After 5 months of coalition government, are you.....

[Kermit power]

We've all heard the arguments - proportional representation would be a disaster for the country, we'd never have stable government, nobody would ever stay in power long enough to actually get anything done etc...

Now, after 5 months of the first coalition government since WW2, it would appear that actually the country still exists!

I've always voted Conservative, and unless something dramatic happens, I will continue to do so, but looking at the progress so far, as well as the state of many of the nations in Europe with longer histories of coalition government, my opinion on how my vote should be represented in the future has changed dramatically.

Until recently, I've been in favour of FPTP as a voting system, but that started to fade in the build up to the General Election with the realisation that it was, in fact, complete bks. In reality, the Tories not only had to be first past the post, they had to carry on running for another 50 yards before they could hope to claim a victory.

Within that same framework, my vote effectively counted for nothing. Chris Grayling was always going to be returned as my MP with thousands of votes to spare, whilst in dozens of other constituencies, UKIP fkwits were winning just enough votes to tip the result.

So, how do you lot feel? Has anyone else moved significantly in favour of PR? Or against it for that matter?

[Smiler.]

I voted first on this, do I win

[Don]

I am more outraged that constituency size varies so much. The Isle of Wight has twice the constituents than is normal. Can't be right.

[Blue Meanie]

I don't think it is fair that, as you said, in one constituency the 3000 votes lead they had is wiped out by the 3 votes someone else won by in another. Basically 3000 votes = 3 votes, (or words to that effect).

[plasticpig]

Not a fan of the democratic system. But if we are going to have a democracy we may as well do it properly. PR is far more democratic than FPTP.

[elster]

Don said:

I am more outraged that constituency size varies so much. The Isle of Wight has twice the constituents than is normal. Can't be right.

Completely agree, it is not a fair election if 10k people vote for 1 MP and another 100k vote for another MP. Each vote should count for an equal sway in their MP and also in the government they choose.

[12gauge]

Not much point debating the best way to vote in a national election until we get our nation back and pull out of the EU. Until that happens, im apathetic towards the whole thing.

[The Black Flash]

elster said:

Don said:

I am more outraged that constituency size varies so much. The Isle of Wight has twice the constituents than is normal. Can't be right.

Completely agree, it is not a fair election if 10k people vote for 1 MP and another 100k vote for another MP. Each vote should count for an equal sway in their MP and also in the government they choose.

Very much so.

[mybrainhurts]

PR always gives a degree of power to small groups of loonies, so I do not support it.

[thinfourth2]

mybrainhurts said:

PR always gives a degree of power to small groups of loonies, so I do not support it.

Yes far better we keep the large groups of loonies on the case

[dandarez]

thinfourth2 said:

mybrainhurts said:

PR always gives a degree of power to small groups of loonies, so I do not support it.

Yes far better we keep the large groups of loonies on the case

[OllieC]

dandarez said:

thinfourth2 said:

mybrainhurts said:

PR always gives a degree of power to small groups of loonies, so I do not support it.

Yes far better we keep the large groups of loonies on the case

I did laugh..

However PR seems to give the Green parties in europe too much of a say in things, more often than not anyway.

no thanks !

[tank slapper]

mybrainhurts said:

PR always gives a degree of power to small groups of loonies, so I do not support it.

It very much depends on which system of PR you choose to use. Direct PR, where the number of seats are allocated in proportion to votes across the board, would have the effect you state.

I would prefer to see the voting system changed to STV, because it removes safe seats. The current system allows parties to put their cronies into a seat with an enormous majority, and they will be in parliament until they give up or die. The majority of voters in that constituency are effectively disenfranchised, because they have no say whatsoever in who their representative is, even if they happen to support that particular party. The AV system would make that situation worse, and so would any system involving party lists. STV allows people to support the party they want, even if there is one candidate for their party that they don't like. It transfers power to the electorate, and not to the parties. The other way of increasing accountability, would be to have proper open primary elections, where any constituent can vote for who becomes a candidate for election.

STV also allows for majority government, and excludes the fringe parties so the problem of eg the BNP holding a deciding vote would be unlikely to occur.

[Mazda Baiter]

Don said:

I am more outraged that constituency size varies so much. The Isle of Wight has twice the constituents than is normal. Can't be right.

Surely balanced out by half the genetic variation within society.

[ninja-lewis]

quote=Don]I am more outraged that constituency size varies so much. The Isle of Wight has twice the constituents than is normal. Can't be right.
[/quote] There is definitely a need to equalise the size of urban and Welsh constituencies with the larger rural constituencies. Although perhaps not that easy as you generally want to avoid constituencies straddling other boundaries.

However, the Isle of Wight is an extreme case - you can't really divide it into 2 constituencies as they'd be ridiculously small then. Equally there is strong local opposition to part of island being represented by a mainland MP. Likewise at the other end of the scale, the 4 Scottish constituencies with less than 50,000 voters are already extremely large and remote in geographical terms.

[MX7]

Leave it as it is, but get the Electoral Commission to sort out the constituencies. It can't be right that Blair got 9,552,436 votes and a majority of 157 seats in 2005, and Cameron got 10,703,754 votes, and had to form a coalition.

I think the great thing about FPTP is that it generally gives the winning party a chance to do what they feel is right. It seems that in much of Europe, compromise is the order of the day, with frequent breakdowns of governments.

[Caruso]

MX7 said:

I think the great thing about FPTP is that it generally gives the winning party a chance to do what they feel is right. It seems that in much of Europe, compromise is the order of the day, with frequent breakdowns of governments.

Exactly, people want strong leaders but don't generally vote for them.