To ask why we couldn't have proportional representation?

[paintedfences]

(Yes, I know it was voted down.)

But having voted this way in my home country it's so, so much better than having to vote tactically - you can order your first choice, second choice, etc etc, and then put the people you would rather eat glass than see in power at the very bottom. And everyone else can do the same!

If you did vote against it, why?

I voted against it because the alternative vote system that was proposed wasn't anything like true proportion representation. However YANBU, the first past the post is shit and renders many people's votes meaningless.

FPTP for the Commons.

PR - party list - for the Senate which should replace the Lords. Separate party list for each of the Four Nations.

Senate has a veto on all Bills except Money Bills.

Only members from the parts of the UK concerned in a Bill vote on it in either House - EVEL.

Sorted.

Because when we had a referendum, the majority sensibly voted to retain FPTP. Simple.

The referendum in 2011 wasn't for PR.

Proportional representation doesn't really work in a lower house - as evidenced by the plethora of floor-crossing that happens in Italy so that someone can actually get something passed in a reasonable time frame.

The Australian system is by far the best hides Australian accent. Preferential voting in the lower house, so you don't end up with a nonsensical coalition, but there's enough party majority to get bills passed efficiently; proportional representation in the upper house so that smaller parties have the chance to have a say on amendments.

Because the current major parties would have to agree to implement it, and currently they won't. But, a few more hung parliaments and they'll probably be begging the public to introduce it. (Oh, and the Lib Dems argued for it, which means we'd have been more likely to end up with hot dog machines on the M4 than PR.)

It's always Italy that gets referenced when people don't like PR, isn't it? Having lived there I guarantee if they had FPTP it would be a shambolic mess as well.

Ireland has PR-STPV, no more stable or unstable governments than anywhere else IMO.

I voted against it but I think I was wrong. I remember feeling quite sure about being against it at the time, possibly because of some examples given in the campaign about potentially unfair results; it seemed like some people's 2nd votes counted more than others. I think the system is a bit of a mess, and I wish we had changed it. AV couldn't be worse than what we have could it?

It wasn't proper PR that was proposed back in 2001 or whatever was it? I thought it was something a bit different?

I'd like proper PR.

At the moment I feel my vote doesn't 'count' because my constituency is about 80% labour majority. So if I'm lab it doesn't make a difference to the over all result, and if I'm Tory or lib Deb my vote is basically a wasted vote.

I dislike AV because it's just tinkering around with FPP. If you're going to change the system, then it's worth thinking about (and rejecting) PR. Because, of course, with PR, extremist parties are going to have a much bigger say.

In some ways, I think (apart from the fact that our parties all suck really badly) we have one of the least bad systems available, improved by coalition, ie it has been improved by electoral accident (which probably isn't the best method).

Interesting list of countries which use FPTP. Not one other European country does; from a quick skim, the vast majority of the countries which do are former British colonies.

Marine Le Pen has just come second in local gov elections. What on earth would that look like under PR/general election? Are we ready for that kind of horror? It would make complaints that we're having about benefit cuts look like a picnic in Hyde Park.