Why PR is not democratic

[Thedelldays]

1) Open up a browser window

 

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

 

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

 

4) Voila !

 

ok, good answer

 

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..?

[Johnny Bognor]

PR may be democratic but that still doesn't mean it is fair.

 

PR will generally deliver more hung parliaments and the current situation will become the norm.

 

I voted on the basis of a manifesto for the next parliament and what I am going to get will be watered down at the very least. That is not what I voted for and so although my vote might not count for something, when it does count, I won't get what I voted for anyway.

 

What's the point?

[Ludwig]

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.

 

They haven't asked for AV, they wanted STV, I believe.

[aintforever]

who are forced by circumstance to work collaboratively.

 

That's the bit I have issue with, I don't think any politicians work for anyone other than themselves and their party - as we are seeing with the current mess. You just have 3 groups of people plotting their own route to power and the downfall of their rivals.

 

At least when 1 party are in power they work truly together, they have to do a good job in power or get kicked out as they take responsibilty.

[dune]

This is the voting system that the Liberals want the Tories to adopt:

 

The Alternative Vote

 

The Alternative Vote (AV) is very much like First-Past-the-Post (FPTP). Like FPTP, it is used to elect representatives for single-member constituencies, except that rather than simply marking one solitary 'X' on the ballot paper, the voter has the chance to rank the candidates on offer.

The voter thus puts a '1' by their first-preference candidate, and can continue, if they wish, to put a '2' by their second-preference, and so on, until they don't care anymore or they run out of names. In some AV elections, such as most Australian elections, electors are required to rank all candidates.

If a candidate receives a majority of first-preference votes (more people put them as number one than all the rest combined), then they are elected.

If no candidate gains a majority on first preferences, then the second-preference votes of the candidate who finished last on the first count are redistributed. This process is repeated until someone gets over 50 per cent.

AV is thus not a proportional system, and can in fact be more disproportional than FPTP.

[dune]

They haven't asked for AV, they wanted STV, I believe.

 

No, you're wrong, they have asked for AV.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8673826.stm

[Thedelldays]

no can answer or try to on how PR would mean a fair proportion of government on a local level..

 

ok, great system

[badgerx16]

no can answer or try to on how PR would mean a fair proportion of government on a local level..

 

ok, great system

Somewhere on the Election threads is a post by NorwaySaint about how it works in Norway, try to find that and hopefully that will help.

[dune]

I must say i'm warming to the idea of AV voting the more i read about it and i'm sure the Liberals will all be pleased. So does this mean we're all one big Lib-Con happy family now?

[Ludwig]

No, you're wrong, they have asked for AV.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8673826.stm

 

Find me a Lib Dem source which claims they want AV.

[dune]

Find me a Lib Dem source which claims they want AV.

 

Are you suggesting that William Hague is lieing?

 

It seems that your leader has spoken.

[badgerx16]

I must say i'm warming to the idea of AV voting the more i read about it and i'm sure the Liberals will all be pleased. So does this mean we're all one big Lib-Con happy family now?

Yep, there is plenty of concensus .....

 

Taxation, ( oh, probably not )

Europe, ( oh, probably not )

Defence, ( oh, probably not )

etc, etc, etc

[Saintandy666]

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.

 

Liberal Democrats do not want AV, they want STV. Stop spouting ****. I'm a Liberal Democrat member, so I think I can speak for what we want. Kthnx bai.

[Wilko]

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.

 

1. What FPTP with the party whip system achieves is pretty much a dictatorship.

2. PR is a step into the future of the politics of consensus, where adults are forced to talk to, rather than shout at, each other.

[badgerx16]

Are you suggesting that William Hague is lieing?

 

.

William Vague is a politician, and I swear I saw his lips move, therefore.........

[dune]

Liberal Democrats do not want AV, they want STV. Stop spouting ****. I'm a Liberal Democrat member, so I think I can speak for what we want. Kthnx bai.

 

You may want STD, but your leader is clearly more senible than the rank and file and he wants AV.

 

“They’ve also said to us, the Liberal Democrats have said to the Conservative party, that they are only prepared to enter into a coalition agreement with a party that will change our electoral system to the Alternative Vote method of voting.”

 

I've just been reading a compilation of LibDem blogs and the comments are very uplifting.

[badgerx16]

 

I've just been reading a compilation of LibDem blogs and the comments are very uplifting.

I think you might need a cold shower

[Saintandy666]

You may want STD, but your leader is clearly more senible than the rank and file and he wants AV.

 

“They’ve also said to us, the Liberal Democrats have said to the Conservative party, that they are only prepared to enter into a coalition agreement with a party that will change our electoral system to the Alternative Vote method of voting.”

 

I've just been reading a compilation of LibDem blogs and the comments are very uplifting.

 

No, he wants PR. AV may be a compromise perhaps, but I can assure you he does not want AV, he wants STV and perhaps may also compromise to AMS or even AV+.

[dune]

No, he wants PR. AV may be a compromise perhaps, but I can assure you he does not want AV, he wants STV and perhaps may also compromise to AMS or even AV+.

 

That's a shame, but he's going to have to be happy with AV and i'm sure that the press will explain it to the public and try not to make it sound quite so bonkers as it does and in the end the referendum will easily be won.

[St Landrew]

I haven't been looking through these Election 2010 threads, or commenting too much, but I've scanned through this one. The so-called horse trading, that is appraently going on at this moment, has little to do with Proprotional Representation. The so-called Hung Parliament is giving a direction post only, perhaps towards PR, in terms of public opinion. What is undoubtedly true is that countless First-Past-The Post elections disinfranchise almost two-thirds of the population, and so, in truth, that system almost always leads to minority opinion government, whatever the number of seats won. I wish to be represented by my local MP. The one I now have, just elected in my constituency, does not represent my views or my needs. This is reflective throughout the country, whatever party you may support. Any acceptable form of PR will improve on that.

[Saintandy666]

That's a shame, but he's going to have to be happy with AV and i'm sure that the press will explain it to the public and try not to make it sound quite so bonkers as it does and in the end the referendum will easily be won.

 

AV is an improvement, but still hardly fair and no representive in a country where 35% of people do not vote for the main two parties. Infact, under 20% of people(turnout 65.3%) in this country actually voted for the tories and yet they could get into government with absolute power. It's ludicrous! In a multi party system FPTP is ****.

[buctootim]

I haven't been looking through these Election 2010 threads, or commenting too much, but I've scanned through this one. The so-called horse trading, that is appraently going on at this moment, has little to do with Proprotional Representation. The so-called Hung Parliament is giving a direction post only, perhaps towards PR, in terms of public opinion. What is undoubtedly true is that countless First-Past-The Post elections disinfranchise almost two-thirds of the population, and so, in truth, that system almost always leads to minority opinion government, whatever the number of seats won. I wish to be represented by my local MP. The one I now have, just elected in my constituency, does not represent my views or my needs. This is reflective throughout the country, whatever party you may support. Any acceptable form of PR will improve on that.

 

Quite a good article here - in the Telegraph of all places. Interesting comments below it too.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7612832/General-Election-2010-is-first-past-the-post-on-its-last-legs.html

[Thedelldays]

still no example on how PR would work on a local level

 

how would it work with regards to europe...does PR not become an issue there..?

 

why stop at just the UK, Europe NOW is important (with the amount of dosh we plough into it)..why not enforce PR into European elections

 

ARRRrrr, the great unwashed wont want that, as they know what the answer would be....UKIP and Tories all the way (as proven)

[Joensuu]

still no example on how PR would work on a local level

 

Let me give you an example:

 

A hospital is closing in the consituency of an MP who wants to see hospital closures. As the system of election is FPTP, and the local MP is in favour of the closure, there is nobody who will raise the issue in the Commons.

 

Under a regional or national PR system, that same hospital might be being closed. The same MP still objects, but because of the electoral system there are other MPs representing other parties. As there are local votes to be gained (and potentially a name to be made in the Commons), it is likely that a couple of the representative MPs will bring the issue to the attention of the Commons.

 

As you can see, under FPTP despite having a dedicated local representative, there is a high chance that they will be partisan when deciding which local issues they want to champion; under PR there are MPs looking for votes from muliple parties who will bring the issue to parliament.

 

Local issues are frequently receive more political attention under a proportional system.

[Johnny Bognor]

Let me give you an example:

 

A hospital is closing in the consituency of an MP who wants to see hospital closures. As the system of election is FPTP, and the local MP is in favour of the closure, there is nobody who will raise the issue in the Commons.

 

Under a regional or national PR system, that same hospital might be being closed. The same MP still objects, but because of the electoral system there are other MPs representing other parties. As there are local votes to be gained (and potentially a name to be made in the Commons), it is likely that a couple of the representative MPs will bring the issue to the attention of the Commons.

 

As you can see, under FPTP despite having a dedicated local representative, there is a high chance that they will be partisan when deciding which local issues they want to champion; under PR there are MPs looking for votes from muliple parties who will bring the issue to parliament.

 

Local issues are frequently receive more political attention under a proportional system.

 

 

Oh come on. Can you give me a single MP under the FPTP system that has fought for their local hospital to be closed?

 

Even if they believe hospitals should be closed, it is more likely that they would not be in favour of their local hospital closing and more likely that they would be in favour of hospital closures in other areas. If a local MP fought for the closure of their local hospital they would be booted from their seat at the next election under any voting system.

[trousers]

 

Let me give you an example:

 

A hospital is closing in the consituency of an MP who wants to see hospital closures. As the system of election is FPTP, and the local MP is in favour of the closure, there is nobody who will raise the issue in the Commons.

 

Under a regional or national PR system, that same hospital might be being closed. The same MP still objects, but because of the electoral system there are other MPs representing other parties. As there are local votes to be gained (and potentially a name to be made in the Commons), it is likely that a couple of the representative MPs will bring the issue to the attention of the Commons.

 

As you can see, under FPTP despite having a dedicated local representative, there is a high chance that they will be partisan when deciding which local issues they want to champion; under PR there are MPs looking for votes from muliple parties who will bring the issue to parliament.

 

Local issues are frequently receive more political attention under a proportional system.

Trousers thinking out loud alert...

 

How about a hybrid system? We stick with first-past-the-post as the method for determining which political party resides in downing street and they run the country's 'national' interests (global finance, defence, tax, etc) but each constituency has, say, three representatives in parliament - i.e. The top 3 in each constituency vote. The man (or lady) who came top gets 3 voting points in parliament, the 2nd placed 2 voting points and 3rd placed gets 1 point.

 

To cover the costs of 3 MPs per constituency, we can reduce the number of constituencies (i.e. Have much larger 'local' areas) so the net number of MPs is manageable.

 

So we get strong/stable national government and representative Government for more local issues?

 

Win win?

[Joensuu]

Oh come on. Can you give me a single MP under the FPTP system that has fought for their local hospital to be closed?

 

Even if they believe hospitals should be closed, it is more likely that they would not be in favour of their local hospital closing and more likely that they would be in favour of hospital closures in other areas. If a local MP fought for the closure of their local hospital they would be booted from their seat at the next election under any voting system.

 

Sorry JB, it was an example, please feel free to replace 'hospital' with, 'coal power plant', 'wind farm', 'motorway', 'new football stadium' etc

[Joensuu]

Trousers, if party A wins most FPTP seats, and gets to form the government, but part B gets more seats in total (via a strong AV vote), won't this system make for regular non-proportional minority governments? Surely PR is a better bet (or if you want to retain constituencies) local, 3 seat, PR. Under that a region such as Hampshire southwest might elect say 2 Tories and a Lib Dem?

 

I'd still opt for full national PR, but local 3 seat PR is a step in the right direction...

[Saint In Exile]

still no example on how PR would work on a local level

 

how would it work with regards to europe...does PR not become an issue there..?

 

why stop at just the UK, Europe NOW is important (with the amount of dosh we plough into it)..why not enforce PR into European elections

 

ARRRrrr, the great unwashed wont want that, as they know what the answer would be....UKIP and Tories all the way (as proven)

 

Elections for MEPs are already done via a PR system called the Party List System which hasn't resulted in UKIP and Tories all the way though!!!

[pedg]

Elections for MEPs are already done via a PR system called the Party List System which hasn't resulted in UKIP and Tories all the way though!!!

 

Plus you have to take account of the fact that electorate vote differently for different levels of government. So on europe you get more UKIP, national level you get more Tory and at local level the may 6 elections saw a rise in labour local councillors. It appears that many voters are not tied to one party but change their allegiance depending on what the election is for.

 

Also though people can try and extrapolate from the FPTP results what would happen in a PR system its quite likely that given PR people could and probably would vote considerably differently. One 'stat' of interest here is that during some of the polling (admittedly when the LDs had bounces to about 33% in the polls) something like 45% of people polled said they would vote libdem if they thought their vote would count.

[OldNick]

On consideration, the PR system i assume would not get tactical voting. The Liberals probaly would have got 10 seats less had that not have happened.

The nation has to think this through before dropping something that has been tried and trested for centuries.

If we are likely to get more situations like this one, in the first past the post way then I think we do need to change.

The danger is that whoever is power will put forward a system the disenfranchises perhaps a third or more of the electorate.

To me it is a nonsense that labour needs to get less votes to get a lot more seats and the Liberals get less for more.

I do understand their frustration, listening to the journalist from De Bild last night was very interesting.

He was quite scathing about PR and said that with the first past the post government the rest of the world knew that what the government said to them they could be confident they could carry it out. Wheras he said that with a coalition it was fudge. He gave the impression that he thought it would be a mistake, in a global sense to our position in the world.

All in all it is a copmplex issue that most are not qualified to understand.That is a danger as the masses will not be interested in reading up about the different systems and could be hoodwinked into voting for something they are not sure of.

The classic for me is the way Heath through stealth got the nation to vote something in as a trading agreement into the EU.

The result may have been different had it been spelt out by the politicians at the time.

[badgerx16]

From the BBC ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/8651231.stm )

3. The UK itself already provides plenty of examples of both PR and coalition government, at the level of local government or national assemblies . One form of PR, the single transferrable vote, is used in elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, in local government elections in Northern Ireland and Scotland, and in Northern Ireland's elections to the European Parliament. Other forms are used in elections to the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly of Wales, the London Assembly, and in European elections in England, Scotland and Wales. "Most British citizens are also familiar with multi-member elections in many other situations, from the election of School Governors to the election of governing boards of interest groups, professional associations, trade unions, university student unions, sports clubs, and many other organisations," write Professor Hix and his co-authors in a report for the British Academy, Choosing an Electoral System. "In fact, multi-member elections may currently be the most commonly used type of election in the United Kingdom."

[norwaysaint]

still no example on how PR would work on a local level

 

how would it work with regards to europe...does PR not become an issue there..?

 

why stop at just the UK, Europe NOW is important (with the amount of dosh we plough into it)..why not enforce PR into European elections

 

ARRRrrr, the great unwashed wont want that, as they know what the answer would be....UKIP and Tories all the way (as proven)

 

I gave this example of how it works back on the first page. So there are still local MPs, as well as normal local government obviously.

 

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.

[pedg]

The danger is that whoever is power will put forward a system the disenfranchises perhaps a third or more of the electorate.

 

And that is worse than a system that regularly disenfranchises 2/3rds of the electorate?

[OldNick]

And that is worse than a system that regularly disenfranchises 2/3rds of the electorate?

I should have put forever.

It would be interesting (not possible of course) that once a coalition is formed that their policies then be voted on, as nonoe has voted for the combination we are going to be saddled with.

The hunger for power is evident and the small nationalist parties wil be rubbing their hands in expectation, as we the English will be paying a ransome to get their vote.

John Reid and Blunkett have come out of all this with honour IMO.As they have stated it as it is.

I hope that DC has the common sense to put a halt to all this and cut Clegg adrift.

Already the thought of a coalition with the LIbs is causing rifts in the labour party.The Scots labour mp last night said he would not sit down with the SNP, and so Cleggs hand is not as strong as he thinks.

Let him jump into the pit of snakes with the lovely sounding rainbow coalition, but Bungle Jane and freddie might end up having a massive fall out.

That will leave DC to come to power with a proper working government in 6months time.

[Lord Duckhunter]

In all the talk of fairness in the electrol system, do people realise the BNP polled more votes than the greens, but ended up with one less seat. Is anyone argueing that's "unfair", or does fairness only extend to the Lib/Dems?

 

The SNP polled 491,386 and UKIP got 917,832, yet the SNP could prop up a Labour Govt, whilst the UKIP supporters (many more of them) have to lump it. Is that fair?

 

 

 

There is only one pure form of PR and that involves Party lists, it's the only way to ensure the seats equal the votes cast. If this is the case then the low populated areas of the Country will be forgotton about. Parties will just taylor their agenda to appeal to the South East and the big urban areas.

 

 

I do not want my representives decided by grey men in grey suits in darkened back rooms. I want to vote for local candidates who go to Westminster to represent the local people, the party that then has the most of these candidates then forms the Govt. I only want one vote not an "additional" one and I dont want to rank candidates in the order in which I prefer them.

[dune]

The current horsetrading and backroom deals is a good thing in one sense because it clearly demonstrates what would happen after every election under PR. I was just listening to Sir Malcolm Rifkind who described the situation as ghastly and I agree.

[Saint In Exile]

In all the talk of fairness in the electrol system, do people realise the BNP polled more votes than the greens, but ended up with one less seat. Is anyone argueing that's "unfair", or does fairness only extend to the Lib/Dems?

 

The SNP polled 491,386 and UKIP got 917,832, yet the SNP could prop up a Labour Govt, whilst the UKIP supporters (many more of them) have to lump it. Is that fair?

 

 

 

There is only one pure form of PR and that involves Party lists, it's the only way to ensure the seats equal the votes cast. If this is the case then the low populated areas of the Country will be forgotton about. Parties will just taylor their agenda to appeal to the South East and the big urban areas.

 

 

I do not want my representives decided by grey men in grey suits in darkened back rooms. I want to vote for local candidates who go to Westminster to represent the local people, the party that then has the most of these candidates then forms the Govt. I only want one vote not an "additional" one and I dont want to rank candidates in the order in which I prefer them.

 

Neither example is fair. If 10% of the population choose to vote for the BNP, however abhorrent their views might be to the masses, those 10% have a democratic right to have their views represented just as the UKIP voters have a right to have their views represented. The current FPTP system is unfair to all marginal parties.

[trousers]

Neither example is fair. If 10% of the population choose to vote for the BNP, however abhorrent their views might be to the masses, those 10% have a democratic right to have their views represented just as the UKIP voters have a right to have their views represented. The current FPTP system is unfair to all marginal parties.

 

In the same way the Olympic medal awarding system is unfair to those who come 8th

[pedg]

In the same way the Olympic medal awarding system is unfair to those who come 8th

 

No.

[Joensuu]

In all the talk of fairness in the electrol system, do people realise the BNP polled more votes than the greens, but ended up with one less seat. Is anyone argueing that's "unfair", or does fairness only extend to the Lib/Dems?

 

The SNP polled 491,386 and UKIP got 917,832, yet the SNP could prop up a Labour Govt, whilst the UKIP supporters (many more of them) have to lump it. Is that fair?

 

The number of MPs should be proportional to the votes cast. The veiws of everybody who voted BNP, UKIP, or Green are not currently being represented, and should. If I'd voted UKIP or BNP I would be up in arms at the current electoral system (a colleague at work said he wanted to vote UKIP, but opted to the Lib Dems, he hates their policies, but he wants to see PR introduced to make his vote count). As a liberal I'm all for having a representative system, even if that unfortunately means MPs representing the nasty side of UK society being elected.

 

My guess is that many people vote BNP to protest, but might reconsider if they stood a chance of gaining seats (cf. Barking). Whereas many people vote Lib or Labour tactically, when they really wanted to vote Green. As such, I'd expect a PR election to result in

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

It is laughable that people on here can claim that PR is undemocratic or unworkable compared to FPTP. Don't forget it is FPTP that has delivered this current impasse. In the 2005 election Labour won a majority of seats with 35% of votes by 60% of the total electorate - is that democratic? One of the only resons that there is so much horsetrading going on at the moment is because of the absurd situation where together Labour and the Lib Dems polled well over 50% of the votes but can't get 50% of the seats. I'd say that was undemocratic and unworkable.

 

People are fearful of change but surely you can see the need for a system that more fairly represent the spread of votes? Additionally it gives voters more choice - if they want it. Once PR was more ingrained this sort of hung parliament would be resolved much more quickly because it would be expected. The understanding between parties would be established and this would be fairly clear to voters when they make their votes.

[solentstars]

It is laughable that people on here can claim that PR is undemocratic or unworkable compared to FPTP. Don't forget it is FPTP that has delivered this current impasse. In the 2005 election Labour won a majority of seats with 35% of votes by 60% of the total electorate - is that democratic? One of the only resons that there is so much horsetrading going on at the moment is because of the absurd situation where together Labour and the Lib Dems polled well over 50% of the votes but can't get 50% of the seats. I'd say that was undemocratic and unworkable.

i

 

People are fearful of change but surely you can see the need for a system that more fairly represent the spread of votes? Additionally it gives voters more choice - if they want it. Once PR was more ingrained this sort of hung parliament would be resolved much more quickly because it would be expected. The understanding between parties would be established and this would be fairly clear to voters when they make their votes.

 

its funny how those who want first past the post are happy with a bankrupt system and their present system has delivered a hung parliment.

one commentator has said within the partys their has always been horse tradeing under the present system but it has been hidden from the public.

great result a hung parliament

[OldNick]

its funny how those who want first past the post are happy with a bankrupt system and their present system has delivered a hung parliment.

one commentator has said within the partys their has always been horse tradeing under the present system but it has been hidden from the public.

great result a hung parliament

time will tell how funny it is

[trousers]

The SNP spokesman just being interviewed made me chuckle (closely followed by a large sigh)

 

He said: "the Tories forming an alliance with lib dems would be a travestry for Scotland as 85% of Scots didn't vote for the Tories"

 

Erm, and how many Scots didn't vote for for the SNP? 80%

 

You gotta love the logic of minority parties...

[Wes Tender]

I haven't been looking through these Election 2010 threads, or commenting too much, but I've scanned through this one. The so-called horse trading, that is appraently going on at this moment, has little to do with Proprotional Representation. The so-called Hung Parliament is giving a direction post only, perhaps towards PR, in terms of public opinion. What is undoubtedly true is that countless First-Past-The Post elections disinfranchise almost two-thirds of the population, and so, in truth, that system almost always leads to minority opinion government, whatever the number of seats won. I wish to be represented by my local MP. The one I now have, just elected in my constituency, does not represent my views or my needs. This is reflective throughout the country, whatever party you may support. Any acceptable form of PR will improve on that.

 

No it does not disenfranchise almost two thirds of the electorate at all. All of those who choose to vote and are eligible, are enfranchised, i.e have the right to vote.

 

You might consider in your opinion that when a party is elected with less than fifty percent of the votes, that a majority of the electorate is represented by an MP who does not reflect their views, but because each party's manifesto contains policy statements on numerous issues, it isn't even the case that is true. More than likely a voter who was being honest about it, would consider that their MP reflected only some of their views. But then again, there are some issues where MPs are allowed a free vote without a Party whip and those views of the local MP might conceivably coincide with some of his electorate who voted for another party.

 

But regardless of whether you believe your MP does not reflect your views, it does not mean that he does not deal with matters involving individual constituents who do not vote for his party, or that he doesn't take up local causes on behalf of his constituents.

 

Whichever voting system that is employed, is likely to have a party in Government which has not received over 50% of the votes and if the percentages of the parties receiving less votes were added together, you could invariably make out the case that more people voted against the governing party than for it.

[Wes Tender]

The SNP spokesman just being interviewed made me chuckle (closely followed by a large sigh)

 

He said: "the Tories forming an alliance with lib dems would be a travestry for Scotland as 85% of Scots didn't vote for the Tories"

 

Erm, and how many Scots didn't vote for for the SNP? 80%

 

You gotta love the logic of minority parties...

 

Did anybody point out to the cretin that without the seats won in Scotland by the Lib/Dems and Labour, the Conservatives would be the Government?

 

A bit of a travesty for England, that, as we have to put up with the bloody Scots in our Parliament, whereas we have no say in theirs

[moonraker]

Did anybody point out to the cretin that without the seats won in Scotland by the Lib/Dems and Labour, the Conservatives would be the Government?

 

A bit of a travesty for England, that, as we have to put up with the bloody Scots in our Parliament, whereas we have no say in theirs

 

The irony here of course is that the Conservatives are the 'Unioist' one nation party and do not want any further movement on devoloution or indeeed indpendence, you cant have it both ways, either we are a single sovereign nation where all elected MP's count or we are not. That being said the SNP really p**s me off.

[trousers]

Ironically perhaps, I believe the conservatives only have 6 seats in the Scottish 'parliament' by virtue of the fact they have a pr system up there

[moonraker]

Ironically perhaps, I believe the conservatives only have 6 seats in the Scottish 'parliament' by virtue of the fact they have a pr system up there

 

How many would they have without PR?