election- first past post v proportional representation

[saoirse31]

Just curious, living in country with full proportional representation, multi seat constituencies etc which increases likelihood of minority party's being elected, what's your opinion if living in England? Are you happy with first past post?

[BreakWindandFire]

We had a national referendum in 2011 which voted 68/32 for sticking with first past the post, so I suspect the issue is dead and buried for a generation.

I'm not against PR, but prefer a system where a link is maintained between representative and constituency.

[cdtaylornats]

PR leaves you with politicians you cannot get rid of. A certain politician in Scotland got thoroughly rejected by his constituents but got back into the Scottish Parliament via the list system.

[claig]

I'm not happy with first past the post. It suits the Establishment but effectively disenfranchises millions of people amd means that elections are mainly decided in marginal seats only.

I think we are coming to the end of it because the Establshment will no longer be able to hold the line against our new multiparty politics.

"Voting Ukip? Our electoral system doesn’t want to know

Britain's 'first past the post' voting system will practically disenfranchise one in five people this May. It must be reformed"

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11496173/Voting-Ukip-Our-electoral-system-doesnt-want-to-know.html

[saoirse31]

prop rep or pr doesn't have to use list system. In rep of Ireland we use pr but not lists so there is complete link to constituency... whether that's good or bad tho....

I think first past post is ridiculously disenfranchising ... don't think you'll see establishment parties letting it go though.

[Jackieharris]

The 2011 vote was on av a very specific type of pr.

The UK population has never had to opportunity to vote on stv, the system which works for the Scottish parliament.

I think we do need to move away from FPTP as we don't have 2 big dominant parties to the same extent anymore.

[RedToothBrush]

Local MPs do serve a purpose though and I think its important in talking about representation not to forget this.

Yes you might be represented by an individual in a party you don't like however you have a named individual for your area who is away of localised issues and how they affect local people.

PR takes away the connection from particular areas.

One of the current criticisms of politicians is that they are out of touch with the electorate and have no connection with 'normal people'. I do think this is a little unfair on the MPs who do spend a lot of time within their constituencies trying to sort out smaller problems that no one else would deal with or properly understand. Not all politicians do it, and the cabinet and shadow cabinet tend to be the worst offenders for obvious reasons due to constraints on their time. (There is a case to be made for a named second representative on a ticket to help MPs who have certain roles within government)

A local MP helped out a friend of mine when she had visa issues for her husband. Without that type of representation she would have been screwed and had no one to turn to.

Also one of the criticisms of the current coalition is the fact that the Lib Dems didn't stick to their manifesto promises when working with the Conservatives. The problem with PR is this is more likely to happen on a regular basis with compromises being reached and it being very difficult for the public to really know what they are voting for.

FPTP usually produces a clear winner and clear vision. It makes for strong leadership internationally and a stable government at home which is good economically. This parliament has been the exception to the rule and the next parliament has the potential to be a minority government again being an exception to the rule.

I do like this. I have been a swing voter and I firmly believe that its not good for a country for a leader and government to serve more than two terms as I think it makes the potential for corruption and complacency to be much higher. PR governments tend to change little over long periods of time, which means there is never a way of getting rid of politicians you don't like. (Again this is the strength of constituency based politics to a point. I know a lot of people will argue about their constituency firmly being Lab/Con etc with no danger of it ever changing, but Martin Bell v Neil Hamilton in Tatton is a very good example of how this can be effective even in the most staunch constituencies).

PR also gives a legitimate and stronger voice to extremes within society that otherwise would be moderated by the FPTP system. The thought of a BNP representative in parliament leaves me cold. And with PR there would be the potential for an expansion of this type of party/candidate.

FPTP is NOT perfect. But I don't think any system is any better. And that for me is the big thing. Unless there is a system that offers a significant advantage over the one we have, then I don't think its worth switching and instead I think we should look for ways to improve representation within the one we have via other means.

[JanineStHubbins]

PR doesn't take away the connection from constituencies, where are people getting this from?

Ireland (PR-STV) system is about as localist as it gets.

[hollyisalovelyname]

Am in Ireland.
I'd prefer first past the post.

[JanineStHubbins]

Yeah, thankfully the electorate saw through that FF ruse in 1959.

[thehumanjam]

I would rather have proportional representation. I live in one of the countries safest Tory seats and it does make me wonder why I bother voting.

[Pico2]

It is perfectly possible for a party in our system to have fewer votes but more MPs, so the most popular party can end up as the opposition. That seems crazy to me.

[CoffeeBucks]

Scotland uses the party list/additional member system, not STV. That's for local authority elections.

List works quite well as it divides up seats according to the vote share. And only about 2/5ths of the seats are list anyway, the rest are standard FPTP.

[pointythings]

PR means you get more coalitions, but I don't see that as a bad thing on the whole. The Lib Dem/Conservative coalition can't be seen as representative because it's been the first of its kind in the UK and as such, has been used by the Lib Dems to grab any kind of power they could get even if that meant them abandoning their principles. On the whole, if you look at it Europe-wide, coalition politics means every party gets their extreme edges smoothed off.

The 2011 vote was not on PR/FPTP but on FPTP/Alternative Vote, so true PR was not on offer. Because no-one had the guts to offer it.

I think the UK would be better with PR, because it would mean having a genuine multi-party democracy. In Holland, which has PR, the Dutch equivalent of the BNP got 2 seats once. As a result, everyone could see them for what they really were - a lot of foul racists - and they blew themselves up and disappeared as an electoral force. True, the PVV has done well and is almost equally foul, but I feel it's a small price to pay for the closest thing possible to real democracy, where everyone's vote really has equal weight. Having UKIP in Parliament is something I could live with.

(Hi, claig!)

[SanityClause]

In Australia, there is preference system.

You mark your preferred candidate as 1, next one as 2, next as 3 and so on.

A candidate has to get at least 50% of the vote to win, so if there is no overall majority, the second preferences are taken into account, then the third, and so on. Each constituency has its own representative, and that person will have had to win at least half of the vote. So in a vote with say, 5 candidates, you couldn't win by getting only 25% of the vote, which would have meant that 75% had actually not voted for you.

[Bilberry]

With FPTP the candidate represents the constituents and is aligned to a party. With PR the candidate represents a party and is aligned to a constituency. I much prefer the former.

I am also not keen on coalitions which give too much power to minority parties.

[owltrotter]

I agree that in principle it's nice to feel that you have local representation. In reality though, if you approach your MP about an issue that doesn't chime with their party politics, they may not be inclined to take your side. I had this problem recently: my MP knew I wasn't the sort of person who would ever vote for him, and he couldn't be bothered with my issue.

So actually, a huge number of people living in the constituency may not be represented by their MP.

[JanineStHubbins]

With FPTP the candidate represents the constituents and is aligned to a party. With PR the candidate represents a party and is aligned to a constituency.

This isn't true at all. Again, Ireland is a good example of how constituency interests work in a PR system.

[DrDre]

I want to keep the current system. It is simple, people (in general) understand it, it tends to form stable governments, and MPs are directly elected by local constituents. Make the system too complicated and it will create more problems than it will solve.

[RedToothBrush]

In reality though, if you approach your MP about an issue that doesn't chime with their party politics, they may not be inclined to take your side. I had this problem recently: my MP knew I wasn't the sort of person who would ever vote for him, and he couldn't be bothered with my issue.

My friend went for help under these circumstances. They helped. I think that type of behaviour is down to the wrong people becoming MPs. Changing the system wouldn't change anything if an individual was more concerned about their career than local issues. They would still be a shit MP. Only they probably would be less accountable and pick and choose the issues they involve themselves with even more.

[JanineStHubbins]

'Less accountable' - where are you getting this from RedToothBrush? Have you ever lived under a PR system?

[RedToothBrush]

Yes. Thanks.

Ta.

[JanineStHubbins]

Right - the 'probably' seemed to imply a level of uncertainty. Interested to hear what your experience actually was.

In my experience, PR-STV and multiseat constituencies increase localism and clientelism - much criticised in Ireland but which, going by this thread, is what defenders of FPTP want!

[henbane]

Switching to some form of PR might actually encourage young people to vote, which would surely be a good thing. A common theme in articles about young voter apathy is that they don't think that their voting would have any effect.

[NetworkGuy]

pointythings wrote "used by the Lib Dems to grab any kind of power they could get even ...."

OK, they had to abandon their intention to keep university without tuition fees, but I don't see either of the two bigger parties abandoning fees... and there has been moderation applied to various Conservative plans, plus the increase in untaxed income is surely welcome and I doubt it would have been moving as far, as fast, without some pressure.

[NetworkGuy]

The problem I see with FPTP is that we've had the two biggest parties with (generally) opposing views, first dismantle the old govt policies and then build laws to suit their own.

It's been far too much waste in "knock it down and start again" and because of one party being dominant for a few years, what they want, pretty much, goes ahead.

Can think of few situations where MPs have had complete freedom in which way to vote. However, even if there were no party whips, I doubt many MPs would actually take a poll local to their constituency to know what the public they 'represent' actually wanted. It's generally (a) party line, or (b) personal view {if the party allows for a free vote}, so bugger them actually representing what my or your view is... most of the time.