Crosswords0 min ago
Proportional Representation
24 Answers
Should I support this if my constituency would probably become UKIP (who I don't support) after its institution?
It's Folkestone and Hythe, by the way.
It's Folkestone and Hythe, by the way.
Answers
I'm not sure why it would become UKIP under PR. In the first place a purely proportional system would do away with constituenci
11:50 Tue 12th May 2015
I'm not sure why it would become UKIP under PR. In the first place a purely proportional system would do away with constituencies altogether, so in that sense Folkestone and Hythe would lose its individual representation. Your 22% of voters who voted UKIP would help to go towards a UKIP MP though. It just wouldn't be your MP in particular.
I think it is important to support political reform not because of the particular result it might give but because it is intrinsically fairer. If a proportional system gives UKIP more influence this is only because they have enough voters supporting them to give them those seats (I think they would have got at least 50 MPs, if not 60, under pure PR). Equally, one of First Past The Post's strengths is absolutely not that it shuts out a party you don't like -- while it may suit some that the Labour party and Conservatives tend to win the maority of MPs, those ~15% of people who voted for the Green Party or UKIP have ended up with 2 MPs for their troubles. This is unfair even if you don't like those parties.
Political reform is then about making things fairer for as many people as possible. If they then vote for parties you don't like, the message is that you need to work harder to win the argument. One of the things FPTP does is lower the number of voters a party needs to win a majority to roughly 1/3 as opposed to 1/2 (after removing those who don't vote).
Long story short: you should support or reject a system because it is fairer, or not, rather than because of who it lets in or keeps out of parliament.
I think it is important to support political reform not because of the particular result it might give but because it is intrinsically fairer. If a proportional system gives UKIP more influence this is only because they have enough voters supporting them to give them those seats (I think they would have got at least 50 MPs, if not 60, under pure PR). Equally, one of First Past The Post's strengths is absolutely not that it shuts out a party you don't like -- while it may suit some that the Labour party and Conservatives tend to win the maority of MPs, those ~15% of people who voted for the Green Party or UKIP have ended up with 2 MPs for their troubles. This is unfair even if you don't like those parties.
Political reform is then about making things fairer for as many people as possible. If they then vote for parties you don't like, the message is that you need to work harder to win the argument. One of the things FPTP does is lower the number of voters a party needs to win a majority to roughly 1/3 as opposed to 1/2 (after removing those who don't vote).
Long story short: you should support or reject a system because it is fairer, or not, rather than because of who it lets in or keeps out of parliament.
Yep, a party that polled more than the SNP and Lib Dems put together will wither on the vine. Maybe they will, but I would suggest there are many otehr parties with less votes that will wither first.
What you support is up to you, but I would suggest you remove all political parties from the equation and see what your feelings are then. Remember you may well one day support a party that is in the position UKIP is in now!
What you support is up to you, but I would suggest you remove all political parties from the equation and see what your feelings are then. Remember you may well one day support a party that is in the position UKIP is in now!
We have two chambers, Commons and Lords.
We have calls for reform of the Lords.
We have a number of possible voting systems, but broadly they are FPTP (First Past The Post) and PR (Proportional Representation).
As I see it, an obvious solution is to continue FPTP in the Commons, populate the Lords using some kind of PR and knock the Parliament Act into shape to cope with the changes.
Maybe it's too simple, as it never seems to come up as a proposal ...
We have calls for reform of the Lords.
We have a number of possible voting systems, but broadly they are FPTP (First Past The Post) and PR (Proportional Representation).
As I see it, an obvious solution is to continue FPTP in the Commons, populate the Lords using some kind of PR and knock the Parliament Act into shape to cope with the changes.
Maybe it's too simple, as it never seems to come up as a proposal ...
It would be better to say that there are three kinds of voting system. FPTP is essentially on its own; PR is a whole group of systems that have larger, multiple-member constituencies or even just the whole country; in the middle are single-member constituencies where a voter is free to express preferences. This includes, say, the Alternative Vote.
The flaw in FPTP is that it ends up being neither very proportional nor very fair to people who are split between two or even three parties. You are compelled to give your entire support to one party or none at all. For many people, this is hardly accurate.
The flaws in PR include that almost inevitably there will have to be deals, so that the policies on which a party campaigns are not the policies they deliver in the end, as well as the loss of constituencies.
The middle-ground has its flaws too, of course -- but it shouldn't be lumped in with PR at least and ought to be discussed as a sensible improvement to FPTP by retaining the idea of constituencies but giving voters more freedom over how they cast their vote.
The flaw in FPTP is that it ends up being neither very proportional nor very fair to people who are split between two or even three parties. You are compelled to give your entire support to one party or none at all. For many people, this is hardly accurate.
The flaws in PR include that almost inevitably there will have to be deals, so that the policies on which a party campaigns are not the policies they deliver in the end, as well as the loss of constituencies.
The middle-ground has its flaws too, of course -- but it shouldn't be lumped in with PR at least and ought to be discussed as a sensible improvement to FPTP by retaining the idea of constituencies but giving voters more freedom over how they cast their vote.
Something's surely got to change - we're using a system devised in the 19th century, society and technology have changed but the way we give the mandate to govern hasn't. The solution needs careful consideration though - the thing that makes me uneasy about PR is it was the conduit for the Nazi's rise to power. We should learn from history, not replicate its mistakes.
Remembering all the time, of course, that voters elect MPs and not governments.
It seems perfectly fair to me that the election to an MP should be achieved by the candidate polling the most votes and in an election with more than two candidates it is quite likely that the winner will poll less than 50%. Once the 650 souls have been elected only then does the business of forming a government begin.
Those wishing to elect a government rather than an MP are seeking ways of abolishing the constituency link and they would do well to remember that.
It seems perfectly fair to me that the election to an MP should be achieved by the candidate polling the most votes and in an election with more than two candidates it is quite likely that the winner will poll less than 50%. Once the 650 souls have been elected only then does the business of forming a government begin.
Those wishing to elect a government rather than an MP are seeking ways of abolishing the constituency link and they would do well to remember that.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |