The Case For And Against Proportional Representation

[sp1814]

Does last night's results for UKIP strengthen the argument in favour of PR (2 million plus votes = 1 MP, so far).

[Baldric]

Sung to the tune of?

(you're in Music)

[VHG]

I posted this on another topic but it may fit better here.

The SNP and Liberals between them have about 3.7 million votes and 64 seats, UKIP have also got 3.7 million votes and only got 1 seat.

Also the Greens have 1.1 million votes and 1 seat, the SNP 1.4 million votes and 56 seats.

This was at 09:46am.

[whiskeryron]

How can this possibly be fair & democratic ?

[mushroom25]

would it mean a fairer spread of music genres getting to number one?

VOTE FOR MADONNA!!!

[mushroom25]

oh, it's been moved to "news".

now my last post doesn't make sense (apart from the Madonna bit).

[ABSpareEditor]

I've moved this to the News section for you. :)

[Retrochic]

Proportional representation is the fairest way to vote. Its ridiculous that 25% of voters ,more than 3 million, voted for UKIP and so far they only have one seat - over 1 million voted for the SNP and they have 56 seats. Its a joke.

[Old_Geezer]

No. This is always a factor, nothing's changed. It is what each individual constituency wants that is important; not parties (which should be barred anyway).

[Old_Geezer]

Proportional representation is the unfairest way to vote. It's ridiculous that a constituency would not get the representative most in that constituency wanted.

[ToraToraTora]

there is no case for PR, useless, never produces a governement.

[Retrochic]

Old Geezer - your theory only works on the assumption that elected MP.s work for their constituents rather than their party, and I'm not sure that's always true.

[Retrochic]

In over 94 countries proportional representation produces a government!

[humbersloop]

sp, what's changed since 2011?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13297573

[joggerjayne]

Local constituencies have local issues.

The constituency system is the only one that works in Britain.

If we went over to PR, of the 58 Scottish seats, about 30 of them would be given to Conservative MPs, and at least 5 would be given to UKIP. Would Scotland be happy with that?

[sp1814]

Thanks AB Editor

I didn't know I'd mis-posted which meant I couldn't make head nor tail of Baldric's post.

mushroom25, if I could vote for the good lady, I most certainly would...

[jno]

it just puts Ukip where the LibDems have long been, a strong third party that never wins anything. There was a referendum on changing the system but it was roundly defeated. Yes, it's unfair, but the British prefer a strong governmetn to a fari one.

[Retrochic]

jogger -of course the electorate would be happy because its their vote that would put the Conservatives MP's through. It is not fair that over 1 million people have voted for the Green Party -one million people who believe in their Policies,yet they have only one representative in the House of commons. Same with UKIP, except with then over 3 million voters voted,that's 25% of all total votes in the UK -with one maybe two representitives in the House of Commons -how can that be fair?

[sp1814]

One of the arguments I've heard against PR, is that it increases the likelihood of coalition governments...I don't know whether people actually want that.

By the way - I forgot to declare my interest...

On PR, I really don't have any strong feelings one way or the other. The bare numbers paired with the number of seats won LOOKS wrong, but then would PR make a complete mess of marginal seats?

[joggerjayne]

But, in Scotland, you'd have 30 constituencies where the vast majority wanted an SNP MP, but they were given a Tory, simply because the Tories as a whole got lots of votes in the South of England.

Conservative votes in Sussex could put a Conservative MP in Glasgow.

[Baldric]

///which meant I couldn't make head nor tail of Baldric's post///

What didn't you understand about .. .. .. (you're in Music) ?