howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#1
The subject has arisen again on social media by UKIP followers this time as they bemoan the fact that all their votes result in one MP. I remember that we had the vote for the AV system 4 years ago and failed of course. Interesting to see how it would have worked out today.
http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/heres-how-the-election-results-would-look-under-a-proportional-voting-system--gJenQmaW2gW?utm_source=indy&utm_medium=top5&utm_campaign=i100Guest 1348- Registered: 20 Sep 2014
- Posts: 276
#2
This is what the lib dems wanted years ago as they had large proportion of vote but less MP's as they spread wide. Thing about proportional representation it will always end with some sort of coalition as no clear winner with majority.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#3
But every vote would count, had many arguments with Blue Barry on here over this, I don't see coalitions as a great problem as they eliminate extreme policies in the main. The downside is that we don't get a choice of individuals to vote for.
Guest 1348- Registered: 20 Sep 2014
- Posts: 276
#4
I am not keen on them as they can just be log jams as each party fights for this and that, dysfunctional in my opinion. And certainly a downside unable to select person.
Guest 1348- Registered: 20 Sep 2014
- Posts: 276
#5
But you always get this come up especially from those that get % of vote and no MP
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#6
Well OK UKIP got 1 MP representing 0.15% of Parliament's seats.
That's a fraction of 1%.
UKIP stood, had their campaign, and got what was given them. End.
Guest 1172- Registered: 28 Jan 2014
- Posts: 179
#7
I have read recently that most of Europe think out first past the post system is bizzare and that coalition is the only way to truly represent the people. It doesn't sound like a bad idea but I am sure others think opposite. What is the big downside?
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#8
Too many cooks spoil the broth.
The less we hear about coalition, the better.
When everything goes wrong, one will accuse the other.
As it stands now, they cannot point the finger at anyone else.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
#9
Don't politicians compromise enough promises already?
PR means that no manifesto of any party will ever be carried through and all parties can promise everything and never have to deliver because in the compromise of coalition, they can always blame the coalition parties for forcing key policies into the oblivion of compromise.
PR means an almost total lack of accountability to the people.
PR gives us the 'grey men' of Europe, all those stodgy dull party apparatchiks who inhabit the corridors of power in national parliaments around the continent and eventually make their way to the European Commission.
PR removes even the pretence (by some) that they represent a local constituency or area because all candidates will only ever represent their party.
People complain that Parliament and party leaderships are currently over full with people who have only ever done politics - PR would guarantee that there would be virtually no other type of person in Parliament.
There is more, but I'll stop there for now.
We currently have in the UK a representative, first past the post, parliamentary democracy, yet large swathes of the country cast their votes as if we had PR (which is mad) - they vote for a party without regard to the qualities and competency of their local candidates to represent their interests and the best interests of their area in Parliament. Some local candidates and all of the main party leaderships encourage this situation (particularly the larger parties) because it suits their purposes and enables them to fill Parliament with their drones. If people voted instead for the way that our system should work, then we would have a far more talented and diverse Parliament than we currently have.