Proportional representation (PR)

[towny44]

Re PR. Without it many voters in the UK are being effectively disenfranchised. Given that this is the UK government, by population, the numbers of parliamentary seats favour Scotland and Northelrn Ireland at the expense of England any way.This is compounded when you look at the number of votes cast for the parties. Using votes cast, by my rough calculations the SNP should have only 23 seats against Lib dems 74 seats. However the Tories would have only 283 seats. Clearly the FPTP system is costing the Lib dems seats, while political 'commentators' make smarty pants remarks about their policies and their leader, 11.5% of the electorate voted for them. I dont see so called hung parliaments causing "chaos" in other countries. They get together in coalitions and govern. This effectively negates some of the more extreme policies.

I wonder whether this topic deserves a thread of its own, time will tell.
Forty out of 43 European countries use some form of PR, but that is according to the electoral reform society who clearly are not entirely independent, only the UK, France and Belarus operate a FPTP system.
It would seem we are out of step, so what does our resident panel of experts think?

[oldbluefox]

We had a referendum on this in 2011 in which 32.1% voted for PR and 67.9% voted against. Having seen how it worked in other countries we obviously decided by a clear majority it was no for us.
Having seen how other parties and their MPs colluded to try and overturn the result of the Brexit referendum you can understand why. Not only did their behaviour do considerable damage to democracy and trust in this nation it also demonstrated why we rejected PR so soundly.

[Manoverboard]

We have had a selection of ' One trick ponies / I can't make a decision / I will oppose the Tories at all costs / I know better than the electorate / I haven't got a clue else wouldn't know what to do ' type representatives in Parliament for a goodly while now and if that shower were to form a regular Parliament due to PR we would get nowhere fast … it doesn't appeal to me nor can I visualise any major benefit that the Lib Dems would bring to the table even if they were there.

[Mervyn and Trish]

It's funny the losing party always talks about changing the "system", until the "system" gives them power. Then they forget about it.

[CaroleF]

Agree absolutely Mervyn.

Carole

[david63]

We had a referendum on this in 2011 in which 32.1% voted for PR and 67.9% voted against.

But it was widely acknowledged at the time, and later, that the vote was slanted due to the poor campaign by the "for" side.

Also bear in mind that IF Scotland was to gain independence that the balance would change.

[Onelife]

I'll have to leave this one to the experts other than to say l don't understand why so many people are against it when it gives a one man/women one vote and in doing so gives future minority parties a fair crack of the whip.

l can understand why the big two parties would be against it as the present system enables them to fend off any whippersnapper parties that could influence their proportion of seats.

but hey.......l don't really understand the macanics of PR or how it would work in reality so l'm out of here..enjoy!

[Gill W]

We had a referendum on this in 2011 in which 32.1% voted for PR and 67.9% voted against.

But it was widely acknowledged at the time, and later, that the vote was slanted due to the poor campaign by the "for" side.

Also bear in mind that IF Scotland was to gain independence that the balance would change.

The referendum in 2011 was not on Proportional Representation. It was a referendum on Alternative Voting. Alternative voting is where you list the candidates in order of preference.

As per the Electoral Reform Society, AV is not PR

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/vot ... tive-vote/

The for/against result was as stated 68% / 32%

[Frank Manning]

We have had a selection of ' One trick ponies / I can't make a decision / I will oppose the Tories at all costs / I know better than the electorate / I haven't got a clue else wouldn't know what to do ' type representatives in Parliament for a goodly while now and if that shower were to form a regular Parliament due to PR we would get nowhere fast … it doesn't appeal to me nor can I visualise any major benefit that the Lib Dems would bring to the table even if they were there.

You will not know either unless they get a chance. The recent election was very much about two main themes; fear of Corbyn , and Brexit. The Lib dems had the biggest increase in votes 4%, but lost one seat. The Tories increase in voter share was 1% and now they have a large majority. By no stretch of imagination is that true democracy. Those of you fearing endless prevarication by coalitions are really only referring to the post referendum hiatus, which in one way reflected very real divisions in our country over the issue. The Lib dems bring social conscience with a dose of realism although I will give you that their stance on Brexit with no second referendum was seriously flawed given the result of the original referendum already on the table. Democratic vote is often quoted as a justification for Brexit. Fair enough, but it does not describe our electoral system in terms of parliamentary elections. That is not true democracy.

[towny44]

The strange thing is Frank that the three original major western democracies have retained the FPTP system namely UK, USA, and France. Which really begs the question as to why, if you can answer that conundrum then maybe you will be halfway to understanding why it is the best system.

[Mervyn and Trish]

We had a referendum on this in 2011 in which 32.1% voted for PR and 67.9% voted against.

But it was widely acknowledged at the time, and later, that the vote was slanted due to the poor campaign by the "for" side.

Also bear in mind that IF Scotland was to gain independence that the balance would change.

The referendum in 2011 was not on Proportional Representation. It was a referendum on Alternative Voting. Alternative voting is where you list the candidates in order of preference.

As per the Electoral Reform Society, AV is not PR

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/vot ... tive-vote/

The for/against result was as stated 68% / 32%

I think the vote might be even more against if it was true PR, the problem being, as with the EU elections, very few people actually know who their M(E)P is and they don't properly represent a constituency, only a wider area. I've never ever seen any of the MEPs who allegedly represent our area, whereas our MP is around almost every week. The advantage of AV, which I did vote in favour of, is the person who ends up at Westminster does actually represent the specific constituency, rather than just being cannon fodder for the party, and does so with at least 50% of the votes once the alternatives are distributed. I though it was a good option.

[Frank Manning]

The strange thing is Frank that the three original major western democracies have retained the FPTP system namely UK, USA, and France. Which really begs the question as to why, if you can answer that conundrum then maybe you will be halfway to understanding why it is the best system.

The answer to that lies in Onelife's post above. Not that FPTP is the best, but that the two main parties are afraid of loss of influence if they can never get substantial majorities. The trade union, and media barons would not like that at all. I suspect that the Guardian and the Mirror, and The Sun, Express, Mail and Torygraph would conduct a vigorous campaign against PR. Their attitude to the Lib dems is derisory as it is. Either way please dont tell me that we have a true democracy. The SNP have 4 x the seats the Libdems have on a fraction of the vote. Wrong however you view it.

[towny44]

Frank, you have not touched on the French or American reasons for keeping FPTP.
As regards the LibDems they are the third party in Great Britsin, which spreads their vote across all 3 GB countries, whereas the SNP as a nationalist party along with PC are limited to Scotland and Wales. The LibDem zenith seems to have been in 2005 and 2010, but maybe their normal supporters still consider their alliance with DC's Conservatives as a betrayal of their more left wing views.
I agree that FPTP will always leave minor parties with little or no true representation, but I worry that moving to any sort of PR will result in parties with extreme views possibly gaining representation in Westmister, rather like the extreme right wing groups prevalent throughout Europe have begun to do over recent years.

[Frank Manning]

4% increase in vote is more than any of the other parties achieved, so the Clegg/Cameron alliance is not really a factor. As for USA and France, it doesn't concern me. Their national cultures are so different from each other and from ours that I couldn't begin to analyse what effect PR would have and whether it would bring them any benefits. There is minor and there's minute in terms of the vote. Lib dems are perhaps minor, some other very vocal parties are minute in terms of voter support. Any way I am not going to bother to argue the case any longer against the current tide of opinion on this forum. The figures are beyond dispute.

[allatc]

The clowning around in parliament over Brexit shows why PR would be a disaster. If we had had a PR system Brexit would never have happened, in fact I don't think we would even have had the referendum on the subject. And we would end up with a governmental system like Italy.

That said I think there could be a case for having an AV or PR system for members of the House of Lords rather than cronies of the last party in office.

[Mervyn and Trish]

I'd go for that

[towny44]

The clowning around in parliament over Brexit shows why PR would be a disaster. If we had had a PR system Brexit would never have happened, in fact I don't think we would even have had the referendum on the subject. And we would end up with a governmental system like Italy.

That said I think there could be a case for having an AV or PR system for members of the House of Lords rather than cronies of the last party in office.

[Manoverboard]

The clowning around in parliament over Brexit shows why PR would be a disaster. If we had had a PR system Brexit would never have happened, in fact I don't think we would even have had the referendum on the subject. And we would end up with a governmental system like Italy.

That said I think there could be a case for having an AV or PR system for members of the House of Lords rather than cronies of the last party in office.

Ditto ….

[towny44]

Reform of the upper chamber, to have at least some members elected by the public, might well be a good way to test some sort of PR. it would at least allow us to see what sort of issues it raises, before we consider whether it could ever be applied to parliament.

[Mervyn and Trish]

Ideally I'd do it with fixed four year terms for the Commons, elected as now on FPTP, and upper chamber on PR in mid term.

Not quite thought through how it would work if a government was ousted early though.

Maybe it should be one election as now but with the total votes cast determining the upper chamber mix.

[Manoverboard]

I would vote in / out the Members of the Upper House to coincide with the votes cast in the General Election at whatever frequency as this would reflect the mood of the public at that moment in time.

The tricky part, perhaps, is determining who would choose the Members for selection … are Lords n' Ladies better or worse than Trotskys or rampant eco warriors for example ?

[david63]

PR in the UK would result in a permanently hung parliament with the Lib Dems holding the balance of power - or in other words we would be destined to have a LIB Dem government.

[Mervyn and Trish]

And remember how good they were last time!

[oldbluefox]

I would be in favour of reducing the number of constituencies anyway, something which was muted a while ago. As for the Lords they could also be whittled down. For a start I would get rid of the hereditary peers altogether and the rest would be appointed to reflect votes cast in the General Election. There are some in the Lords who are only there because they are benefactors to whichever party has promoted them as a thank you for their support. This practice needs to stop otherwise it just becomes a rather lucrative old boys'/girls' club.
Whatever anybody may think I believe the outdated Upper Chamber is long overdue for reform.