NationStates Jolt Archive

I have been wondering what the British Parliament would look like if there were a proportional representation system in place. There are 646 seats, which means that any party would need 0.15% of the national vote in order to get one MP. Sadly, I haven’t been able to find the full nationwide results of all parties, so I’ve only got those of five parties (BBC figures). If anyone knows the nation-wide percentage of any other party, please let me know.

The Labour Party got 35.2% of the national vote, which means that under PR it would have had 227 MPs (instead of 356 at present).

The Conservative Party got 32.3%, so would have 209 MPs (instead of 197 at present).

The Liberal Democrats got 22.0%, so would have 142 MPs (instead of 62 at present!).

Finally, 10.5% of the vote went to other parties, which all together would thus have 68 MPs (instead of 30 at present). More specifically, the Green Party, with 1.07% of the vote, would have 7 MPs (instead of 0 at present!). The BNP, with 0.74% of the vote, would have 5 MPs – which is indeed regrettable, but would hardly make them a major threat.

As I’ve said elsewhere, small parties would probably get a greater share of the vote under a PR system, since votes cast for them would no longer be “wasted”, and since you could vote for any party whatever your constituency, so I foresee the Greens, for example, having far more than seven (or zero!) MPs under such a system. (As for the BNP, I would think that most of the people who would ever be inclined to vote for them are doing so already, so at the very worst they would have perhaps seven or eight seats).

A party needs 324 seats for an absolute majority, and no party would get that under PR, all the more so since I believe the Labour and Conservative share of the votes would probably decrease under PR. Still, if we take the results as they are above, there would have to be a ruling coalition. LAB-CON would be an absurdity, and CON-LD even more so (since the LibDems are more progressive than Labour), which would mean there would be a LAB-LIB coalition (227+142 = 369).

What do you think?

Unfortunately i feel PR is flawed in this country due to one thing, we would be forever ruled by a Labour/Lib Dem coalition and that is not healthy for democracy.

My better idea, would be to keep the constituency link but have a proportion of the seats related to the share of the vote.

I would have about 400 constituencies, constituencies that remove the current bias to Labour (16000 votes on average to elect a Labour MP, 22000 a Conservative).

The other 240 seats would be elected on a proportional basis, this basis would be counting up all the votes that were cast for parties in constituencies where they did not win a seat (benefiting all parties that come second and third). These votes would then be turned into seats. For example, if the Lib Dems come second in a lot of places as they currently do, then those votes would go into the proportional section and be used to determine how many seats they win in that section.

Parties like the greens would benefit from this in the proportional section. I would have a threshold of 3% of the vote to be able to take seats in parliament.

Wegason, you make a good point. Although your system is designed to ensure one party can obtain an absolute majority, which is unfortunate, you make a valid point by saying it may well be necessary. And such a "compromise" between constituency representation and PR would indeed enable small parties to get seats - although it would still leave some voters unrepresented, since under PR a party would only need 0.15% in order to get an MP, against 3% in yours.

In my constituency, conservative have a massive lead of something like 4000 votes, so if anybody wants to vote for say Labour, Lib Dem or Legalise Cannabis then their votes will basically be non-existant.

if we have a vote on which party leads the country, and a separate one on which party runs our local area, then everything will be loads fairer

Agreed.

As unfair as it may seem, the current system produces stable govenrments with working majorities; in my view, PR would be a disaster for this country.

What does need looking at are the current boundaries - these were reviewed under Labour (in 1998 I think) and favour their gaining power more than the other parties.

The Boundaries Commision should really pull its finger out and crack on with this.

(Edit - agreed with Wegason's first post)

Why not make the House of Lords into a senate (have them elected by proportional representation)?

[edit]and/or have two/several representitives from every electorate

Unfortunately i feel PR is flawed in this country due to one thing, we would be forever ruled by a Labour/Lib Dem coalition and that is not healthy for democracy.

I wonder, though, if we could get round that difficulty by making a rule whereby the party that comes first has to be part of the ruling coalition. So, if the Tories come first, you couldn't have a Lab-Lib government. (Personally, I'm in no hurry to see the Tories back in power - *shudders* - but I agree that having the same government forever would be a problem).

Let's take a hypothetical example. The Conservatives take 30.8% of the vote (199 MPs), the Lib Dems 28.9% (189 MPs), and Labour 25.4% (164 MPs). The Tories would have a choice between a CON-LIB government (388 MPs), or a CON-LAB one (363 MPs). In both cases you’d end up with something highly bizarre (you might even say unnatural) – but would it truly be completely dysfunctional? Or is it possible to assume they would simply be forced to compromise on policy?

Yes the House Of Lords in an interesting dilemma, i feel we cannot have PR there as that would make it even more representative than the House Of Commons.
Perhaps a regional PR system or have a House Of Lords where you regional majoritarian system. By that i mean each county/city has a certain number of people to elect to the House of Lords (change of name is needed i think) depending on population. For instance London would have the most and Essex and other populous counties would have quite a few where as small counties would have 1 or 2.

The way to elect would be to have lots of candidates and you vote for the one you want to represent you and the ones with the highest vote number get elected. Probably a crap idea actually, but i disagree with Blair appointing all his cronies to the commons and giving labour a majority so he can force things through.

I wonder, though, if we could get round that difficulty by making a rule whereby the party that comes first has to be part of the ruling coalition. So, if the Tories come first, you couldn't have a Lab-Lib government. (Personally, I'm in no hurry to see the Tories back in power - *shudders* - but I agree that having the same government forever would be a problem).

Let's take a hypothetical example. The Conservatives take 30.8% of the vote (199 MPs), the Lib Dems 28.9% (189 MPs), and Labour 25.4% (164 MPs). The Tories would have a choice between a CON-LIB government (388 MPs), or a CON-LAB one (363 MPs). In both cases you’d end up with something highly bizarre (you might even say unnatural) – but would it truly be completely dysfunctional? Or is it possible to assume they would simply be forced to compromise on policy?

That would be a good rule, if the electorate were to continue to want a Tory Government and the other parties did not work with them then they may lose votes in the next election as voters blame them for having a weak government.

On the other hand it depends on the direction of the parties, the Liberal Democrats by nature of being Liberals should be more economically on the right than they are currently, however labour should be more on the left.

If Labour stay in the centre which i doubt they will then they may work with the Lib Dems or the Tories (doubt it though).

We could see a rise in the UKIP which could work with the Tories, you never know. The only way to find out would be to have it and see what happens.

We could see a rise in the UKIP which could work with the Tories, you never know. The only way to find out would be to have it and see what happens.

UKIP would have to rise a hell of a lot if it was ever to give the Tories a majority. If we go by my example above, with the Tories having 199 MPs, UKIP would need to supply them with 125 MPs (19% of the national vote). Somehow, I can't see UKIP hitting 19%. (Nor would I want it; a CON-UKIP coalition would be disastrous for Britain!).

Unless Labour takes a sudden swing to the left, the Lib Dems will probably emerge as the major left-wing party, with Labour in the centre (unless we see a spectacular rise by the Greens, which seems unlikely - though, again, we can't really know). So we could well end up with Labour taking part in most coalition governments, but having to compromise its policies alternately to the left (LibDems) and to the right (Tories), depending on which of those two is favoured by the electorate. Again, though, this is all just hypothesising...

Now, I wonder what a ruling Conservative-Loony coalition would look like. :D

While i agree that the rise of the UKIP is unlikely, it is not out of the question for the tories to win 44% of the vote again like they did in the 80%, even with 40% they only need allies to have just over 10%

Anyone else have an opinion on this issue? Like my idea (post no 3)?

Something needs to be done. I'm sick of my vote not counting (although we did *nearly* oust our Tory MP in the last general). We had PR in the european parliament and one of the candiates I voted for actually got in. It was a nice surprise. :cool:

Why do we even bother to have a house of parliament at all? What purpose do MPs serve? Why not institute a direct democracy, rather than a representative one. The UK has the communications infrastructure to cope with providing every citizen (those currently eligible to vote) with the means to register their opinion. It also has the means to provide the public with access to debate (both to participate and to observe). Why then do we need a house of commons when the commoners, i.e. the people, could speak directly for themselves.
This then leads to the reform of the upper houise into a consultative body that would be responsible for ensuring that the laws created by the people are practical and enforcable. i.e jurists and other such specialists whose task would be to assist and facilitatye the will of the people.

A lot better, and a lot cheaper than representative democracy. It can work in the UK due to the size of the country, and the political and technological development of the culture. It is not going to work well in India due to the numbers involved, nor in Botswana due to the people not being prepared culturally for such a system, in addition to the technical infrastructure not being present. Whether it would work in the USA, I have no idea.

Why do we even bother to have a house of parliament at all? What purpose do MPs serve? Why not institute a direct democracy, rather than a representative one. The UK has the communications infrastructure to cope with providing every citizen (those currently eligible to vote) with the means to register their opinion. It also has the means to provide the public with access to debate (both to participate and to observe). Why then do we need a house of commons when the commoners, i.e. the people, could speak directly for themselves.
This then leads to the reform of the upper houise into a consultative body that would be responsible for ensuring that the laws created by the people are practical and enforcable. i.e jurists and other such specialists whose task would be to assist and facilitatye the will of the people.

A lot better, and a lot cheaper than representative democracy. It can work in the UK due to the size of the country, and the political and technological development of the culture. It is not going to work well in India due to the numbers involved, nor in Botswana due to the people not being prepared culturally for such a system, in addition to the technical infrastructure not being present. Whether it would work in the USA, I have no idea.
i've thought that for quite some time. modern technology would enable us to have a direct democracy in the near future.
i hope you're not being sarcastic then :confused:

have you noticed it's always the losing side that wants PR?

back in the 80's and 90's Labour were squealing for it

now conservative supporters are

Now, I wonder what a ruling Conservative-Loony coalition would look like.
Purely for the sake of making a partisan jab, I'll say that that Coalition would look the same as a ruling Conservative majority government! :D

I definitely don't like the idea of truly direct democracy. We'd end up with the death penalty again and who knows what other 'causes of the week'.

i've thought that for quite some time. modern technology would enable us to have a direct democracy in the near future.
i hope you're not being sarcastic then :confused:

No, no sarcasm at all. The only problem is how to persuade, in the UK, 645 overpaid excesively stuffed pigs to make themselves redundant.


Re. PR. Those European countries that have PR show one of two types of result. Either you have the German type system where there is a very stable, uninspired traditional line of policy that is followed by all governments, or you have the Italian style where you have on average 8 governments ayear as coalitions break up and reform over the slightest perceived insult given to the junior members of the coalition.

The latter results in administrative chaos and personality cult politics, the former creates complete political stagnation and apathy. I would not wish to see either. FPTP systems are unfair in the way they represent the electorate in three party or more system, but at least they tends to make politics a viable activity.

I definitely don't like the idea of truly direct democracy. We'd end up with the death penalty again and who knows what other 'causes of the week'.
A constitution could be put together to keep somethings from being passed. Such as capital/corporal punishment or institutional racism etc

I definitely don't like the idea of truly direct democracy. We'd end up with the death penalty again and who knows what other 'causes of the week'.

At least you would be able to vote against it. To campaign amongst those people you know to vote against it. Currently, if the choice presented is between a party that supports the death penalty, but would allow you to choose what university you go to to study what you want to study, or another party that would not continue with the death penalty (it still exist in the UK for three specific crimes) but would restrict you to studying whatever there was a shortage of at the time at the university of their choice, not yours, you are disenfranchised by the packaging of policies into party lines. Direct democracy does away with parties, and addresses issues instead.

If the majority support the death penalty, it would be maintained, and rightly so under a democratic system. Democracy is not a recipe for obtaining what you, personally, want.

I definitely don't like the idea of truly direct democracy. We'd end up with the death penalty again and who knows what other 'causes of the week'.


A constitution could be put together to keep somethings from being passed. Such as capital/corporal punishment or institutional racism etc

That defeats the point of having a direct democracy in the first place if you limit what can be done.

Proportional representation in the Commons would be a disaster. There would be too many parties with opposing viewpoints for anything to get done.
My ideal solutions would either be to:
a) Abolish political parties. Lib Dem, Conservative, Labour, Green - all gone. With party lines and party whips gone, MPs will actually vote based on their opinions. Not how the cabinet tells them to vote. This also means constituents would have to consider their candidates' opinions rather than what colour is next to their name on the ballot.

b) Replace the House of Lords with a House fully elected by proportional representation. Party lines are not as important in the second house because they're not actually proposing anything new, just ratifying bills passed up from the Commons.

Proportional representation in the Commons would be a disaster. There would be too many parties with opposing viewpoints for anything to get done.
My ideal solutions would either be to:
a) Abolish political parties. Lib Dem, Conservative, Labour, Green - all gone. With party lines and party whips gone, MPs will actually vote based on their opinions. Not how the cabinet tells them to vote. This also means constituents would have to consider their candidates' opinions rather than what colour is next to their name on the ballot.


Retaining all the apparatus of government without parties would be even less likely to achieve anything worthwhile than proportional representation. What issues would be placed before the house? Who would decide on these issues?

Why do we even bother to have a house of parliament at all? What purpose do MPs serve? Why not institute a direct democracy, rather than a representative one. The UK has the communications infrastructure to cope with providing every citizen (those currently eligible to vote) with the means to register their opinion. It also has the means to provide the public with access to debate (both to participate and to observe). Why then do we need a house of commons when the commoners, i.e. the people, could speak directly for themselves.
This then leads to the reform of the upper houise into a consultative body that would be responsible for ensuring that the laws created by the people are practical and enforcable. i.e jurists and other such specialists whose task would be to assist and facilitatye the will of the people.

A lot better, and a lot cheaper than representative democracy. It can work in the UK due to the size of the country, and the political and technological development of the culture. It is not going to work well in India due to the numbers involved, nor in Botswana due to the people not being prepared culturally for such a system, in addition to the technical infrastructure not being present. Whether it would work in the USA, I have no idea.

I don't believe any country is, at present, ready for full direct democracy, mainly for one reason. Most people tend to think first and foremost in terms of their own self-interest, and not in the interests of society, and a system grounded in individual selfishness just would not be viable. Also, it would mean a majority could impose its craze of the moment at any time. I don't trust people enough to give them that kind of power and responsability. Such a system could only be instituted if and when people had come to view themselves as citizens with a responsibility to their fellow citizens and to society as a whole.

another party that would not continue with the death penalty (it still exist in the UK for three specific crimes)

Are you sure? I'm fairly certain it was abolished completely in 1997 (after having been abolished in practice, and in theory also for most crimes, in the 1960s).

Proportional representation in the Commons would be a disaster. There would be too many parties with opposing viewpoints for anything to get done.
My ideal solutions would either be to:
a) Abolish political parties. Lib Dem, Conservative, Labour, Green - all gone. With party lines and party whips gone, MPs will actually vote based on their opinions. Not how the cabinet tells them to vote. This also means constituents would have to consider their candidates' opinions rather than what colour is next to their name on the ballot.

b) Replace the House of Lords with a House fully elected by proportional representation. Party lines are not as important in the second house because they're not actually proposing anything new, just ratifying bills passed up from the Commons.

Where i agree PR is a disaster i feel that we still need to make parliament more proportional and the way to do this would be to use a mixed system like AMS. A system i made a variant on when i proposed my idea on the third post of this forum. We need a government which is strong but not as powerful and a commons that is more representative.

I have been wondering what the British Parliament would look like if there were a proportional representation system in place. There are 646 seats, which means that any party would need 0.15% of the national vote in order to get one MP. Sadly, I haven’t been able to find the full nationwide results of all parties, so I’ve only got those of five parties (BBC figures). If anyone knows the nation-wide percentage of any other party, please let me know.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2005

They have a breakdown of 22 parties there. My rough calculations of how many seats they would get under a basic national PR follow:

Labour 227
Conservative 209
Liberal Democrats 142
UKIP 15
SNP 10
Green 6
DUP 6
BNP 5
Plaid Cymru 5
Sinn Féin 5
UUP 3
SDLP 3
Respect 2
SSP 1
Veritas 1
Alliance (NI) 1
Scottish Green 1
Independent (Peter Law) 1
Socialist Labour Party 1
Liberal 0
Health Concern 0
SGUC 0

Are you sure? I'm fairly certain it was abolished completely in 1997 (after having been abolished in practice, and in theory also for most crimes, in the 1960s).

Arson in a royal dockyard ceased to be a capital offence in 1971. High treason and piracy ceased to be capital offences in 1998. The UK was bound by the European Convention of Human Rights to not practice or reintroduce the death penalty, except "in times of war or imminent threat of war".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2005

They have a breakdown of 22 parties there.


Thanks! That's very useful!

Arson in a royal dockyard ceased to be a capital offence in 1971. High treason and piracy ceased to be capital offences in 1998. The UK was bound by the European Convention of Human Rights to not practice or reintroduce the death penalty, except "in times of war or imminent threat of war".

Fair enough. I left the UK in 1998, so I missed this. Thanks for the info. However aiding and abetting the enemy in time of war is still punishable by death, is it not?
(Sorry for the delay, but I was locked out yesterday by Jolt)