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?

I find it interesting the number of people who claim they will not vote because they think none of the politicians actually represent them, or who trudge wearily to the polling station knowing their vote and their view is wasted because their preferred candidate doesn't stand a chance.....and then when we had the opportunity for real change in 2011 we blew it. It's the same attitude which gave Major an outright majority in 1992 - cowardice fear of the unknown, and we won't get this chance again for at least another generation.

Makes me pretty angry.

I live in a marginal LibDem seat. The sitting MP won in 1997 and has done a good job through the years of representing this remote constituency in Parliament and he has continually resisted the excesses of the current government. He is in very real danger of losing the seat he has worked so well for, because of the toxicity of Clegg and the stupid British press and public's immature attitude to compromise and grown up politics. Who will he lose it to? The Tory, who may well be a jolly nice, young, fresh faced chap, but he will still be contributing to a potential overall Tory majority. And yet we could return this person with the majority of the constituency having voted for someone else.

It seems as though the Brits would rather have any kind of stable government, even if they hate it, than one which involves making compromises but could represent more people.

NetworkGuy I am most angry with the Lib Dems for the way they have supported the reform of the NHS - after Cameron promised 'no more top-down reorganisation' no less. This was a moment when the Lib Dems should have stood firm and they failed. They also supported the bedroom tax. The only Lib Dem I have time for is Normal Lamb, who seems to have a real passion for making sure mental health gets a better deal in the current system. I'm sure that there are very many good local Lib Dems doing good work - but the same could be said for many local Tory and Labour politicians. It's Westminster that seems to be the corrupting influence.

I live in West Suffolk, which is True Blue Toryland. If I had a vote (I don't - I'm an EU immigrant) would I bother to vote? I honestly don't know - under FPTP my vote here would simply be worthless.

It's an elected dictatorship. I've got to run, now. But, I'll be back to complain about it, at length.

FWIW, pointythings I'm in much the same boat.

Area is dyed-in-the-wool Labour, with 60+% of the votes (on a 60% turnout) and the next 20 constituencies around it are also Labour majorities (Lancashire from the Mersey past Manchester).

Labour may feel their heart is in the right place on services, but I don't like their maths, and for all their criticisms of the LibDem/Conservative coalition, they had years in power to have made positive changes before they became the opposition, and I think some poor decisions were made right through that period.

I don't think it's a clear-cut decision as to which may get into government this time round, but with Labour presumably wanting to stand alone {while the SDP could be an ally for any party willing to drop Trident}, I think there will need to be major compromises once again, unless there's a spectacular turn of events.

Both Labour and Conservative parties still have the skeletons of the expenses scandal to live down (as both could have made changes 20-40 years ago, but were too busy on the gravy train, and enjoyed the status quo), and it may be another 20-40 years before they are not dragged up as to why the two biggest parties cannot be trusted very much.

I see few differences between them - still like Punch and Judy - still critical of things from years ago - still unable to co-operate on much (except when it comes to spending on 'defence' - or rather offence as the defence of the realm is secondary to boots on the ground, on someone else's ground, possibly doing some good, but equally likely, taking casualties and making nasty enemies that work in small cells so cannot be easily identified).

I think its important to realise that there is actually not a single "proportional representation system" but a number of different systems which all share the general aim of trying to share out the seats in a parliament more or less in proportion to the votes cast, in contrast to FPTP. With FPTP if a result is roughly proportional, thats just an accident.

In a two party system, which we used to have here, that need not matter too much, as usually, altho' not always, the party with the most votes won the most seats. And in fact most of the time, whoever won got a decisive majority which made working a parliamentary system of Government easier. Basically you got to choose between two teams to be in government, and two sets of policies.

But in a multi party system like now, which includes some seats that are three way marginals, the relationship between how people vote, and the result that we get is far too remote. Almost random. We may well get a situation in which:-

1. Neither of the largest parties win a majority.

1. The largest party in terms of seats does not have the largest number of votes

1. The third party which, by virtue of the seats it has is "kingmaker" - no plauseable coalition or minority government can be formed without its support - has LESS votes than the fourth party. (I am thinking Lib dems and SNP,)

1. The Greens with more votes than UKIP get one seat, UKIP get three seats, both being really under represented..... but it makes UKIP look much stronger.

Why don't we replace the House of Lords with a pr elected group?

Means we get the best of both worlds.

I dont like pure PR as I always results in outcomes like Italy or Israel with small extreme parties holding he balance of power in a rainbow coalition.

I don like 'list' system PR as cronies a the top of each party sit at the op of he list for years knowing he can never be voted off.

What I would like to see is voting on a county or metropolitan borough sized constiuency level where there is a link to local issues, where candidates must have lived in he county/borough a least 5 years and where no one sits in parliament more than 2 terms with PR on a list basis.

Never going to happen.

House of Lords I think should be drawn from the population out of a hat with 500 people of good character sitting in judgement over what the House of Commons does for one term only

I'd like to see a switch to STV or possibly AMS which both retains a link to constituency and tops up with proportional regional members.

AV on which we voted a few years ago isn't actually PR. It's slightly more proportional in most situations than FTPT but is still majoritarian, favouring the two biggest parties.

It is, in my view, utterly wrong that a party with 23% of the popular vote only has 9% of seats in parliament, as we currently have.

You only have to look at close fought elections in the postwar era to see that it is actually possible to win fewer votes and yet have more seats in Parliament: in 1951 Labour had a marginally higher popular vote than the Conservatives but lost the election on seats. I don't see how that is democratic.

although I disliked the type of PR on offer in the referendum I voted for it as it was the only way we'd get any change. FPTP is undemocratic and the so called advanatages of a "stable government" over-rated.

My constituency MP does not represent me nor do they care about local concerns, unless you count those raised by the people who fund them.

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.

This sounds like it is a single transferable vote system (STV) which I have often thought would work better than FPTP although from the link (electoral reform society website) there do seem still to be some cons. You still have the constituency link but there are fewer "wasted" votes.

Australia uses AV, which is not proportional at all (it is a majoritarian system). STV is very different and I for one would love to see STV or AMS used in General Elections.

FPP is a brilliant system - if you are white, male, establishment etc it's super brilliant. And this group, who hold so much of the political and economic power in the UK, will hold onto it for as long as possible - it's in their interest to do so.

Yes list systems are a better way of getting women & bme candidates elected.

Is it possible for parties to manage lists so that MPs local to their biggest support bases get in?

Anything would be better than 80% of people living in 'safe seats' and not bothering to vote.

The Scottish list system is done by region so there is a local element to it.

local lists make perfect sense. I would 100% be behind PR using local lists.