Proportional Representation

[aris]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results

 

So, UKIP get 12.6 of the national vote share (so far) - but only one seat.

 

SNP 4.8% of the national vote share - and 56 seats.

Is this democracy?

 

[grrclark]

yes, but not representative and not at all fair.

 

I very much hope that some sort of reform will be on the cards in this parliament.

[kdubya]

Its democracy but not as we know it Jim. its proof of the case for PR its like Frank bruno's left leg, its not right and its not fair.

 

KW

Edited May 8, 2015 by kdubya

[aris]

One downside I can see of PR is a much higher fragmentation of the vote - and endless coalitions to form a government. I for one am happy that one party (in my opinion the right one) won outright. They can finally get stuff done without hindernance or pandering.

[Aled]

There will be no electoral reform with this party in Government.

Cheers

Aled

[robbiep]

There will be no electoral reform with this party in Government.

Cheers

Aled

 

If I recall correctly, wasn't there a referendum on PR in 2011 ?

 

Which the public rejected ?

 

Or do some want the people to repeatedly vote in a referendum until they get the 'correct' result ?

[grrclark]

There will be no electoral reform with this party in Government.

Cheers

Aled

Ordinarily I would agree with that Aled, but given the talk about constitutional change via devolution then it may well change the landscape.

 

Time will tell and it will be interesting to watch.

 

If I recall correctly, wasn't there a referendum on PR in 2011 ?

 

Which the public rejected ?

 

Or do some want the people to repeatedly vote in a referendum until they get the 'correct' result ?

There was a referendum on an Alternate Vote solution that was too complicated to be effective.

[Fisherman Mike]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results

 

So, UKIP get 12.6 of the national vote share (so far) - but only one seat.

 

SNP 4.8% of the national vote share - and 56 seats.

Is this democracy?

 

Those 56 seats are next to useless in a Majority Government.

 

Even if UKIP were given the number of parliamentary seats pro rata their national poll there's nothing they could do with them.

 

I'm not against PR but it wont make a bit of difference.

[The Croc]

Voting Reform petition

 

https://www.change.org/p/david-cameron-reform-our-voting-system-to-make-it-fair-and-representative-makeseatsmatchvotes?tk=AbP8m7DRYwIgCf0VH2G3GpcqOAzNvep_S68zI5ydv6U&utm_source=petition_update&utm_medium=email

[krugerandsmith]

yes, but not representative and not at all fair.

 

I very much hope that some sort of reform will be on the cards in this parliament.

 

Agreed ..... Very unfair.

[Chris Bb]

I'm open minded on this but can someone please explain how it works?

 

I voted UKIP, the local kipper came in second and we've only 1 kipper MP. So, I'm being "represented" by someone who I don't want but at least she's the local MP.

 

If my vote had been taken nationally, we'd have 60 +/- kippers in Westminster. But who'd be representing me/my constituency?

 

I'm not convinced that the young lady that I didn't vote for will actually represent me/my constituency (she's a "parachuted in" wannabe career MP from London and has already stated that she's for something (a local development issue) that the Conservative Central Office want but we locals don't) but that's beside the point. Or is it?

[grrclark]

remember we don't really vote for a party, we vote for an individual MP, so there are 650 individual elections. That those MPs are affiliated to a party is beside the point and it is those MPs and their affiliated parties that choose the PM.

 

Although much of that description bears no real resemblance to what we actually do, which is mostly vote for a party or desired PM, it serves to highlight how out of touch our FPTP system really is.

[Willxx]

Those 56 seats are next to useless in a Majority Government.

 

Even if UKIP were given the number of parliamentary seats pro rata their national poll there's nothing they could do with them.

 

I'm not against PR but it wont make a bit of difference.

Those 56 seats are priceless - particularly to Mr Cameron - Labour have realistically no hope of ever winning a majority in England alone - it was one of the reasons labour were happy to back Cameron (oh and the UK) in the referendum. Look at the map painted blue - a few areas mainly urban centres still red - almost everywhere else blue - even with ALL the scottish seats they were nowhere near but if those seats stay SNP how the hell will Labour hope to take a 3rd of the existing conservative seats in England??

Edited May 8, 2015 by Willxx

[KFC]

If I remember rightly, the vote on PR in 2011 was a simple stitch-up.

 

We were not asked if we wanted PR yes or no?

 

We were offered an alternative system that was so complicated that few people could understand it so, predictably, most voted to stay with the existing system.

 

My opinion is that whole system needs changing. Instead of 'power and oppostion' and 'party politics' all MP's should simply stand on their own merit and vote according to their conscience or manifesto laid out before the electorate.

 

At least it would make it more likely that we'd be run by the will of the people and less by the lobbyists for big business.

[pegasus bridge]

It's a question that should be asked again, perhaps combine it with the EU referendum that was promised .

[Vince Green]

PR sounds simple but it brings as many problems as it solves. At present you vote for a person to represent your area. in an ideal world it would be someone with a connection to the area. They take your interests to Westminster but also should get involved in local issues on your behalf.

 

With PR all that gets swept away, there is no local representation which is a big loss. We are increasingly witnessing the centralisation of politics. As Chris Bb says, many MPs are parachuted into their seats. Labour is particularly bad in this respect, fewer and fewer of their MPs come through the Party grass roots. That is one of the reasons I believe they have a growing credibility gap.

 

With PR the parties will appoint whoever they like and we will have no say.

[Dekers]

There must be a case for some voting system other than what we have, but it is clear on this election results there would not be a majority party using proportional representation, and for many countries that already have proportional representation it seems coalitions are pretty much the norm.

 

What is the answer, if only I knew!

[Vince Green]

There must be a case for some voting system other than what we have, but it is clear on this election results there would not be a majority party using proportional representation, and for many countries that already have proportional representation it seems coalitions are pretty much the norm.

 

What is the answer, if only I knew!

Coalitions are not a bad thing as long as its not Labour and the SNP. Its the loss of representation and accountablity at the local level that would be worrying if we had PR.

[Dekers]

Coalitions are not a bad thing as long as its not Labour and the SNP. Its the loss of representation and accountablity at the local level that would be worrying if we had PR.

 

I think many would disagree, that is just the problem.......finding something that is acceptable to the majority whilst delivering effective government.

 

By way of local representation then why not increase the power/leverage of councils. Our current voting system seems relatively acceptable/representative at Local levels.

 

There must be a case for some voting system other than what we have, PR is a blanket term, I am not advocating that or decrying it, but, There must be a case for some voting system other than what we have.

 

Edited May 9, 2015 by Dekers

[aris]

PR sounds simple but it brings as many problems as it solves. At present you vote for a person to represent your area. in an ideal world it would be someone with a connection to the area. They take your interests to Westminster but also should get involved in local issues on your behalf.

 

With PR all that gets swept away, there is no local representation which is a big loss. We are increasingly witnessing the centralisation of politics. As Chris Bb says, many MPs are parachuted into their seats. Labour is particularly bad in this respect, fewer and fewer of their MPs come through the Party grass roots. That is one of the reasons I believe they have a growing credibility gap.

 

With PR the parties will appoint whoever they like and we will have no say.

Quite right, and we would have a much more fragmented vote - meaning smaller parties like the BNP would have a foot in the door. They got very few votes this time around, but you can be sure that people's voting patterns will change with PR - meaning dozens of parties with M

P's, no outright winner, and having endless dithering and compromises within coalition governments.

 

I'm not saying we don't need to change something, but outright PR is not really viable for how the UK populace expect to choose their politicians.

[MrM]

I saw an article over the weekend which showed that had we had PR, we would probably have ended up with a Tory/UKIP and/or Lib Dem government.

 

I think that it would be wrong to have a referendum with just the choice PR - Yes or No as I would guess the majority of people have no clue as to how PR actually works but would vote Yes because it sounds the right thing to do.