Why PR is not democratic

[OldNick]

The power the Liberals have now is far more disproportionate to their support/votes received.

How can this be right, and why PR is such a poor way to have an electorial system.

No system is perfect but having the SNP etc saying they will support the govt for XYZ of extra money is jsut deplorable.

Im sickened and whilst \i believe a Con/Lib pact would be palatable and would be prepared to accept some of their ideas I think it is time to cut them adrift and let them snuggle up to Labour and Brown who wants to hold onto power until Sept and run as PM until then

[Ludwig]

Sorry, but what is the point made in this post against PR?

[OldNick]

Sorry, but what is the point made in this post against PR?

 

This would be the norm in future as all elections would end up with this horse trading. It is the firstr time in 35 years for us to have been in this situation

[SuperMikey]

Sorry, but what is the point made in this post against PR?

 

+1

 

Shouldn't the fred title be 'Why PR is democratic' or 'Why the FPTP is not democratic'?

 

Either way, i'd much prefer to see PR being implemented, the system that we have at the moment is just stupid. 6.5m votes and 54 seats for the Lib Dems is pathetic, the system is flawed beyond belief. Away with the constituencies and let's actually get something democratic and representative going here...

[Ludwig]

This would be the norm in future as all elections would end up with this horse trading. It is the firstr time in 35 years for us to have been in this situation

 

You mean adult compromise moving towards what is best for the country, rather than the use of an effective whip system in order to tow party lines and see parliament as political point scoring, rather than a way of determining what is best for the country? Ridiculously undemocratic, of course.

[OldNick]

You mean adult compromise moving towards what is best for the country, rather than the use of an effective whip system in order to tow party lines and see parliament as political point scoring, rather than a way of determining what is best for the country? Ridiculously undemocratic, of course.

Adult compromise LOl

We have centuries of a system that has kept us free from dictators and left us stable.

PR is just a step into the unknown.

I accepted the last 3 election results, even though the incoming government had less votes than Cameron has now, and interestingly I saw this morning that had Brown got the same votes he would have had a 40 seat majority.

Same size constituancies seems to be a fairer way. Of course it wont happen as Labour would lose out, and the left would whine again.

The horse trading that is going on now is unpaletable IMO and will in time make people sick of it if it is every time after an election

[dune]

As Gordon Brown would say - "I agree with Nick".

[Joensuu]

I fully understand Conservative concerns. They are worried that they will be exculed from power by PR. However, this won't last forever, as politics is returned to the centre ground, the number of progressive votes will reduce, and a centralist balance will be restored. PR won't exclude the Tories from power for long, the electorate will naturally become bored and want change. All PR will do is reestablish a poltics of the centre, with parties revolving around the centre of political opinion.

 

Fair and proportional representation is only a bitter pill to swallow if your party of choice has for too long been over-represented in government.

[Thedelldays]

what is annoying me is that we are on the verge (or are in) the biggest economic crisis we have ever seen in our life times.....the euro zone is starting to crumble (thank god we are not in that)

 

for once, the parties should put their own interests aside and get us out of it....and holding the power/leadership to ransom about voting reform is pretty low

[Ludwig]

Adult compromise LOl

We have centuries of a system that has kept us free from dictators and left us stable.

PR is just a step into the unknown.

I accepted the last 3 election results, even though the incoming government had less votes than Cameron has now, and interestingly I saw this morning that had Brown got the same votes he would have had a 40 seat majority.

Same size constituancies seems to be a fairer way. Of course it wont happen as Labour would lose out, and the left would whine again.

The horse trading that is going on now is unpaletable IMO and will in time make people sick of it if it is every time after an election

 

We don't think the past has been too awful, so we stick to the past.

 

Have you seen the list of countries in the world which also use PR in some form? You'd notice that, in general, they haven't suffered for it in the way that Tory scare-mongers would have one believe.

[OldNick]

I fully understand Conservative concerns. They are worried that they will be exculed from power by PR. However, this won't last forever, as politics is returned to the centre ground, the number of progressive votes will reduce, and a centralist balance will be restored. PR won't exclude the Tories from power for long, the electorate will naturally become bored and want change. All PR will do is reestablish a poltics of the centre, with parties revolving around the centre of political opinion.

 

Fair and proportional representation is only a bitter pill to swallow if your party of choice has for too long been over-represented in government.

Where has this Progressive thing all of a sudden come from.? Is it something that is new or been around for a long time or just a new politicians new word for 'We want power at all costs. lets make up a name for it to try and fool the electorate'

I really have not heard of it until a few days ago, when Campbell and Mandelson started using the word.

I didnt notice their hunger for Liberal tendancies (well Mandelson has a few I know but) until sunday

[OldNick]

We don't think the past has been too awful, so we stick to the past.

 

Have you seen the list of countries in the world which also use PR in some form? You'd notice that, in general, they haven't suffered for it in the way that Tory scare-mongers would have one believe.

What is wong with a trusted system? We are the mother of democracies I have often been told.

If you support a small party then PR is a great thing I'm sure.

Which system is more likely to bring a real extreme party into power?

Could the BNP or an Islamic party have reins to power in some way in a new PR system. i think in Austria the Nazi's have quite a bit of power, something that couldnt happen here

[dune]

what is annoying me is that we are on the verge (or are in) the biggest economic crisis we have ever seen in our life times.....the euro zone is starting to crumble (thank god we are not in that)

 

for once, the parties should put their own interests aside and get us out of it....and holding the power/leadership to ransom about voting reform is pretty low

 

It speaks volumes about where the Liberals priorities lie. They are a party that cares more about their own interests than the interests of the country. If they form a coalition with Labour the said coalition will collapse along with the economy.

[Ludwig]

What is wong with a trusted system? We are the mother of democracies I have often been told.

If you support a small party then PR is a great thing I'm sure.

Which system is more likely to bring a real extreme party into power?

Could the BNP or an Islamic party have reins to power in some way in a new PR system. i think in Austria the Nazi's have quite a bit of power, something that couldnt happen here

 

Look at the effectiveness of the German system, there's always a working coalition, with 5% of the national vote required in order to hold any seats in parliament. The doom-mongering over working coalitions is quite pathetic, the politicians themselves are somewhat afraid of having to make concessions, but reasoned compromise with everyone forced to pull in the same direction (the country's best interests, rather than their whipped party line) would be far more effective and democratic.

[Joensuu]

Where has this Progressive thing all of a sudden come from.? Is it something that is new or been around for a long time or just a new politicians new word for 'We want power at all costs. lets make up a name for it to try and fool the electorate'

I really have not heard of it until a few days ago, when Campbell and Mandelson started using the word.

I didnt notice their hunger for Liberal tendancies (well Mandelson has a few I know but) until sunday

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism?wasRedirected=true

[OldNick]

It speaks volumes about where the Liberals priorities lie. They are a party that cares more about their own interests than the interests of the country. If they form a coalition with Labour the said coalition will collapse along with the economy.

I will be happy for them to join with Labour. The nation will be sickened and massive damage will be done to both parties. The nation will get hurt but frankly a lot of the voters deserve what they get.

[OldNick]

Look at the effectiveness of the German system, there's always a working coalition, with 5% of the national vote required in order to hold any seats in parliament. The doom-mongering over working coalitions is quite pathetic, the politicians themselves are somewhat afraid of having to make concessions, but reasoned compromise with everyone forced to pull in the same direction (the country's best interests, rather than their whipped party line) would be far more effective and democratic.

I cant recall but before Hitler came to power what was their electoral system? It may have been first past the post I really cant recall.

[OldNick]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism?wasRedirected=true

Thanks Joe.

[dune]

I will be happy for them to join with Labour. The nation will be sickened and massive damage will be done to both parties. The nation will get hurt but frankly a lot of the voters deserve what they get.

 

You're right about what would happen, but I wouldn't be happy to see our country go down the economic pan. I'm sure Ludwig and his type don't give a stuff about democracy or the economy, they are clearly anarchists of the same ilk as the G20 protestors.

[badgerx16]

Why are the only people complaining about PR the more right leaning among us ?

[Ludwig]

You're right about what would happen, but I wouldn't be happy to see our country go down the economic pan. I'm sure Ludwig and his type don't give a stuff about democracy or the economy, they are clearly anarchists of the same ilk as the G20 protestors.

 

What is your evidence to demonstrate that a coalition would lead to economic collapse? Can we not follow the example of Germany, governing fairly under a PR system, with Angela Merkel still able to be uncompromising on economic issues, recovering faster from the recession than ourselves. What part of coalition necessarily causes economic collapse? Comments about 'democracy' and this being undemocratic are laughable, the fact that in the current with an effective whip system, 60% of voters (let's assume those he didn't vote don't deserve a 'say') can be governed by an effective dictatorship, with the ability to pass bills successfully without too much challenge. That, sir, is undemocratic, how you could argue otherwise is testimony to your blinkered-ness.

[Ludwig]

Why are the only people complaining about PR the more right leaning among us ?

 

Because they (as they accuse those 'wishy-washy liberals' of doing) are entirely self-interested.

[OldNick]

Why are the only people complaining about PR the more right leaning among us ?

Perhaps we have more foresight.Realistically though I think that we see that the nation is on the brink.We have seen the excess of Labour spending and the debt has to be started to be adressed this year and now not next year.

What you should really take on board, if times get really hard the weak and poor get hurt most and so it is in their interests that a Tory governemnt gets a grip of this.

Labour can only borrow for so long until people lenders say enough is enough and wont lend any more. Then we will spiral.

All the money that is spent by the government has to be paid back, and so the longer you put it off the worse it gets

[dune]

Because they (as they accuse those 'wishy-washy liberals' of doing) are entirely self-interested.

 

No, because we see the bigger picture and where PR will lead and irony of ironies it'll be those on the left that will squeal the most when a hardline rightwing coalition is in power.

[Ludwig]

No, because we see the bigger picture and where PR will lead and irony of ironies it'll be those on the left that will squeal the most when a hardline rightwing coalition is in power.

 

Why do you feel a hardline right-wing coalition would come to power if PR was passed? Why then, do you and other right-wingers oppose PR, if surely it would serve your interests?

[CB Saint]

+1

 

Shouldn't the fred title be 'Why PR is democratic' or 'Why the FPTP is not democratic'?

 

Either way, i'd much prefer to see PR being implemented, the system that we have at the moment is just stupid. 6.5m votes and 54 seats for the Lib Dems is pathetic, the system is flawed beyond belief. Away with the constituencies and let's actually get something democratic and representative going here...

 

Genuine question- if we did away with the constituencies who would represent me under a PR system.

 

BTW the 5% of national vote idea from the germans would be a good way to keep out the extremists however using this elections results all parties outside the top three would lose their seats including all of the irish parties

[Saintandy666]

First past the post only works in a 2 party system where 2 parties get 90% of the vote as was the case in the past. Now with only 65% voting for the main two parties, yet the main two parties achieving most of the seats, it is clear that the system does not work, is not fair and needs to change.

[dune]

Why do you feel a hardline right-wing coalition would come to power if PR was passed? Why then, do you and other right-wingers oppose PR, if surely it would serve your interests?

 

Because i fear such polarised mainstream politics could lead to riots.

[norwaysaint]

Genuine question- if we did away with the constituencies who would represent me under a PR system.

 

BTW the 5% of national vote idea from the germans would be a good way to keep out the extremists however using this elections results all parties outside the top three would lose their seats including all of the irish parties

 

I can only speak for Norway, but here we vote in zones, usually counties. Each county gets a number of MPs based on its population. I think my county has 14 or 15. So those are your MPs.

 

As you can see, that means regionally strong parties like in Wales, N.I. and Scotland would still get in.

 

The number of MPs for each party out of those is proportionate to the votes. There are also some "levelling" seats distributed to try to make things even more fair.

I don't think there is a perfectly fair system anywhere in the world, but PR seems to work well enough here and rather than going "down the economic pan" Norway is probably the strongest financially in Europe, or rather not in Europe.

[CB Saint]

I can only speak for Norway, but here we vote in zones, usually counties. Each county gets a number of MPs based on its population. I think my county has 14 or 15. So those are your MPs.

 

As you can see, that means regionally strong parties like in Wales, N.I. and Scotland would still get in.

 

The number of MPs for each party out of those is proportionate to the votes. There are also some "levelling" seats distributed to try to make things even more fair.

I don't think there is a perfectly fair system anywhere in the world, but PR seems to work well enough here and rather than going "down the economic pan" Norway is probably the strongest financially in Europe, or rather not in Europe.

 

OK that makes sense. Still, goodbye greens.

[sadoldgit]

Sorry, but what is the point made in this post against PR?

 

Exactly, PR has nothing to do with what is going on at present, that is down to the archaic first past the post system. Because the country decided it didn't want the Tories or Labour (through the current voting system) the LibDems are in a position where they can call the shots...

[badgerx16]

Perhaps we have more foresight.Realistically though I think that we see that the nation is on the brink.We have seen the excess of Labour spending and the debt has to be started to be adressed this year and now not next year.

What you should really take on board, if times get really hard the weak and poor get hurt most and so it is in their interests that a Tory governemnt gets a grip of this.

Labour can only borrow for so long until people lenders say enough is enough and wont lend any more. Then we will spiral.

All the money that is spent by the government has to be paid back, and so the longer you put it off the worse it gets

I don't have a problem with the points you make, but why couldn't a concensus coalition, born out of a proportional system, acheive this ?

[benjii]

This entire debacle would be solved by full devolution of Wales and Scotland.

 

England > Tory me up.

[badgerx16]

This entire debacle would be solved by full devolution of Wales and Scotland.

 

England > Tory me up.

Not with PR, HTH:)

[aintforever]

Isn't a hung parliament way more likely with PR? I don't see the point.

[Thedelldays]

Isn't a hung parliament way more likely with PR? I don't see the point.

of course...actually, what point would there be with elections...just do deals anyway with who ever fancies a bash at being in power

 

 

throw the BNP with a dozen seats just for the laugh of it

[benjii]

Has anyone worked out WTF the premise of this thread is supposed to be yet?

[benjii]

Not with PR, HTH:)

 

No, indeed.

[revolution saint]

This is mental. Are people on this thread really talking about Islamic fundamentalists having a controlling say if PR was introduced? Or the fact that we've not had a dictator as some sort of validation of first past the post? Get a grip! The fact is the majority of people under first past the post do not have a vote that counts. Argue that.

[Thedelldays]

This is mental. Are people on this thread really talking about Islamic fundamentalists having a controlling say if PR was introduced? Or the fact that we've not had a dictator as some sort of validation of first past the post? Get a grip! The fact is the majority of people under first past the post do not have a vote that counts. Argue that.

every vote counts...

 

so, with PR...what areas do the liberals look after and what areas of the tories look after..?

do the liberals get say, scotland and the whole southeast tory..?

 

 

do we have seats...?

[solentstars]

Why are the only people complaining about PR the more right leaning among us ?

i think it somes them up moaning about a representative democracy is unbelievable ,the same mindset which used to moan about giving votes to women:D

[solentstars]

This is mental. Are people on this thread really talking about Islamic fundamentalists having a controlling say if PR was introduced? Or the fact that we've not had a dictator as some sort of validation of first past the post? Get a grip! The fact is the majority of people under first past the post do not have a vote that counts. Argue that.

 

they don,t seem to care about that which is not surprising.

[badgerx16]

Isn't a hung parliament way more likely with PR? I don't see the point.

Which of these is democracy ?

 

Option 1 - less than 25% of the total electorate give one party an overwhelming majority, giving them absolute, unaccountable power. It also leads to the establishment of 'safe' seats, where career politicians can entrench themselves at the front of the queue for the gravy train.

 

Option 2 - more than 50% of the electorate are represented by a group of parties, who are forced by circumstance to work collaboratively and with full, open, scrutiny of the public.

[Thedelldays]

it would be hillarious if it went to referendum and lost..

 

after all, the liberals were sure to make at least 75 seats this election....yep, even with the unhappy labour vote...

 

just because clegg and the great unwashed says we should have it, does not mean the country wants it

[solentstars]

Which of these is democracy ?

 

Option 1 - less than 25% of the total electorate give one party an overwhelming majority, giving them absolute, unaccountable power. It also leads to the establishment of 'safe' seats, where career politicians can entrench themselves at the front of the queue for the gravy train.

 

Option 2 - more than 50% of the electorate are represented by a group of parties, who are forced by circumstance to work collaboratively and with full, open, scrutiny of the public.

nice one:smt038

[Thedelldays]

Which of these is democracy ?

 

Option 1 - less than 25% of the total electorate give one party an overwhelming majority, giving them absolute, unaccountable power. It also leads to the establishment of 'safe' seats, where career politicians can entrench themselves at the front of the queue for the gravy train.

 

Option 2 - more than 50% of the electorate are represented by a group of parties, who are forced by circumstance to work collaboratively and with full, open, scrutiny of the public.

 

feel free to tell us more..

 

ever

 

so, with PR...what areas do the liberals look after and what areas of the tories look after..?

do the liberals get say, scotland and the whole southeast tory..?

 

 

do we have seats...?

[revolution saint]

every vote counts...

 

so, with PR...what areas do the liberals look after and what areas of the tories look after..?

do the liberals get say, scotland and the whole southeast tory..?

 

 

do we have seats...?

 

Depends on what version of PR we end up with. Under this system every vote does not count - where you live matters. Ultimately the three parties average about a third of the voting electorate (I know that's a bit generous to the liberals but not too far off) and that should result in a more even distribution of power. At the moment it doesn't and that's not right or democratic.

[Thedelldays]

Depends on what version of PR we end up with. Under this system every vote does not count - where you live matters. Ultimately the three parties average about a third of the voting electorate (I know that's a bit generous to the liberals but not too far off) and that should result in a more even distribution of power. At the moment it doesn't and that's not right or democratic.

ok..give me an example with results from last week..

 

what areas would the liberals get and what areas would the tories get..?

 

how far do you break it down in these areas..? as most in such areas wanted tories..and some by a very big margin..?

 

scotland is not tory at all...so would you let the liberals have scotland and the south of england left to the tories..?

[badgerx16]

feel free to tell us more..

1) Open up a browser window

 

2) Go to http://www.google.co.uk ( other search engines are available )

 

3) type into the search bar "proportional representation systems"

 

4) Voila !

[dune]

I've just been reading about the "Alternative Vote" system which the Liberals have asked for and the Conservatives have agreed to and it doesn't sound that bad. Of course I will have to look into it in more detail before deciding how to vote in a referendum.