NationStates Jolt Archive


Voting Reform

ProMonkians
09-05-2005, 20:48
What with all the hoo-ha about old Tony Blair getting a large majority while only getting about 33% of the voting share, I think it may be time to scrap the first past the post system in favour of PR - _(Proportional Representation)_.
The campaign litaritue I recieved in the recent election stated bluntly that only either the Tories or Lib-Dems could win in my area, and as such any vote for another party was a wasted vote. This angered me quite a bit, surely the whole point of a democracy is that everybodys vote counts? So I promptly 'wasted' my vote on another party _(The Lib-Dems got in btw)_.
Also in the marginal seats some candidates only won by a few thousand votes, this means that almost half the people voted for somebody else, what happens to them? They're not represented.
Anybody else think it's time for a change?
Mennon
09-05-2005, 21:12
Yes I'm all in favour of a PR system, as to call ourselves a true democracy we should truely represent how the people voted.

As look a party like UKIP, though I do not believe in what they do they polled over 600,000 votes and how many seats did they get? None. While a party like SNP can poll 400,000 votes and get 6 seats. How is this a fair system?

Another example is that the Lib Dems increased there vote by +3.7 and gained 11 seats while the Conservatives gained an extra +0.6 and gained 33 seats. Again, is this fair?

Another advantage of this system is that we'd get more minority parties into parliment and therefore avoid bull boy tatics by the both the past New Labour and Conservative Governments as they would have less of a majority and would have to listen to more views on issues as to be honest the conservatives were a pretty useless oposition when it came to Iraq or tution fees as they still didn't defeat the bill despite many Labour MP's rebelling.

Also i'd love to see an Official Monster Raving Looney Candidate in Parliment as it would bring some life to the dull house of commons.
Draconis Nightcrawlis
09-05-2005, 21:15
Also i'd love to see an Official Monster Raving Looney Candidate in Parliment as it would bring some life to the dull house of commons.

That I would love to see :D
Mennon
09-05-2005, 21:21
I could imagine all but one in suits and this one guy in the corner wearing a bright custume and wearing such a big hat that the guy behind him can't see. lol
Draconis Nightcrawlis
09-05-2005, 21:55
Randomly shouting odd things. He'd be kicked out pretty quick :D
Bobobobonia
09-05-2005, 21:58
I used to be in favour of PR but the trouble with it is that the candidates are chosen by the central party and so all your MPs would eventually be party yes men, instead of just most of them.

The current system does have its problems with the way the number of seats is allocated, but at least the party which is the most popular will probably make up the government. Otherwise we could end up with lame-duck coalitions indefinitely.

Personally I think single transferrable vote is the way forwards.
Enlightened Humanity
09-05-2005, 22:02
we need PR in the second house and true powers for it to block legislation. That way we get local representitives (commons) and proportional representation (lords 2)
Rokand
09-05-2005, 22:03
Both systems have pros and cons.

The surrent system does work. Blair got the majority of the votes in the country and is thus elected Prime Minister: you can't get fairer than that.

However, some parties are under-represented. UKIP polled 4th in the overall votes yet got no seats.

Under Proportional representation you would get a fair representation for eachand every vote cast.

However, you would get a vast uprising of extremist parties such as the BNP "getting a say" in day-to-day politics. That scares me: they would soon get more and more support - just look at what happened with the Nazis in 1993 Germany.
Enlightened Humanity
09-05-2005, 22:04
no, blair got the largest minority of votes, but has a majority of seats
Mennon
09-05-2005, 22:05
Yeah, I suppose that system could work as it would stop the Lords being filled with Old Party Cronies and the remaing actual hereditary lords.
The Blaatschapen
09-05-2005, 22:06
Look at other countries with PR(eg. The Netherlands), do the extremist parties rule in those?
Rokand
09-05-2005, 22:10
no, blair got the largest minority of votes, but has a majority of seats

Nope, Blair got 35.2% of the total vote compared to the Torie's 32.3%. God knows how many votes that actually is, but there it is as a % - Blair got the most.
Bhutane
09-05-2005, 22:11
I agree, lower house, no parties, first past the post local voting, blocks legislation and can put up bills to the higher house, which is entirely PR so votes nationally, who decides (mainly) what to put forward etc......

Proper higher court so the highest appeal court is not the lords.
Rokand
09-05-2005, 22:11
Look at other countries with PR(eg. The Netherlands), do the extremist parties rule in those?

They don't rule - they get more of "a say", as we see in France etc with their National Front.
Enlightened Humanity
09-05-2005, 22:12
Nope, Blair got 35.2% of the total vote compared to the Torie's 32.3%. God knows how many votes that actually is, but there it is as a % - Blair got the most.

That is not a majority. 64.8% voted against him. He has the largest minority of the parties, but has a majority of seats (>50%)
The Blaatschapen
09-05-2005, 22:16
They don't rule - they get more of "a say", as we see in France etc with their National Front.

So, if that is what the french (or any other country) wants, then let them have it. It's the downside of democracy, you can elect idiots ;)
Rokand
09-05-2005, 22:17
That is not a majority. 64.8% voted against him. He has the largest minority of the parties, but has a majority of seats (>50%)

Yes it is a majority of votes casted. It was the highest % of one single party therefore it is a majority under the system we are in.
Ariddia
09-05-2005, 22:19
Yes I'm all in favour of a PR system, as to call ourselves a true democracy we should truely represent how the people voted.

As look a party like UKIP, though I do not believe in what they do they polled over 600,000 votes and how many seats did they get? None. While a party like SNP can poll 400,000 votes and get 6 seats. How is this a fair system?

Another example is that the Lib Dems increased there vote by +3.7 and gained 11 seats while the Conservatives gained an extra +0.6 and gained 33 seats. Again, is this fair?

Another advantage of this system is that we'd get more minority parties into parliment and therefore avoid bull boy tatics by the both the past New Labour and Conservative Governments as they would have less of a majority and would have to listen to more views on issues as to be honest the conservatives were a pretty useless oposition when it came to Iraq or tution fees as they still didn't defeat the bill despite many Labour MP's rebelling.

Also i'd love to see an Official Monster Raving Looney Candidate in Parliment as it would bring some life to the dull house of commons.

I agree with every single point in that post. Especially the last one. :D

If 23% of voters cast their vote for the Lib Dems, then in all democratic fairness roughly 23% of MPs should be Lib Dem. It also means you would be able to vote for the party you genuinely feel closest to, without feeling as though your vote is "wasted" or going unheard. It's about time we got some Greens into Parliament, and I bet that with a PR system their share of the vote would go up.

Of course, the downside would be having UKIP MPs... and, even worse, BNP MPs. That's not something I'd look forward to, but I still feel the benefits of a genuinely representative system would outweigh the disadvantages. Plus, the last election revealed that UKIP aren't exactly popular, and I think anyone who would vote BNP is already doing so, so I doubt they would increase their share of the vote much. Britain has never liked extremes.
Bhutane
09-05-2005, 22:20
Extremist parties can be good for the demorcratic process, pushing debate into areas the mainstream parties won't go for fear of losing votes.
We'd get Green MPs too, that's very good!!!!
Bobobobonia
09-05-2005, 22:23
I think the idea of a PR 2nd house is a good compromise.

As for the use of the word majority, it has a meaning in politics which is different to its use in every day life, just like the word theory in science.
Enlightened Humanity
09-05-2005, 22:25
Yes it is a majority of votes casted. It was the highest % of one single party therefore it is a majority under the system we are in.

But they still do not have more than half the votes. They have the largest share of the vote (35%), but have a majority in the house of commons (>50%).

More people voted against them than for them, but they have more seats than everyone else. It is grossly disproportionate
Atlantiers
09-05-2005, 22:27
I'd prefer the system suggested by the The Jenkins Report "Alternative Vote Plus" (more info http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/votingsystems/systems4.htm#AV+)

It keeps the constituency level with MPs while also adding MPs with large shares at county/regional level. In constituencies a party would need to have at least 50% of the voters support to get an MP(which would be a disadvantage for extemists). It would also get rid of the fear that you're wasting your vote by not voting for labour or the conservatives.
Ariddia
09-05-2005, 22:29
Extremist parties can be good for the demorcratic process, pushing debate into areas the mainstream parties won't go for fear of losing votes.

Depends what kind of extremes. Having MPS representing strongly left-wing ideals could force Labour (and the Lib Dems) to address social issues more thoroughly, for fear of losing votes to parties more to the left than themselves - and that would be excellent.

On the other hand, MPs for the extreme right would create a risk of "mainstream" parties pandering for example to xenophobic anti-immigration fears, which I'm sure you agree would be disastrous. That's the only real problem I have with proportional representation, but on the whole I do feel PR would be a good and healthy thing for British politics and British society.


We'd get Green MPs too, that's very good!!!!

Indeed! That alone makes it worthwhile! :)
Ariddia
09-05-2005, 22:31
Oh, and another advantage to PR would be that you would no longer have situations in which the party you support isn't putting in a candidate in your constituency. All votes would obviously be national, so you'd get the full range of choice.