First Passed The Post or PR?
Discussion
Ahem... past
I've heard a number of Conservative minded people on tv recently bleating about the unfairness of the current voting system. I think it was a Labour pledge in '97 to hold a referendum on PR but they quickly backed away when they realised that it would hinder them rather than help them.
It's been implemented in Scotland and led to no one party taking overall control.
So who would be in favour of PR and who prefers FPTP?
>>> Edited by mcecm on Sunday 10th April 11:01
I've heard a number of Conservative minded people on tv recently bleating about the unfairness of the current voting system. I think it was a Labour pledge in '97 to hold a referendum on PR but they quickly backed away when they realised that it would hinder them rather than help them.
It's been implemented in Scotland and led to no one party taking overall control.
So who would be in favour of PR and who prefers FPTP?
>>> Edited by mcecm on Sunday 10th April 11:01
That's the great thing about democracy, there's so many different ways you can set it up, with different results.
Labour and Tory both used to do well out of FPTP, so therehas been no move to PR in UK politics. Now the Tories actually suffer from a relative under-representation with respect to their vote, they are in favour of it.
The LibDems (and previous incarnations) have always been in favour of it, since they have always had a larger vote than their relative representation.
Labour are currently ramrodding postal voting through at many levels of representation, since the demographics show it will boost their relative vote.
There's nothing about fairness or equality in any of this, its all about parties trying to get the most power they can out of the voters they can gather, and they'll change the rules in whatever way it suits them.
Gerrymandering without the boundaries.
To get back to the original question, PR does eliminate tactical voting in party terms, since your vote will contribute to the 'PR' element of representation, e.g. in Scotland the Greens have 6 seats - they didn't win any outright, but had enough votes in total to win this level of representation.
Biggest problem with this is that party apparatchiks don't have to win any local issues or seek local favour, they get put on a list and elected on a purely party banner.
Give me benevolent dictatorship any day... anyone want to join my army?
Labour and Tory both used to do well out of FPTP, so therehas been no move to PR in UK politics. Now the Tories actually suffer from a relative under-representation with respect to their vote, they are in favour of it.
The LibDems (and previous incarnations) have always been in favour of it, since they have always had a larger vote than their relative representation.
Labour are currently ramrodding postal voting through at many levels of representation, since the demographics show it will boost their relative vote.
There's nothing about fairness or equality in any of this, its all about parties trying to get the most power they can out of the voters they can gather, and they'll change the rules in whatever way it suits them.
Gerrymandering without the boundaries.
To get back to the original question, PR does eliminate tactical voting in party terms, since your vote will contribute to the 'PR' element of representation, e.g. in Scotland the Greens have 6 seats - they didn't win any outright, but had enough votes in total to win this level of representation.
Biggest problem with this is that party apparatchiks don't have to win any local issues or seek local favour, they get put on a list and elected on a purely party banner.
Give me benevolent dictatorship any day... anyone want to join my army?
Its a 6 and two 3's problem I am afraid....
FPTP is good as it does intrinsically lead more often to a single "in power" party. PR means that there is a better spread of representation of the peoples thoughts in power. On the thread recently about what will people be voting for, I did come to a realisation myself - I live in a strong conservative area, so the chances of any other party getting in power is VERY limited. Does my vote make a difference (if i were to vote for someone else?), actually no - It is disenfranchising as my vote is actually meaningless now. I cant influence my local selection and I cant influence the national one either! Its a rather stange situation!
But that said, I do not welcome the thought of our confrontational style of politics and parliament being hung. It would be a nightmare and even less would actually get done in comparison to the current levels. PR might be good on the surface, but I need to be convinced that it would lead to better stability of parliament....
FPTP is good as it does intrinsically lead more often to a single "in power" party. PR means that there is a better spread of representation of the peoples thoughts in power. On the thread recently about what will people be voting for, I did come to a realisation myself - I live in a strong conservative area, so the chances of any other party getting in power is VERY limited. Does my vote make a difference (if i were to vote for someone else?), actually no - It is disenfranchising as my vote is actually meaningless now. I cant influence my local selection and I cant influence the national one either! Its a rather stange situation!
But that said, I do not welcome the thought of our confrontational style of politics and parliament being hung. It would be a nightmare and even less would actually get done in comparison to the current levels. PR might be good on the surface, but I need to be convinced that it would lead to better stability of parliament....
I’d like to see the Single Transferable Vote adopted as our voting system.
a web site said:
The Single Transferable Vote is a system of proportional representation that allows voters to vote for individual candidates (as opposed to party lists) in order of preference. Voters rank the candidates in order of preference; first preference votes are the first to be looked at, and the votes are then transferred if necessary from candidates who have either been comfortably elected or who have done so badly that they are eliminated from the election.
In Northern Ireland this is the voting system used for elections to local councils, the Assembly, and the European Parliament. It is used for all elections in the Irish Republic, Malta, and Australia (although single-member constituencies are prevalent in Australia, apart from state level elections in Tasmania and the ACT).
[quote=c c]I’d like to see the Single Transferable Vote adopted as our voting system.
An extremely good alternative.
I'm against PR because Labour and the Lib Dems would win. I couldn't stomach that. It would be bleeding heart this and bleeding heart that. Put Britain first and vote Conservative.
An extremely good alternative.
I'm against PR because Labour and the Lib Dems would win. I couldn't stomach that. It would be bleeding heart this and bleeding heart that. Put Britain first and vote Conservative.
FPTP is better because if a paty wins a decisive share of the vote-but not a majority they can form a stable government.
The current sysytem underepresents the Tories-but they will never get the votes needed to beat a Labour/Lib Dem coalition so it is the best system available for them.
The current sysytem underepresents the Tories-but they will never get the votes needed to beat a Labour/Lib Dem coalition so it is the best system available for them.
Ok perhaps you can clear this up for me. If an area has 20000 voters and another has 1000 voters that counts as 2 constuancies (sp?). so that is a bit unfair or does PR work by counting ALL the voters?
Also does the way it works mean that the seats have to be dislodged? so therefore that is why if you have a huge majority it is hard to displace.
Therefore I presume Labour will be in for another 4/5 years as they will have a reduced overall seat count.
excuse if it does not make sense as not checked
Also does the way it works mean that the seats have to be dislodged? so therefore that is why if you have a huge majority it is hard to displace.
Therefore I presume Labour will be in for another 4/5 years as they will have a reduced overall seat count.
excuse if it does not make sense as not checked
scared but happy said:
Ok perhaps you can clear this up for me. If an area has 20000 voters and another has 1000 voters that counts as 2 constuancies (sp?). so that is a bit unfair or does PR work by counting ALL the voters?
Also does the way it works mean that the seats have to be dislodged? so therefore that is why if you have a huge majority it is hard to displace.
Therefore I presume Labour will be in for another 4/5 years as they will have a reduced overall seat count.
excuse if it does not make sense as not checked
The Boundaries Commission continually review constituencies and boundaries so that overall there should be approximately the same number of electors in each constituency - this obviously changes over time with population movement and building.
The Boundaries Commission are able to adjust majorities in the way they assign boundaries, but they are not political and do not prefer one party over another. Not at all. Oh no. Never. (A knighthood? Thank you).
PR can work in a myriad of ways. The Single Transferrable Vote scheme is one, multiple candidates per constituency is another, and top up lists is a third. They should all end up with a selection of candidates which reflect the overall opinion of the voter base, not just the successful candidates.
edited to change 'Electoral Comission' to 'Boundaries Commisssion'. The Electoral Commission are the ones who looked at postal voting, recommended that it never be considered, but were overruled by politicians who would benefit directly from the effects of it.
>> Edited by Size Nine Elm on Sunday 10th April 17:47
I would prefer PR - the last Labour government got in with about 25% of the vote - largely due to voter apathy. Come to think of it most governments get in with less than 50% of the vote which is hardly democratic.
I baulk at the thought of another Labour government, but I also baulk at the thought of another Tory government. I would far rather see a government that reflects 100% of the vote. I wonder if the current system is one of the main reasons for the poor state of the nation!
I baulk at the thought of another Labour government, but I also baulk at the thought of another Tory government. I would far rather see a government that reflects 100% of the vote. I wonder if the current system is one of the main reasons for the poor state of the nation!
tim.tonal said:
I would prefer PR - the last Labour government got in with about 25% of the vote - largely due to voter apathy. Come to think of it most governments get in with less than 50% of the vote which is hardly democratic.
Its perfectly democratic for a bunch of witless people not to vote and then whinge about the government.
(not you btw)
mybrainhurts said:
Avoid PR at all costs.....you don't want green gremlins in there screwing us all up, do you?
They would still be a small minority - the greens don't get that many votes (in 2001 they managed 0.6% of the vote. At the moment we have Labia's pseudo Green Gremlins screwing us all up and there's nobody in the government to counteract them!
Yours,
'Bored' at work!
tim.tonal said:
Avoid PR at all costs.....you don't want green gremlins in there screwing us all up, do you?
They would still be a small minority - the greens don't get that many votes (in 2001 they managed 0.6% of the vote. At the moment we have Labia's pseudo Green Gremlins screwing us all up and there's nobody in the government to counteract them!
Yours,
'Bored' at work!
Not necessarily. As soon as you have PR, the concept of tactical voting goes out the window. How many real green supporters still vote LibDem, because thats the next best thing, and stands more chance of actually electing someone? With PR, people will vote for many more minority parties, and over the whole country this could add up to one... or two... or ten seats. Even 0.6% of the vote is worth 4 seats with PR.
Size Nine Elm said:
Not necessarily. As soon as you have PR, the concept of tactical voting goes out the window. How many real green supporters still vote LibDem, because thats the next best thing, and stands more chance of actually electing someone? With PR, people will vote for many more minority parties, and over the whole country this could add up to one... or two... or ten seats. Even 0.6% of the vote is worth 4 seats with PR.
Most countries with a PR system have a minimum set percentage of votes before you get into parliment-If the level was set at 5%, you would not get many fringe parties.
tim.tonal said:
Avoid PR at all costs.....you don't want green gremlins in there screwing us all up, do you?
They would still be a small minority - the greens don't get that many votes (in 2001 they managed 0.6% of the vote. At the moment we have Labia's pseudo Green Gremlins screwing us all up and there's nobody in the government to counteract them!
Yours,
'Bored' at work!
I'm talking about Dem Libs.......
An interesting point from Bagehot in this week's Economist.
In the 1974 election the Tories won 36% of the vote and won 277 seats, with Labour winning 39%, giving them an overall majority of only three seats. Were the Tories to win a similar percentage of the vote this year, Labour would have a majority of over 80 seats.
In the 1974 election the Tories won 36% of the vote and won 277 seats, with Labour winning 39%, giving them an overall majority of only three seats. Were the Tories to win a similar percentage of the vote this year, Labour would have a majority of over 80 seats.
SuckMyChrsitmas said:
An interesting point from Bagehot in this week's Economist.
In the 1974 election the Tories won 36% of the vote and won 277 seats, with Labour winning 39%, giving them an overall majority of only three seats. Were the Tories to win a similar percentage of the vote this year, Labour would have a majority of over 80 seats.
Oh yes I read that article too.
It is a very interesting statistic isn't it and made up of a number of factors.
The geographical concentration of Tory voters, the fact that Labour constituencies have fewer voters and so on.
Ooooh! My favourite subject!
IMHO FPTP is the cause of most of our poltical and social troubles (and economic woes until the Chancellor bravely gave up controlling interest rates). The effect of allowing fundemental left - right shifts (and vice versa) in Governement has abated somewhat with the parties reaching virtual concensus on major policy, but the system is still unfair, unrepresentative, anti-democratic and corrupt.
Why if FPTP so bad;
1. The election effectively takes place in 100 or less of the constituencies, those where a change of party is possible.
2. All parties have realised that in this election the outcome will be determined by 800,000 potential swing voters in marginal seats. You won't even see them seriously campaign in over 450 constituencies.
3. Most people who bother to vote won't elect anyone - and they wonder why turnout is falling!
4. It encourages un-principled voting ie for those that understand the system and who support a party that is unlikely to win locally, the only intelligent vote is for a party most likely to defeat the party you hate most - hardly a positive democratic statement.
5. Huge parliamentary majorities on the basis of 40-44% of the popular vote (25 - 30% of those registered. In this election it is possible that Labour could have a working majority with under 38% of the poll and a smaller overall vote than the Tories.
6. In 'safe seats' it is the tiny number of people active in the dominant party who really choose the MP (eg Tories & Nick Herbert in Arundle last week)
7. The 'well it makes for strong government' argument is nonesense, what it has given is near absolute power to the executive and hence PM, ruling over a supine majority parliamentary party.
8. The well at least we don't have coallitions' argument is also nonesense. You DO have a coallition, but you aren't allowed to hear the argument because it is kept within one party (which contains widely differing views on many policy areas), or worse those seeking to ingratiate themselves with the whips become lobby fodder for the Govt of the day and we get "presidential govt" - see No.6. Also, coallition in Scotland has kept the executive on its toes and delivered policies the public wanted (I lived there 2000-2004)
Give me STV asap
Why is it so good;
1. It maintains geographical representation, if in bigger constituencies
2. It is nearly proportional
3. Most people who vote actually get to elect someone
4. You can vote for several members of the same party or across parties, depending what you think of the individual candidates and there is no order of prefernce determined by a party.
5. The parties have to campaign more evenly across the whole country
6. Coallition is a likely outcome, but this creates pragmatic politics from the outset and prevents ludicrous promises.
NB For those who think such Governement stagnates progress look at Eire's economic & social performance over the last 15 years!
If we want to become a modern effective REPRESENTATIVE democracy with some limit on the executive's power in parliament and their ability to endlessly interfere with the detail of our working and social life roll on significant constitutional reform.
NB. There is a slightly more representative electoral system in Scotland, but it contains a list element which gives parties too much say in who the 'top up' members are. This was deliberate, as neither Labour or the Tories want STV in Great Britain for any election because they know how popular it would become.
PS Watch the Tories flirt with PR in the next parliament if they get another beating this time!
I feel much better now
IMHO FPTP is the cause of most of our poltical and social troubles (and economic woes until the Chancellor bravely gave up controlling interest rates). The effect of allowing fundemental left - right shifts (and vice versa) in Governement has abated somewhat with the parties reaching virtual concensus on major policy, but the system is still unfair, unrepresentative, anti-democratic and corrupt.
Why if FPTP so bad;
1. The election effectively takes place in 100 or less of the constituencies, those where a change of party is possible.
2. All parties have realised that in this election the outcome will be determined by 800,000 potential swing voters in marginal seats. You won't even see them seriously campaign in over 450 constituencies.
3. Most people who bother to vote won't elect anyone - and they wonder why turnout is falling!
4. It encourages un-principled voting ie for those that understand the system and who support a party that is unlikely to win locally, the only intelligent vote is for a party most likely to defeat the party you hate most - hardly a positive democratic statement.
5. Huge parliamentary majorities on the basis of 40-44% of the popular vote (25 - 30% of those registered. In this election it is possible that Labour could have a working majority with under 38% of the poll and a smaller overall vote than the Tories.
6. In 'safe seats' it is the tiny number of people active in the dominant party who really choose the MP (eg Tories & Nick Herbert in Arundle last week)
7. The 'well it makes for strong government' argument is nonesense, what it has given is near absolute power to the executive and hence PM, ruling over a supine majority parliamentary party.
8. The well at least we don't have coallitions' argument is also nonesense. You DO have a coallition, but you aren't allowed to hear the argument because it is kept within one party (which contains widely differing views on many policy areas), or worse those seeking to ingratiate themselves with the whips become lobby fodder for the Govt of the day and we get "presidential govt" - see No.6. Also, coallition in Scotland has kept the executive on its toes and delivered policies the public wanted (I lived there 2000-2004)
Give me STV asap
Why is it so good;
1. It maintains geographical representation, if in bigger constituencies
2. It is nearly proportional
3. Most people who vote actually get to elect someone
4. You can vote for several members of the same party or across parties, depending what you think of the individual candidates and there is no order of prefernce determined by a party.
5. The parties have to campaign more evenly across the whole country
6. Coallition is a likely outcome, but this creates pragmatic politics from the outset and prevents ludicrous promises.
NB For those who think such Governement stagnates progress look at Eire's economic & social performance over the last 15 years!
If we want to become a modern effective REPRESENTATIVE democracy with some limit on the executive's power in parliament and their ability to endlessly interfere with the detail of our working and social life roll on significant constitutional reform.
NB. There is a slightly more representative electoral system in Scotland, but it contains a list element which gives parties too much say in who the 'top up' members are. This was deliberate, as neither Labour or the Tories want STV in Great Britain for any election because they know how popular it would become.
PS Watch the Tories flirt with PR in the next parliament if they get another beating this time!
I feel much better now
CiderwithCerbie said:
5. Huge parliamentary majorities on the basis of 40-44% of the popular vote (25 - 30% of those registered. In this election it is possible that Labour could have a working majority with under 38% of the poll and a smaller overall vote than the Tories.
7. The 'well it makes for strong government' argument is nonesense, what it has given is near absolute power to the executive and hence PM, ruling over a supine majority parliamentary party.
8. The well at least we don't have coallitions' argument is also nonesense.
I feel we should stick with FPTP for the house of commons-in order to create strong government-BUT
Vote at the same time for an upper house under PR-give the upper house stronger powers than it possess now-and it will act as a check on Government power.
Then lunacies such as the ban on Fox hunting would be harder to perpetrate
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff