Quizzes & Puzzles54 mins ago
Proportional Representation
19 Answers
If PR was introduced in the UK, as I understand it, the number of MP's from each party would be in proportion to the total number of votes cast for that party in the UK. However who would decide with party's MP would represent which constituency?
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dave50. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
A constituency would always be represented by whoever got the most votes, as is the case now. What would be different is what you do with all the votes of those people who didnt get their preferred local MP elected. You can either discard them, as we do now, or you can add them together to ensure they have some representation in parliament based on their proportions (those additional votes that can be considered a surplus for the winners would be totted up too). Alternatively you could do it the AV-way and remove constituency candidates from the running one-by-one, allowing the losing votes to be transferred to a 2nd choice, and then a 3rd choice, etc. Either of these would be an improvement over the existing system.
One of the (many) shortcomings of PR is that the link between the electorate and their individual MP is lost. At present voters elect MPs to represent them in Parliament. Under PR they will be unable to do so and their choice of representative will be made by the parties.
Another more significant problem is the intrinsically weak nature that any government formed under PR would take. If the election just held returned MPs under PR the Conservatives would have gained 240 seats (instead of their 331). In fact the makeup of the Commons would look like this (with actual figures in brackets):
Conservatives 240 (331)
Labour 198 (232)
LibDems 51 (8)
SNP 31 (56)
UKIP 82 (1)
Greens 25 (1)
Others 23 (21)
There would be difficulty for anybody trying to form a government that would have a reasonable chance of commanding the confidence of the Commons. The shenanigans that went on in 2010 for a number of days before the Queen invited Mr Cameron to form a government would be but nothing to the chaos that would ensue under PR. Weeks, if not months of negotiations would have to take place to reach agreement between probably six parties. It would be doubtful if much, if any, of any of their programmes would make it through Parliament. Everybody would get what nobody particularly wanted.
The “First Past the Post” system has its drawbacks. But voters need to remember that they are not electing a government. They are electing an MP to represent them in the Commons. If they remember that then the "legitimacy" of the government that is formed from those MPs is not an issue.
Another more significant problem is the intrinsically weak nature that any government formed under PR would take. If the election just held returned MPs under PR the Conservatives would have gained 240 seats (instead of their 331). In fact the makeup of the Commons would look like this (with actual figures in brackets):
Conservatives 240 (331)
Labour 198 (232)
LibDems 51 (8)
SNP 31 (56)
UKIP 82 (1)
Greens 25 (1)
Others 23 (21)
There would be difficulty for anybody trying to form a government that would have a reasonable chance of commanding the confidence of the Commons. The shenanigans that went on in 2010 for a number of days before the Queen invited Mr Cameron to form a government would be but nothing to the chaos that would ensue under PR. Weeks, if not months of negotiations would have to take place to reach agreement between probably six parties. It would be doubtful if much, if any, of any of their programmes would make it through Parliament. Everybody would get what nobody particularly wanted.
The “First Past the Post” system has its drawbacks. But voters need to remember that they are not electing a government. They are electing an MP to represent them in the Commons. If they remember that then the "legitimacy" of the government that is formed from those MPs is not an issue.
The issue of PR is dead in the water. The Tories are now in power, and they will not introduce legislation to change our voting system. Neither will Labour, when they are in power in the future.
In order for change to come about, there would have to be a party in power that wants PR, and that won't happen, for obvious reasons. A circular argument, if ever I saw one.
UKIP are whining about not having more than one MP, due to PR. But the SNP achieved a landslide in SCotland with out it ! If these minor Parties really want more MP's then perhaps they should look to being more popular, rather then continue to blame out voting system.
In order for change to come about, there would have to be a party in power that wants PR, and that won't happen, for obvious reasons. A circular argument, if ever I saw one.
UKIP are whining about not having more than one MP, due to PR. But the SNP achieved a landslide in SCotland with out it ! If these minor Parties really want more MP's then perhaps they should look to being more popular, rather then continue to blame out voting system.
Comparing UKIP to the SNP is, perhaps, a bit of a stretch. Comparing UKIP (3.9 million votes, 1 seat) to the Lib Dems (2.4 million votes, 8 seats) is not.
The SNP support, meanwhile, was heavily concentrated and that meant that their votes were bound to turn into seats. Nevertheless the result is particularly harsh on UKIP, who picked up more votes than Lib Dems and SNP combined.
PR would of course redress this balance, but the loss of a constituency link is too heavy a price to pay. It is possible to reform the system in a manner that makes things more proportional without destroying the constituency concept; that is the way we should be looking.
The SNP support, meanwhile, was heavily concentrated and that meant that their votes were bound to turn into seats. Nevertheless the result is particularly harsh on UKIP, who picked up more votes than Lib Dems and SNP combined.
PR would of course redress this balance, but the loss of a constituency link is too heavy a price to pay. It is possible to reform the system in a manner that makes things more proportional without destroying the constituency concept; that is the way we should be looking.
It's democratic because voters elect individual MPs, ron, not a government.
With a party system where there are more than two parties it is almost inevitable that the numbers of voters voting for parties not forming the government will exceed those voting for the one that does.
All PR alternatives almost without exception remove the link between voters and their MPs and many constituencies will have foisted on them pathetic no-hopers selected by the party. Of course this is often the case now when the parties choose their candidates but at least the voters can vote for somebody else.
With a party system where there are more than two parties it is almost inevitable that the numbers of voters voting for parties not forming the government will exceed those voting for the one that does.
All PR alternatives almost without exception remove the link between voters and their MPs and many constituencies will have foisted on them pathetic no-hopers selected by the party. Of course this is often the case now when the parties choose their candidates but at least the voters can vote for somebody else.
It's a given that we are voting in theory for candidates and not the parties they represent but in practice this is not what happens and indeed most people know this. Hence the campaign is framed in large part in national terms.
Hence, I think that dismissing voting reform because "that's not what we are actually voting for in an election" is missing the point. Should local issues really be such a significant part of how we elect our national government? For many people, the answer is no -- and hence the need for electoral reform, because FPTP locks in the answer as "yes". It might be nice to stick it to Ed Balls or Michael Portillo or goodness knows how many other high-profile people might lose their seats, but the end result is that the make-up of our national government is often heavily influenced by small local swings. Hence the focus on key marginals, etc., that mean that large parts of the country can just stop mattering to the people in power. (Well, usually, Scotland being an exception.)
Ultimately electoral reform is not just about the system by which we choose our MPs (First Past the post or Borda Count or Alternative Vote or Schulze method or whatever), but also about what we are choosing our MPs to do, and the reasons we are electing them. The current system doesn't just disenfranchise a sizable proportion of the country, but then also turns people off politics, and allows for a certain type of politician to make it to the top when otherwise they would not. A change to the voting system would help to address some of these issues, but has to be part of a larger change in the way our country is run.
Hence, I think that dismissing voting reform because "that's not what we are actually voting for in an election" is missing the point. Should local issues really be such a significant part of how we elect our national government? For many people, the answer is no -- and hence the need for electoral reform, because FPTP locks in the answer as "yes". It might be nice to stick it to Ed Balls or Michael Portillo or goodness knows how many other high-profile people might lose their seats, but the end result is that the make-up of our national government is often heavily influenced by small local swings. Hence the focus on key marginals, etc., that mean that large parts of the country can just stop mattering to the people in power. (Well, usually, Scotland being an exception.)
Ultimately electoral reform is not just about the system by which we choose our MPs (First Past the post or Borda Count or Alternative Vote or Schulze method or whatever), but also about what we are choosing our MPs to do, and the reasons we are electing them. The current system doesn't just disenfranchise a sizable proportion of the country, but then also turns people off politics, and allows for a certain type of politician to make it to the top when otherwise they would not. A change to the voting system would help to address some of these issues, but has to be part of a larger change in the way our country is run.
Consider the case of Israel. They have perfect proportional representation. They have the List system. Each party produces a list of candidates. For every so-many-thousand-votes, a member is elected. They work down the lists until all the seats won have been allocated. This produces lots of parties, and the tiny ones wield disproportionate power, since if called on to cooperate in a coalition, they can often swing the power between the big parties . For this reason, a small religious party has often forced governments to grant huge privileges ( such as no call-up for male religious students) and other concessions. Constituencies obviously can't exist under such an arrangement, and favouritism could be a serious problem when lists are drawn up.
Is that what we want ?
Is that what we want ?
The sort of voting reform I'd advocate is either of the following:
1. Constituency-based but with different, fairer boundaries, and a voting system that provides voters with the option to express preferences. One such system is the Alternative Vote, which was rejected in 2011, but there are plenty of others; one could also have single-transferable if you are happy to accept larger constituencies where, say, five seats are up for grabs. Another choice worth considering is a system where each voter receives effectively ten votes and is free to distribute them among as many candidates as they like. I suppose the catch of this is what to do when voters can't add up properly or just make an error, but it is effectively a modified form of first-past-the-post. But, anyway, constituency-based and with some way of expressing preferences.
2. The other alternative is to rework the job of MPs such that they are more heavily involved in local politics, and then one is free to elect the National Government however you like. Proportionally, even. This would also include reforming local governments and they need it too.
1. Constituency-based but with different, fairer boundaries, and a voting system that provides voters with the option to express preferences. One such system is the Alternative Vote, which was rejected in 2011, but there are plenty of others; one could also have single-transferable if you are happy to accept larger constituencies where, say, five seats are up for grabs. Another choice worth considering is a system where each voter receives effectively ten votes and is free to distribute them among as many candidates as they like. I suppose the catch of this is what to do when voters can't add up properly or just make an error, but it is effectively a modified form of first-past-the-post. But, anyway, constituency-based and with some way of expressing preferences.
2. The other alternative is to rework the job of MPs such that they are more heavily involved in local politics, and then one is free to elect the National Government however you like. Proportionally, even. This would also include reforming local governments and they need it too.
1 to 19 of 19
Latest Posts
How it Works54 mins ago
Food & Drink57 mins ago
Starmer & Lammy A Marriage Made In...
News69 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles94 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles112 mins ago
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |