STV proportional representation - what's wrong with it?

[vesela]

Had been looking for a map that showed what multi-member constituencies might actually look like under proportional representation (STV). Here is one.

They're bigger than the current constituencies, but each constituency would have more MPs, so the effect would be the same. And the MPs would be competing between themselves to help constituents (as councillors do now) so it would improve things.

What is there to object to about this sort of system? (the Lib Dems' preferred one?)

There's nothing wrong with the system for local representation provided, at national level, you're quite comfortable with the current horse-trading we're seeing to form the government being the standard practice.

What's struck me about this week is that a lot of the electorate could end up feeling they didn't get what they voted for. You either feel that your vote has been ignored (BNP, UKIP and LD to some extent) or.... and this applies to any party really... you're not happy with the compromises they make or the alliances they form to get into power.

Chil1234, I think that's getting more and more inevitable, though. Even a former adviser to Thatcher was saying on TV yesterday that maybe we no longer live in an age where there are clear majorities. He was probably trying to placate the Tory membership, but he had a point.

I'd rather vote for the party I believed in (in my case the LDs) and then have to come to an agreement after an election, than feel I couldn't vote for them to begin with because it was wasted/would let another party in etc.

Nothing particularly wrong with it other than the dreaded charge.

Plus it would lead to more coalition in the future (probably) which is not a bad thing but not something we're used to.

But if, after you've voted for the party you believe in, they end up siding with a party you don't like... would you feel betrayed or disenfranchised? That seems to be the feeling right now "If the Lib Dems side with Tories I will never vote for them again" etc.

Because, whatever PR system is adopted, all parties will keep all options open until the last minute 'just in case' - rather as they've done now. And then we end up with what may be a practical/desirable necessity of parties working together but compromise means that no-one gets entirely what they voted for. I understand that PR is more democratic but I think it could also end up switching a lot of people off politics if we're only ever voting for a compromise solution rather than radical change.

Chil1234 - the Lib Dems made it clear they would give the chance to the party that won most votes and most seats - so anyone who expected it to automatically be Labour wasn't paying attention. (As it stands, the seat arithmetic also means it would be practically impossible to side with Labour anyway).

It's ironic that the Lib Dems' triple lock system was introduced by the party to stop Paddy Ashdown getting too close to Labour without the party's consent.

Post-election compromise happens at council level - do people mind that?

Frakkin, what's the charge?

I sort of wonder if the majority of people who are saying 'I would never have voted Lib Dem if I knew they'd side with the Tories' are people who only voted Lib Dem because they didn't want to vote Labour and didn't know what else to do.

Other people are saying - well, if you want PR you have to be prepared to negotiate with oter parties to find the closest to consensus that you can.

And really, isn't that the point of having representation in government. Its supposed to be governance with permission from the minority. Not the majority imposing exactly what they think on everyone. It shouldn't mean that the minority give up their say competely or have no influence over legislation because they don't have the power to out vote the biggest party.

'give the chance'... that's a long way from saying 'definitely ally with'. If you backtrack through Clegg's statements he was deliberately vague throughout. Although, maybe if he hadn't said that last thing about working with the biggest party he'd have done better on Thursday.

Post-election compromise at council level is expected rather than feared. But, at council level, we're not usually talking about ideologies, more keeping the books in good order. For what it's worth, my mother who used to work in the planning office in their council commented yesterday that if you had a project to be approved you didn't give it to a LibDem and a Tory councillor duo because it would never get passed. You had to buddy up the LD councillor with a Labour one to get anything done.

"I sort of wonder if the majority of people who are saying 'I would never have voted Lib Dem if I knew they'd side with the Tories' are people who only voted Lib Dem because they didn't want to vote Labour and didn't know what else to do."

But if those people really did only vote LD to keep out Labour and Clegg ends up turning down the Tories.... then a whole other section of his support will be aggreived.

Democracy is, by definition, governance by the majority and the minority living with the outcome. "Show of hands... who wants pizza for dinner and who wants chicken?"... 4 votes out of 5 for pizza means the one who wanted chicken has to suck it up, eat pizza, and live with it That's democracy.

Depends on whether or not you want the BNP to have MPs in parliament -- they would under STV. One very good reason not to have it.

I wouldn't say that's the definition of democracy at all!

Our system is one form of democracy. But if what you say was the meaning of it - then there wouldn't be a point in the house of commons - the other MPs would just have a nice holiday till the next election.

We have a system of debate and scrutiny and it is a failing of the system that the party with the majority vote can push through legislation without proper consultation with the representitives of the rest of the country.

Proper democracy might be saying - okay, lets get pizza with chicken on it so everyone is as happy as they possibly can be with the final decision. Because otherwise it isn't government FOR the people - it totally disregards the fact that millions of people voted for another party.

Tyranny of the majority is saying screw you, we're getting pizza and don't care what you want!

My pizza/chicken example was rather simplistic but that's essentially what we're signing up to with any democratic system - i.e. there are winners and losers. Yes, there are checks and balances on legislation and plenty of debate and discussion built into the process. But, at the end of the day, when the MPs walk through the 'aye' or 'nay' lobbies the basic understanding is that we live with the majority outcome.

Hm I can't type.

Should readed dreaded change....

There will be huge swings in how people vote individually but I don't know whether the numbers would really change that much. Say I'm Labour and I live in a Tory seat but the Lib Dem has a chance of winning - I vote tactically, Lib Dem, but under PR I would vote with the first choice, Labour. There aren't huge differences in the amount of support between parties.

Ok, that makes sense now frakkin!

chil1234, what if keeping the books in order is your ideology?! (or an important part of it).

Keeping the books in order isn't an ideology it's a given. A town council has to stay within certain parameters. Only a change in ideology/legislation would change the parameters.

Look at US House of Representative constituencies (which are about the same size as the STV constituencies).

You never, ever, see US representatives having the sort of contact with constituents that our MPs have.

I am diametrically opposed to massive multi-member constituencies in the Commons.

I do think a pure PR list system would be fine for the Lords though.

Actually, not a pure PR system. A PR system with a 10% threshold, to avoid problems with the BNP getting Lords elected.

I think it's more like 5 wanted pizza, 4 wanted chicken and 3 wanted fish fingers.