Quizzes & Puzzles36 mins ago
Proportional Representation
OK Blair's fired the gun, we're off! I've just been reading the BBC talking point on whether or not people are going to vote. Am I the only one who finds it amusing that lot's of people keep moaning that we don't have PR? I mean if we did we would'nt have a government at all as I don't think there has ever been a party that gained 50% in a general election, I mean even Blair's 97 land slide produced only 47% of those who voted. So PR is a vote for paralysis. Ask yourself this, the Lib Dems yearn for PR, If they ever got in a position to introduce it, ie via the current system, would they then do so? I think not! What do you think?
Answers
1 to 13 of 13
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Loosehead. 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.
Well, I'll keep my answer short, the biggest argument against what you say is that loads of other countries, in fact most of Europe if I'm not mistaken, have some form of PR, and those countries haven't disolved into chaos. It would certainly stop dictatorial leadership, and would make MP's genuinely useful rather than puppets who get told by their bosses how to vote on all the issues.
Most of us have votes that are totally meaningless because of where we live - the politicans know this and don't care how I vote because the seat is safe.
PR wouldn't solve the fact that we seem to have 2 heads of state and we don't get to vote for either!
We get to vote for the legislature but not for the executive - we obviously can't be trusted with proper democracy.
If we could vote directly for the PM via a single national ballot either directly or by PR it wouldn't be such an issue!
No jake I'm just somebody who has a strong preference for a majority government. My theory is that a majority government will do something, a minority one becomes paralysed.
While I have a preferred party to be in power I'd actually prefer the other lot with a majority to my preferred lot with no chance of changing anything.
i'm not necessarily in favour of pr but lets see countries with pr corginiser could have chosen in alphabetical order:
(party list)algeria, angola, argentina, austria, belgium, benin, bosnia and herzegovina, brazil, bulgaria, burkina faso, burundi, cambodia, cape verde, chile, colombia, costa rica, cyprus, czech republic, denmark, dominican republic, el salvador, equatorial guinea, eritrea, estonia, finland, greece, guinea-bissau, guyana, iceland, indonesia, israel, latvia, liberia, liechtenstein, luxembourg, moldova, republic of mozambique, namibia, netherlands, netherlands antilles, new caledonia, nicaragua, norway, paraguay, peru, poland, portugal, romania, san marino, sao tome and principe, slovakia, slovenia, south africa, spain, sri lanka, suriname, sweden, switzerland, the state union of serbia and montenegro, turkey, uruguay, wallis and futuna
(mixed member proportional) bolivia, germany, hungary, italy, lesotho, mexico, new zealand, venezuela
(preference voting) ireland, malta, australia
who was picked? italy - corganiser are you really trying to tell us you're innocent of selecting the evidence?
no, I could have picked wallis and gromit who have notoriously unstable governments too.
On a more serious note you could select any of a large number where pr appears to work because in essence they've only got two parties (or in some cases effectively one party). PR becomes inherently difficult to work with whenever you have multiple parties, particularly covering minority interests and i'd say Italy was a fair example of that. However, as Zen clearly reminded us, our own recent history would demonstrate that it wouldn't be great here.
I am not against PR per se, I just can't see it working in practice in multi-party nations.
Loosehead - Italy is living proof of your theory. Endless coalition governments failing because nobody has overall control.
No it isn't. When PR was used in Italy, it led to long-term stability of government (not of individual governments) and of policy, with minor adjustments in line with public opinion. Extremists were kept out of governemnt. Since Italy abolished PR (in 1994), Italy has swung dramatically from left to right and almost every government has included members of former fascist or Communist parties. Under PR, Italy's economy tripled in size compared with that of the UK, despite a similar size and population.
The disadvantage of PR is that you vote for the party, not hte candidate.
Not under STV you don't. If we had PR for elections to the House of Commons, it would probably be by STV or by open lists of some kind, in which there is choice of individual candidates.
How did you like the last year's Euro elections? I prefer to have a local MP who I can have a moan about (and to).
I liked it. As a benefit of PR, I now have an MEP of the party I voted for, as do 90% of the voters.
The bulwark of democracy is a strong opposition.
I agree. That's why we need PR to ensure a strong opposition, instead of an over-strong authoritarian government with a huge artificial majority.
1 to 13 of 13
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |