Forum Topic

Now is the time for Proportional Representation

The recent election has once again highlighted the one blinding inequality in our voting system.I can't imagine the conservative party want any change to the status quo, it suits them so well after all. However, how can it be right and fair that 2 parties polling 5 million votes between them get 2 seats and the SNP get 56 seats based on 1.5 million votes?We need PR as a nation to bring together all differing political views to enable us to move forward in an open and cohesive way.

William Prentice ● 4190d23 Comments

We had a referendum for AV almost exactly four years ago, how soon we forget.It was comprehensively rejected by over 67% of those voting.It's not going to happen any time soon.

Nigel Brooks ● 4190d

I don't think that AV is the same thing as proportional representation although I'll leave it to somebody else to explain the difference ...

Anne England ● 4190d

The SNP actually won over 50% of the vote in the 59 seats they contested. The Tories, now in majority government, won not much over a third of the vote cast. The SNP support PR but the Tories don't. Make your case for PR on the basis on which the Tories were elected. As far as they are concerned you don't have a cat in hell's chance of shifting them. No harm in trying though.

John Connelly ● 4190d

> I don't think that AV is the same thing as proportional representation although I'll leave it to somebody else to explain the difference ...AV still elects only one candidate per constituency, so it's not Proportional Representation.It's classed as a "Majoritarian System", described by the Electoral Reform Society as "Systems, like First Past the Post, that tend to be simple but are highly disproportional".

Dave Robertson ● 4190d

Nigel, that wasn't for real PR - it was for the alternative vote system which isn't the same.

William Prentice ● 4189d

True, but the principle was established that there was no desire to change the current system.It seems that people want the person they vote for to be elected rather than a lottery of 'close seconds'.

Nigel Brooks ● 4189d

Well, with 68% voting no to AV on a 42% turnout it certainly isn't representative.Real proportional representation is simply the fairest way to reflect peoples' views.

William Prentice ● 4189d

You could convert to full PR without a referendum, using the precedent of the Euro elections, and the fact that unlike AV, it doesn't require the voters to do anything different at the ballot box, in terms of the fact that they will only place one cross, just for list candidates unless you have top-up. Clegg should have insisted on this as a pre-requisite for the coalition, which just goes to show what a crap leader he was (that he didn't).

Ian Speed ● 4189d

How can you have something other than a simple yes/ no vote on a single issue question?

Nigel Brooks ● 4189d

To be fair to Clegg he did insist on the AV referendum and supported it wholeheartedly, unlike Millibean who sat on the fence along with the rest of the Labour MPs with their 'no official position' stance.

Nigel Brooks ● 4189d

One third of the votes cast equates to not much more than one fifth of the actual electorate.  I am surprised the Tories are prepared to accept power on this basis, bearing in mind that they are already preparing to introduce a law outlawing strikes that are not demonstrably supported by over 50% of the workforce.

Phil Andrews ● 4189d

If people can't be bothered to get off their butts and vote, they get what they deserve.

Nigel Brooks ● 4189d

Maybe, but that doesn't alter the double standards being applied in this instance.

Phil Andrews ● 4189d

The trouble with proportional representation is that it inevitably leads to weak governments that can't do anything other than slightly tinker with the current status quo.  First past the post results, generally, in a clear winner and the ability for that clear winner to actually change things.  First past the post is also how most things in the world operate and so is more representative of human nature.  Imagine for example a football league in which points are awarded not on the basis of who actually won a game, but on the basis of which team has possession of the ball for the longest time.  The reason Britain can make solid and strong decisions is because we generally have clear winning governments and not coalitions in which policies have to be horse traded or bartered away.  A coalition of Labour-SNP for example would have been the absolute worst thing to ever happen to this country and would have destroyed the capitalist system on which we rely to generate the wealth that pays the taxes.

Lorne Gifford ● 4186d

Not sure why a coalition between Lab and the SNP would lead to the end of the world as we know it, but then I don't read the Daily Mail.Coalitions have clearly been an unmitigated disaster in (for example) Germany which has had exclusively coalition governments for decades.

Guy Lambert ● 4186d

Guy, you're trying to dismiss the point by pulling one or two examples that don't reflect the overall situation.  This is a very political way of trying to deflect an awkward question rather than actually accepting it and responding to it.Let me put it more simply; does the world as a whole overwhelmingly work on a first past the post basis? We can of course all pull out examples where this doesn't happen, but generally I think we would all agree it does.  Lost the battle but won the war, no prizes for second place, a miss is as good as a mile, etc. These show that first past the post is so ingrained in human nature that we even have common sayings that support it.  What common sayings exist to support PR as being part of our life? well all I can think of is, 'we play non-competitive games at this school'.  That's not how life works.

Lorne Gifford ● 4186d

First past the post results in unrepresentative government.It demeans the whole notion of democracy. There are many different views covering many issues which deserve fair representation. Might is right is not a particularly clever approach in the 21st century - more like the playground bully.There are massive issues facing the world now; climate change, pollution, the continuing nuclear risks, the savage wars. The world needs to sit up and take notice and to do that cohesively will require a little more cooperation than is currently evident.

William Prentice ● 4186d

I'm not sure why you equate the first past the post system as being bad for such things as climate change and nuclear risks, but let's go with that for a moment.First past the post results in less coalitions and less bartering in government.  Bartering is strongly correlated with short-term politics and short-term politics doesn't address the long term issues you are concerned about.  An example; the Labour-SNP deal/non-deal.  The SNP don't want any form of nuclear deterrence but Labour do.  The need to get other Labour policies through would have led to bartering on the nuclear issue, and perhaps an erosion from 4 strategic subs to 2, which would increase the nuclear risk and other wars probabilities.Another example; wars.  To fight a war with a reasonable chance of winning it you need to commit to it.  Again, bartering would lead to an erosion of that commitment.Final issue you raise; climate change.  Which way do you think the climate is actually changing? The last time I looked into it the results were pretty clear that the climate is cooling

Lorne Gifford ● 4186d

So wrong Lorne.But there you go.

William Prentice ● 4186d

that's not much of a response William. hint's a little of can't think of anything to say so I'll just say it's wrong because I don't agree with it

Lorne Gifford ● 4186d

Pointless discussion Lorne, that simple.

William Prentice ● 4186d

"Does the world as a whole work on a first past the post basis?"Well, certainly not in government: only the UK and the Isle of Man use it in Europe (and of course, even in the UK there are many elections where we don't use it - European Parliament, London Assembly, Scottish and Welsh Governments). It would never be invented now if it hadn't been here for hundreds of years, and of course it works OK when there are only two dominant parties.And your examples are not only quite irrelevant but also skewed. Have you never heard of a silver medal?

Guy Lambert ● 4186d

You're using two of the oldest and most stable democracies in the world as examples of what not to do, and one of the youngest and most prone to extremism as an example of what we should be doing.  Interesting, but not very convincing.

Lorne Gifford ● 4185d