Proportional representation in the UK

[ignot]

Ever going to happen? This first past the post system we are clinging to is keeping the balance of power uneven imo.

At the time of writing, Labour have gotten ~35% of the nations vote, but they are holding 329 out of the 649 parlimentary seats. So even though they are only a few percent above the closest opposition, they have over twice the amount of seats as them. Does this seem off to anybody?

 

[jimbo118]

you should add a poll tbh, i support it, we have it here.

 

[$kelet0r]

because the uk is so diverse culturally it simply wouldn't work
there'd be hundreds of parties
same would happen in the US
think of Weimar Germany as a good example of the flaws of using proportional representation in a multicultural country
it works in ireland cos the Irish are still largely mono-ethnic

 

[jimbo118]

because the uk is so diverse culturally it simply wouldn't work
there'd be hundreds of parties
same would happen in the US
think of Weimar Germany as a good example of the flaws of using proportional representation in a multicultural country
it works in ireland cos the Irish are still largely mono-ethnic

you wouldnt think so now would you, we have quite a variety of peoples and cultures now.

 

[$kelet0r]

not as much as you'd think
althoughthe way moore st has changed in just 5 years is something i find hilarious
i really miss the slags yelling -git yer lighters 5 fur a pound
good times : )

 

[superjuanchango]

I stand by the fact that Ireland is one big person. After seeing the movie Michael Collins I was proven right. Proportianal Representation is flawed, it is the closest thing to a 100% true democracy you can get without installing voting booths in every home. However, it is likely to end up with hundreds of parties as stated earlier.

 

[el Chi]

I don't understand why it would lead to hundreds of parties running? And even if they did then most of them wouldn't get many votes.

 

[$kelet0r]

And even if they did then most of them wouldn't get many votes.

exactly thats why it wouldn't work

 

[el Chi]

Sorry... Isn't that just bad luck to them?
To be honest, there are already loads of independents, and theones that run in certain constituencies on particular local issues, I have a lot of emp;athy for. So in that respect at least, I like the current system.

 

[The Monkey]

Wow, I though that only US still keeps that system. Here in Sweden we got a 4% limit. If any party gets less that 4%, it doesn't enter the parliment. Currently we got 7 parties with more than 4% of the votes, and that's not too much. So if a patry gets 7% of the votes in the country, it gets 7% of the seats. Isn't that as democratic as it gets?

 

[jimbo118]

not as much as you'd think
althoughthe way moore st has changed in just 5 years is something i find hilarious
i really miss the slags yelling -git yer lighters 5 fur a pound
good times : )

lol yeah but i was down in westport(mayo) recently, the amount of chinese and poles was unbelievable tbh, but i think its a good thing to have more diversity. :thumbs:

I stand by the fact that Ireland is one big person. After seeing the movie Michael Collins I was proven right.

that film was pretty flawed tbh. ireland 1 big person, in what sense?

 

[^Ben]

No.

It gives power to the smallest partys over the biggest partys.

Let's say labour has 35% and conservative have 30% and lib dems have 15% So whatever the libdems choose, happens, which is flawed because they have the smallest % but have the biggest influence in any decision.

 

[kirovman]

Wow, I though that only US still keeps that system. Here in Sweden we got a 4% limit. If any party gets less that 4%, it doesn't enter the parliment. Currently we got 7 parties with more than 4% of the votes, and that's not too much. So if a patry gets 7% of the votes in the country, it gets 7% of the seats. Isn't that as democratic as it gets?

Probably yeah.

Democracies today tend to actually be republics... that is electing representives for everything.

True democracy would be having referendums on everything...but that would be chaotic when you look at your average joe in the street.

 

[mortiz]

Think of it this way, with the proportional representation system you'd have to get rid of constituencies (since the constituencies that you win determines your majority, not by the proportional margin that you win them by or the margin that you win the overall vote).

So no we've got rid of the constituencies, so, what do the MP's stand for without a constituency? The whole point of an MP is to represent their constituencies; if they haven't got a constituency they have no purpose. So we have to get rid of the MP's. So now we have no MP's and no way of representing the country in parliament. We could solve this and scrap parliament altogether and go with a more presidential system of representation, but I don't believe that would help democracy in this country.

What if you attempt to keep the constituencies? Well in that case you'd have to divide up that constituency’s seat in parliament depending on how much of the vote they got. How do you do that?

There's no way to work a proportional representation without dramatically changing the politics of this country, and no alternative would be more democratic that what we already have imo, since every member in parliament in voted for by us and in a proportional representation you wouldn't have that, you'd have people "appointed" to parliament. Which isn't particularly democratic.

 

[Evo]

Im a Politics AS student so i should have some opinion on this, PR is good due to it being a very democratic system where every party is represented according to % of total vote won, however PR can be confusing as for the Welsh assembly Alternative Member Voting (AMV) is used and is a type of PR. On a smaller scale PR is i think worthwhile but on a national Westminster format i think FPTP is the best as it gives a quick result and more often than not produces a working majority government unlike PR which often requires coalitions.

Overall PR is good in theory but FPTP imo should be kept for the General Election

 

[Mr Stabby]

It would be a good idea in N.Ireland as most people currently vote for the SDLP or Ulster Unionists, even if they dont support them to stop Sinn Fein or DUP gaining seats

 

[ignot]

It's a tricky one for sure, but wouldn't eliminating marginal voting (Where specific groups of voters are targeted in areas where it could go either way, and 'safe' seats are all but ignored) Be a more fair system? It would also get rid of the two party polictics 'tactical' voting that tends to be the trend, people vote against who they don't want in rather than who they would like to get in, since their party of choice wouldn't normally stand a chance in the area in which they live. This is all lay opinion btw.

Weren't Labour going to look into PR as one of their '97 election pledges? Please don't tell me Tony Blair has lied to me...

 

[Evo]

Yeah, Bliar lied to you again ignot, a PR referendum was part of Labour's '97 election promise that they never keep thingy.

 

[Lobotomy Lobster]

I'm all in favour for preportional representation.
Labour's large marjority last time caused a lot of problems. We need a system where people can oppose the goverment a lot more than they can now, and also give a voice to some of the smaller parties.

I do worry about the idea of the BNP getting a say in parliament, but I suppose that's just something we'd have to live with (besides, I think just about every opinion they made would be opposed by just about every other party)

 

[Evo]

Dont get me wrong, i support PR, its just that unless the Liberal Democrats get into power it is highly unlikely that we will have PR at Westminster for ages

 

[jonbob]

I'm all for it. So what if you end up with just as many parties as there are seats? Each party can table their issues with only one representative.

 

[ComradeBadger]

Im a Politics AS student so i should have some opinion on this, PR is good due to it being a very democratic system where every party is represented according to % of total vote won, however PR can be confusing as for the Welsh assembly Alternative Member Voting (AMV) is used and is a type of PR. On a smaller scale PR is i think worthwhile but on a national Westminster format i think FPTP is the best as it gives a quick result and more often than not produces a working majority government unlike PR which often requires coalitions.

Overall PR is good in theory but FPTP imo should be kept for the General Election

You should know that it leads to hung parliments and weak government in general.

It's a terrible idea.

 

[Feath]

You should know that it leads to hung parliments and weak government in general.

It's a terrible idea.

Aye, and if PR was used the BNP would have had some part in the new Parliament. Or worst, The Green Party.

Shocking.

 

[el Chi]

Or worst, The Green Party.

Parliament just can't handle that level of beardliness!

 

[The Monkey]

Can anyone explain how the House of Lords get elected? Isn't that just a bunch of nobels who have inherited the seats? How much power do they got?

 

[J_Tweedy]

Adopting PR inherently means having a multi party system, if that means more Greens, then so be it- that's what the people obviously want. It's not the the Westminster isn't PR,it is, it just uses a Plurality system (FPP) that helps 'disproportionalise' vote percentage from seat percentage.

 

[el Chi]

Yeah basically they're not elected. It's an extremely old-fashioned part of Parliament, but it DOES keep a bit of a rein on the House of Commons, which isn't such a bad thing. If a bill gets passed in the Commons, then the Lords can oppose it. I think generally they don't too much, and if the Prime Minister REALLY wants to get a bill through I believe he/she could just pass it without their consultation. I may be wrong on that, though.

 

[The Monkey]

Yeah basically they're not elected. It's an extremely old-fashioned part of Parliament, but it DOES keep a bit of a rein on the House of Commons, which isn't such a bad thing. If a bill gets passed in the Commons, then the Lords can oppose it. I think generally they don't too much, and if the Prime Minister REALLY wants to get a bill through I believe he/she could just pass it without their consultation. I may be wrong on that, though.

So they aren't elected, but they still got power to decide on important issues? Where's the logic in that?

 

[Razor]

So they aren't elected, but they still got power to decide on important issues? Where's the logic in that?

It stops one party filling the house of lords with a bunch of yes men that will do anything the prime minister tells them too?

The British system isn't perfect but it is far better then the American presidential system.

 

[The Monkey]

It stops one party filling the house of lords with a bunch of yes men that will do anything the prime minister tells them too?.

But they're not elected but the people, are they? Why do you need them at all? If you removed the House of Lords you would become much more democratic.

The British system isn't perfect but it is far better then the American presidential system.

They both seem pretty undemocratic to me.

 

[Evo]

Lords are no longer hereditary peers, the gov't chooses who should become a member of the Lords iirc. The Lords can reject a bill but only 3 times after which the gov't can use the Parliament Act to pass the bill.

 

[Razor]

But they're not elected but the people, are they? Why do you need them at all? If you removed the House of Lords you would become much more democratic.



They both seem pretty undemocratic to me.

But why has it only recently become such a big issue when Tony Blair came into power, which is probably a very silly question seeing that the House Of Lords generally favour the Conservatives.

 

[Evo]

It only become a big issue because Blair abolished hereditary peers --> less Conservative dominance in the Lords