If PR is introduced....

[Chil1234]

...then the situation we're in now would be the norm. No single party forming a government and plenty of wheeling and dealing behind closed doors, forming alliances with smaller parties.

So are you enjoying the uncertainty or would you have preferred a clear-cut result? Are you worried that the 'x' party you voted for might buddy up with the 'y' party you don't like or don't you mind? Are all the questions, punditry and political manoevering a price worth paying for a fairer system or are you starting to get fed up with the whole thing?

I don't know how accurate (or verifiable this is) but I've seen this which apparently shows how today's results would look if we had PR.

Note the 12 BNP MPs.

...And if they had that version of PR (Transferable Vote?) where you have to list candidates in order of preference, would it put people off voting because they would have to get off their arses and read the actual policies and put more thought into the decision instead of being lazy but then bleating on about not understanding everything?

I want PR. Surely under PR we could have a system where the percentage of the vote determines the winner. The Tories would have won that hands down and formed a government.

Surely under PR we could have a system where the percentage of the vote determines the winner. The Tories would have won that hands down and formed a government.

??how would that work? if its proportional they would have 36% of the seats, not a majority.

The transferable vote system is appealing because most sane voters would not list BNP at all but might include Green somewhere - more people are nice than nasty.

You'd still have to have a commons majority (326 seats) to form a government with PR. So awarding seats on a strict % basis we'd be roughly where we are now... no single party with overall control but having to form alliances with others. Like the SNP do in Scotland.

We have PR where I live in France. It works very well. Government is very solid.

I don't mind alliances, it reflects the will of the people. Also if some voters want the BNP, then they should also be represented. We shouldn't disenfranchise any voters. But I think the party with the highest percentage should be able to form the government (not via this 326 seat threshold) and should be able to choose allies. Now we face the situation of Labour, the loser, being allowed to make deals first and possibly depriving the party with the highest vote of making deals. I think this looks like a stitch-up and insults the public who made the effort to turn up and vote.

But I think the party with the highest percentage should be able to form the government

I sort of agree but on the other hand, if you've two somewhat smaller parties with broadly similar policies then maybe an alliance between them is more valid? (which is doubtless what labour is saying at the moment, as libdems are closer to them in many ways)

I think PR is great (from the Netherlands) and works well most of the time. It prevents a situation where a minority of votes can override the opinions of the majority, just because they happen to have more seats.

Of course, that is what the brits call 'decisive, authorative government' - I call it bullying. And with respect to the wheeling and dealing - a transition period in which parties explore the most stable coalition and write up a coalition agreement is actually more transparent than party manifestos written by just a few

Sadly, both labour and the conservatives have been very effective in scaring you all with talk on a hung parliamant. For once I agree with Alex Salmond - a balanced parliament is not a bad thing. And yes, maybe some extreme MP's may get in, but that's not necessarily a bad thing either, as it often exposes the shambles they actually are

People vote differently under PR, so who knows who would have won, lots of people don't vote lib Dem because they see it as a wasted vote, smaller parties get less votes in the FPtP system, they would get more with PR, but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make. It works in Scotland, even though the Tories were against it they benefited by winning more seats under PR.

Might be a basic way of looking at it but in my opinion if Labour have lost this election how can anybody say that without a clear majority the tories have won.

Also it is too black and white to show how the voting at this election would look if we had PR,if we had PR many people would have voted for who they wanted to win and not tactically against who they wanted to stop winning.

Could someone explain PR???

Oricella, does anything 'get done' with PR? Do they ever get enough support for a new law to be passed when there are lots of different MPs with different views?

OSAHM - plenty gets done; when it comes down to it, many parties agree on many things and coalition building is about finding common ground that sits well with most people in society. It sometimes makes for strange bedfellows, but I think on the whole I far prefer it to the UK approach

Plus, everyone can actually vote for who they want to be PM, not just the few who happen to live in their constituency

O - and meant to say, I do see some good things about having a local candidate, but I think that gets outweighed by the fact that they are linked to a party. So in effect 2/3 of the population ends up with an MP from a party whose views they may not support. Much better to be able to go straight to MPs based on what they stand for, rather than where they happen to live (or not - getting rid of constituencies would solve an awful lot of expenses problems )

I hate the thought of the BNP getting seats.

However, the reality is that the BNP represent a proportion of our society.

We need to take real steps towards eradicting them and the feeling that they create, rather than sticking with a voting system that pretends they don't exist.

They are scum, but we need to weed them out from the roots rather than picking off the top.

There's loads of different types of PR, each with their own problems. STV worked OK in the London Mayoral elections.

I think 3-member constituencies would work - keep the local link but you'd get a lot of 2:1 or 1:1:1 splits between parties.

I think the people in this country need to receive more education/information on understanding politics, voting, how parliament works, how local government works etc because lots of people I know don't understand it and neither did I til I looked it all up on the net. I wasn't taught it at school or anywhere else. How can people make an informed vote when they don't understand how the whole thing works.

If we had PR, especially the version where you have to mark your order of preference for different candidates, we would need to be more knowlegeable wouldn't we? Maybe in other countries that have PR they are better educated about politics?

(Have I just typed this in the wrong thread, can't remember now )

The other thing is - a lot of countries with PR also have a presidential system, so would they bring that in as well?

If I was choosing, I would go for PR, but each voter getting two votes - one for their PM and one for the ruling party. It does kind of suck that you have to choose between voting locally or nationally; the party that is best for you nationally, may not be the best for you locally. However, the Queen would still ultimately appoint the PM and retain a degree of control.

No need to abolish the queen - PR works well with the Dutch royal family, and she actually plays a (ceremonial) role in forming the coalition, by taking advice from all the parties and then appointing someone to either inform her about the best options for a coaltion, or to lead negotations in forming a government.

Not sure if people in countries with PR are better informed, but I do think many might feel less disenfranchised

My question was really about national mood Ordinary SAHM's comment of feeling like they need to know a lot more about it seems to be typical. Otherwise, a lot of people scratching their heads wondering what's going on. The LD supporters I know that would be happy with a Lab/Lib pact are matched by the ones that would rather die than prop up GB.

Granted the system works in Holland, Germany, Belgium etc. because everyone's used to it. (Heck, they waited several months for a government in Belgium) But for the UK and our tradition of adversarial politics I think it would be a culture shock.

Although under PR there would probably have to be a coalition anyway, at least one's single vote would actually count as one vote and make a difference.

It seems ridiculous to me that, for example, the Lib Dems have around 23% of the votes across the country but only about 8% of the seats in Parliament

I want PR UKIP polled nearly 900,000 votes and we have not got a single MP. I think PR is inevitable, and the sooner it comes the better.

However one dislikes the BNP that is not a reason not to have PR. If people decide to vote BNP that is their choice. Should they not be respresented also?