't actually have to have an second election by having a second chocie option on the voting form.

 

[Truronian]

I understand concern about small extremist groups getting seats with only 1%of the vote or something, so I like the idea of a cut off mark of around 3-4% (as in you have to get that many votes before you get seats).

I don't think this would be nessecary. If you eliminate constituancies (as they currently exist) you also eliminate the localised extremists, as well as the negative voters (voting against X rather than for Y).

EDIT: Dang thing only posted half my typings

Anyway the jist of what I typed was:

- I'm pro PR (after ComradeDavo changed my mind in the last thread )
- Its fairer
- PR governments are generally more liberal and more conservative (not as in right wing, as in more careful with change)

 

[sysyphus]

The current method which seems to be getting more favourable view in Canada is the mixed-member proportional system (similar to the one in use in NZ) where half teh seats are filled by MPs elected in the usual way (FPP) and the other half by proporitonal vote with a 5% cutoff. I generalyl favour that option as well.

To the Brits here, sorry if we Canadians are hijacking your thread, but since we're both very much in the same boat on this issue we might as well share our thoughts. Besides, I hop Britain does go ahead with it because that's the only way it'll ever get doen here.

 

[El_Machinae]

Of course, you don't actually have to have an second election by having a second chocie option on the voting form.

Then you have the dilemma of how to weigh the 'second pick' compared to the first pick.

What I like about proportional representation is that it encourages diversity in the parties. I mean, that way I can vote for my Christian Communists and fight abortion and capitalism at the same time. Right now, they would never get any representatives in. But, on any issue (about communism or abortion) they will represent my views most closely, and democracy will rule more fairly.

*El_Mac endorses neither Christianity or Communism, but uses this example for illustration purposes only

 

[zulu9812]

Run-off elections. If a member gets less than 50% of the votes, then there should be a second election between him and the next closest person. Because right now, vote splitting is a huge problem in some ridings, and the voted member does not represent the views of people in his riding.

France does something similar. I don't know all the specifics, but it seems like an awful, unrepresentative system.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I agree Zulu, proportional representation is more representative of the people, and gives more people in the country more of a say, rather than the urban areas running the show

 

[Oruc]

I would prefer it if we kept the current system, I prefer a strong government then a coalition

 

[mrtn]

As I've said in other threads *cough*Davo*cough* we have PR in Sweden, and I'm for it. Here you need either 4% nationwide, or 12% "locally" (in one län, I think it is).

 

[ComradeDavo]

As I've said in other threads *cough*Davo*cough* we have PR in Sweden, and I'm for it. Here you need either 4% nationwide, or 12% "locally" (in one län, I think it is).

That also sounds like a good 'cut off' point for votes, though i'd probably make it 3% in the UK due to population difference.

Then you have the dilemma of how to weigh the 'second pick' compared to the first pick

Indeed, and I don't really favour that system as it would still be a 3 party one, with people voting their first choice party (say for example Green party) and then their second choice out of the 3 'main parties'. So whilst smaller parties might get more votes they still wouldn't really win seats. Thats why i'd rather have a proper proportional system with % of votes = % of seats.

I would prefer it if we kept the current system, I prefer a strong government then a coalition

But you could call Labour a 'strong government' despite never having a majority of actual votes, and yet they've done many controversial things from the war to foundation hospitals and what not. Thats why i thinks trong governments ar eoften the least representative.

 

[Cuivienen]

France does something similar. I don't know all the specifics, but it seems like an awful, unrepresentative system.

The Napoleonic Code is strange. It requires strategizing by political parties to make certain that they have enough candidates to prevent an opponent from winning more than 50%, but not so many that their vote is split badly enough that a fringe candidate beats them.

I believe Taiwan uses a similar system, actually. In the US, Louisiana uses it for all elections except President.


I have an additional question: Would you prefer mixed-member proportional or pure proportional representation?

 

[Cuivienen]

I agree Zulu, proportional representation is more representative of the people, and gives more people in the country more of a say, rather than the urban areas running the show

I'm not sure that this is actually true. People in more politically homogenous districts have less of a say in first-past-the-post, whether in the cities or in the countryside.

 

[Oruc]

But you could call Labour a 'strong government' despite never having a majority of actual votes, and yet they've done many controversial things from the war to foundation hospitals and what not. Thats why i thinks trong governments ar eoften the least representative.

And yet I continue to disagree (I wouldnt consider the Iraq war a bad thing).

 

[ComradeDavo]

And yet I continue to disagree (I wouldnt consider the Iraq war a bad thing).

If you agree with Labour then why did you vote Conservative?

(If I remmember correctly)