FPTP or PR - How would you vote tomorrow?
Poll: FPTP or PR - How would you vote tomorrow?
Total Members Polled: 219
Discussion
If we had a referendum tomorrow to choose between keeping the current First Past The Post system for parliamentary elections or moving to Proportional Representation, which would you pick?
If you'd go for PR and were given free rein to design the system exactly as you saw fit, what would it look like?
If you'd go for PR and were given free rein to design the system exactly as you saw fit, what would it look like?
I’d definitely be PR as I think our current system is fairly broken and encourages people to vote for the ‘least bad’ rather than the best.
As for a system, I’m less certain about this. Perhaps, simply, all the parties are an option for every voter and for every 100,000 votes (or similar) a seat in parliament is awarded.
As for a system, I’m less certain about this. Perhaps, simply, all the parties are an option for every voter and for every 100,000 votes (or similar) a seat in parliament is awarded.
Certainly not a modified D’Hondt system anyway. The Scottish Parliament has MSPs who effectively can’t be removed as they appear on both constituency and regional list ballot papers.
If I had to choose, something similar to the council system up here would probably be the preference, so multi-member superconstituencies with STV voting within. Means you have MPs tied to reasonably local areas, you’re still voting for individuals, so undesirables can be removed, popular independents get a better chance of election and the results should be reasonably proportional at national level.
If I had to choose, something similar to the council system up here would probably be the preference, so multi-member superconstituencies with STV voting within. Means you have MPs tied to reasonably local areas, you’re still voting for individuals, so undesirables can be removed, popular independents get a better chance of election and the results should be reasonably proportional at national level.
Kermit power said:
Ivan stewart said:
The only caveat is we would end up with dross like Caroline Mucus’s green loony lot and LD’s meddling with everything!!
Because you feel that Labour and the Conservatives have been unmitigated successes throughout your lifetime?I went with FPTP, not because the current system doesn't have flaws, but because I think that the biggest problem which needs to be fixed is the party system, not the voting system.
We should be voting directly for our representatives, and they should be representing their constituents' needs, not their parties' orders.
Ban the party whips and let our representatives represent us the way they should. We'd get a lot more direct accountability and not have to worry about tactical voting and least worst options.
We should be voting directly for our representatives, and they should be representing their constituents' needs, not their parties' orders.
Ban the party whips and let our representatives represent us the way they should. We'd get a lot more direct accountability and not have to worry about tactical voting and least worst options.
captain_cynic said:
I'd go with IRV -Instant Run-off Voting.
You list the candidates in order of preference. If no one gets 50%+1 on the first preference then we start counting 2nd preferences..so on and so forth.
Does that not still have a fundamental flaw in that to gain representation, you have to have your support sufficiently focused on individual seats though? Not as bad as now, but still seems problematic. You list the candidates in order of preference. If no one gets 50%+1 on the first preference then we start counting 2nd preferences..so on and so forth.
Personally I'd like to see a system where any party gaining over a certain threshold of the national vote (maybe 2.5 to 5%) gets representation, and that representation is then evenly distributed according to the vote shares of all parties exceeding the threshold.
I would still record constituency votes though for two reasons.
Firstly, I would grant a seat to any individual candidate able to win their seat whilst not being a member of a threshold-breaking party to avoid unfairly eliminating the chances of independents.
Secondly, I would allocate individual seats to MPs in such a way as to ensure as far as possible that constituencies are represented by the party they most voted for.
captain_cynic said:
I'd go with IRV -Instant Run-off Voting.
You list the candidates in order of preference. If no one gets 50%+1 on the first preference then we start counting 2nd preferences..so on and so forth.
Yellow ? Who voted yellow ?You list the candidates in order of preference. If no one gets 50%+1 on the first preference then we start counting 2nd preferences..so on and so forth.
Everyone gets what nobody wants ! That's democracy Dennis.
A PR system is definitely worth trying. The current system is no longer suitable.
Despite the disbelief of some, and prophecies of doom(Non-Tory dominance) it is possible to make the change.
New Zealand did this very thing:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_o...
The similar German system:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_o...
Despite the disbelief of some, and prophecies of doom(Non-Tory dominance) it is possible to make the change.
New Zealand did this very thing:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_o...
The similar German system:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_o...
I have long believed in PR as a better way of representing the votes of people.
Under FPTP, typically, more people didnt vote for the winning party than did which hardly seems a fair representation of what the public wants.
As to which system to use, that becomes a more difficult issue when we have a representative democracy where you have an MP that represents a constituency area.
Under FPTP, typically, more people didnt vote for the winning party than did which hardly seems a fair representation of what the public wants.
As to which system to use, that becomes a more difficult issue when we have a representative democracy where you have an MP that represents a constituency area.
Boringvolvodriver said:
I have long believed in PR as a better way of representing the votes of people.
Under FPTP, typically, more people didnt vote for the winning party than did which hardly seems a fair representation of what the public wants.
As to which system to use, that becomes a more difficult issue when we have a representative democracy where you have an MP that represents a constituency area.
Wikipedia:Under FPTP, typically, more people didnt vote for the winning party than did which hardly seems a fair representation of what the public wants.
As to which system to use, that becomes a more difficult issue when we have a representative democracy where you have an MP that represents a constituency area.
"The New Zealand electoral system has been mixed-member proportional (MMP) since the 1996 election. MMP was introduced following a referendum in 1993. It replaced the first-past-the-post (FPP) system New Zealand had previously used for most of its history. New Zealanders elect their members of parliament (MPs) with two votes. The first vote is for a candidate from an electorate (electoral district). The second vote is used to elect ranked party lists."
MC Bodge said:
Wikipedia:
"The New Zealand electoral system has been mixed-member proportional (MMP) since the 1996 election. MMP was introduced following a referendum in 1993. It replaced the first-past-the-post (FPP) system New Zealand had previously used for most of its history. New Zealanders elect their members of parliament (MPs) with two votes. The first vote is for a candidate from an electorate (electoral district). The second vote is used to elect ranked party lists."
Cheers - "The New Zealand electoral system has been mixed-member proportional (MMP) since the 1996 election. MMP was introduced following a referendum in 1993. It replaced the first-past-the-post (FPP) system New Zealand had previously used for most of its history. New Zealanders elect their members of parliament (MPs) with two votes. The first vote is for a candidate from an electorate (electoral district). The second vote is used to elect ranked party lists."
Boringvolvodriver said:
MC Bodge said:
Wikipedia:
"The New Zealand electoral system has been mixed-member proportional (MMP) since the 1996 election. MMP was introduced following a referendum in 1993. It replaced the first-past-the-post (FPP) system New Zealand had previously used for most of its history. New Zealanders elect their members of parliament (MPs) with two votes. The first vote is for a candidate from an electorate (electoral district). The second vote is used to elect ranked party lists."
Cheers - "The New Zealand electoral system has been mixed-member proportional (MMP) since the 1996 election. MMP was introduced following a referendum in 1993. It replaced the first-past-the-post (FPP) system New Zealand had previously used for most of its history. New Zealanders elect their members of parliament (MPs) with two votes. The first vote is for a candidate from an electorate (electoral district). The second vote is used to elect ranked party lists."
Germans elect their members of parliament with two votes. The first vote is for a direct candidate, who is required to receive a plurality vote in their electoral district. The second vote is used to elect a party list in each state as established by its respective party caucus.
More people need to be made aware of these things, not just swallowing the fear and "it just wouldn't work here!" from the Tory press/websites.
Edited by MC Bodge on Saturday 9th July 10:02
The problem with FPTP is the largest minority wins, and then sets the political agenda. We currently have a lot of polarizing subjects in society, so the needs and wants of the majority are being ignored, or worse, undermined. The DeHondt system is 97% FPTP, certainly not worth changing for; whatever system is chosen must deliver proportional representation of electoral views expressed.
PR would force policies to come from the centre ground where there is greater consensus of opinion and break the hegemony of the largest minority.
Whilst we're making changes, devolution should be scrapped and power devolved to local authorities allowing local control of local matters rather than regional centralisation of power. Yes I'm signposting.
PR would force policies to come from the centre ground where there is greater consensus of opinion and break the hegemony of the largest minority.
Whilst we're making changes, devolution should be scrapped and power devolved to local authorities allowing local control of local matters rather than regional centralisation of power. Yes I'm signposting.
Boringvolvodriver said:
I have long believed in PR as a better way of representing the votes of people.
Under FPTP, typically, more people didnt vote for the winning party than did which hardly seems a fair representation of what the public wants.
As to which system to use, that becomes a more difficult issue when we have a representative democracy where you have an MP that represents a constituency area.
Both have their pros and cons. Under FPTP, typically, more people didnt vote for the winning party than did which hardly seems a fair representation of what the public wants.
As to which system to use, that becomes a more difficult issue when we have a representative democracy where you have an MP that represents a constituency area.
Under FPTP the MPs should represent their local area in theory (in reality they often have their main home in London and occasional visit whichever part of the "provinces" elected them). Under PR people can elect for parties that more closely represent their own views.
Probably on the whole PR is better where you have a political class that tends to ignore the views of voters.
hiccy18 said:
The problem with FPTP is the largest minority wins, and then sets the political agenda. We currently have a lot of polarizing subjects in society, so the needs and wants of the majority are being ignored, or worse, undermined. The DeHondt system is 97% FPTP, certainly not worth changing for; whatever system is chosen must deliver proportional representation of electoral views expressed.
PR would force policies to come from the centre ground where there is greater consensus of opinion and break the hegemony of the largest minority.
Whilst we're making changes, devolution should be scrapped and power devolved to local authorities allowing local control of local matters rather than regional centralisation of power. Yes I'm signposting.
Mostly they will, but I actually really like the fact that a smaller party with a strong policy from the edges of the spectrum can gain a platform to bring them to the fore. PR would force policies to come from the centre ground where there is greater consensus of opinion and break the hegemony of the largest minority.
Whilst we're making changes, devolution should be scrapped and power devolved to local authorities allowing local control of local matters rather than regional centralisation of power. Yes I'm signposting.
JagLover said:
Probably on the whole PR is better where you have a political class that tends to ignore the views of voters.
Of course it is.FPTP is an anachronism that stems from the days of the small number of rich men in an an area voting for which of them to send to represent their interests in London.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff