Proportional Representation?

[sadoldgit]

Put simply, democracy is the rule of the people for the people by the people. In the early days of democracy in Ancient Greece most of “the people” didn’t have a vote. Socrates himself said that democracy was nearly the worst kind of rule at the time.

Fortunately, things have changed over the years, although it wasn’t that long ago historically that woman were denied that right here and there is still a discussion about at what age here you are entitled to have a vote.

But just how democratic is democracy? The word “undemocratic” is thrown around a lot when we aren’t happy with the way a vote goes. Clearly if 100% of the people vote for something, it works very well. Not so well if the vote is split 51%/49%. Is it really “democratic” if “the will of the people” is determined by just one person? Clearly it is not “the will of the people”, it is the will of most people. And that is the problem with democracy. The will of many people is discounted completely.

The thorny issue of PR naturally raises its head after every vote. Labour have a massive majority with only 35% of the electorate having voted for them. People are left frustrated because they feel their vote counts for nothing in a safe seat area or if they are voting for any one of the smaller parties.

On the election thread we have some calling for PR and some supporting the FPTP system. Personally I am in favour of a system that incorporates PR as it is more “democratic” than being governed totally by a party that the majority haven’t voted for. We had a fudged referendum on a form of PR that was voted against, but surely it is time to have a proper, grown up, look at the system and to find a way that gives the people a proportionate voice in Parliament?

There are good arguments for and against PR. There are different types of PR, so which is best if we do go down that route?

I believe an independent Royal commission should be set up to look at the way we are governed. The UK in 2024 is a very different place to the one where the current voting system was introduced. Neither the Tories nor Labour have an interest in changing the status quo, and why should they if it works for them? It doesn’t work for millions of voters whose vote doesn’t give them a voice though.

So then, PR - yes or no? And if yes, what type of PR should we look to adopt?

Edited July 6 by sadoldgit

[AlexLaw76]

What are your top 3 PRs?

[Weston Super Saint]

Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

What are your top 3 PRs?

My top 1 is my PR up Cheddar Gorge. Was a great achievement for me.

[badgerx16]

Would you leave a proportion of HoC seats vacant to account for the wishes of those who don't vote, for whatever reason ? After all, their views are equally as valid as those that vote.

Edited July 6 by badgerx16

[Weston Super Saint]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

Would you leave a proportion of HoC seats vacant to account for the wishes of those who don't vote, for whatever reason ?

It shouldn't be a valid result unless there is a 75% turnout, just like a Union ballot.

[AlexLaw76]

Paula Radcliffe is a very good P R

[sadoldgit]

Some pros and cons

https://uk-engage.org/2013/08/what-are-the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-using-a-proportional-representation-pr-electoral-system/

[Lighthouse]

I’ve still yet to hear what system people actually want and how it will be implemented in the UK. Mathematically PR isn’t possible without either massively fluctuating numbers of MPs (who will all want a salary) or allocating MPs to constituencies where they weren’t voted for.

[sadoldgit]

Various systems and who uses them.

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/

[Lighthouse]

2 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Various systems and who uses them.

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/

That’s not an answer, it’s just a link to various different systems used in other countries. Which system do YOU want implemented in the UK?

[sadoldgit]

10 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

I’ve still yet to hear what system people actually want and how it will be implemented in the UK. Mathematically PR isn’t possible without either massively fluctuating numbers of MPs (who will all want a salary) or allocating MPs to constituencies where they weren’t voted for.

This is the problem. There is no perfect system but it is trying to find a system that ticks most boxes for us. Forms of PR work well in other countries, not so well also, but because it works well in, say, New Zealand, their system might not work as well here.

[sadoldgit]

6 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

That’s not an answer, it’s just a link to various different systems used in other countries. Which system do YOU want implemented in the UK?

I have no idea, which is why I would like to see an independent commission deal with it and to come up with recommendations. There is no right or wrong, but there just has to be a better way than FPTP if Parliament is there to reflect the way the people have voted.

 

[Fan The Flames]

This looks like a good resource for wannabe voting wonks https://aceproject.org/main/english/es/esd01a.htm

[whelk]

As boring a discussion as when people trot out about changing the national anthem. Our democracy broadly works. Far from perfect but this bores me shitless. ‘I live in the New Forest and no point me voting Labour as I am outnumbered by Tories blah blah blah’ is not a groundbreaking argument. 

Surprised at SOG getting manipulated by Farage though. Quite funny Lib Dems getting loads more seats than Reform wit( lower percentage of vote - massive plus for FPTP.

[The Kraken]

I said yesterday, I think a form of PR would be fairer than FPTP but I don’t believe there’s actually much appetite for it overall in the UK. The AV vote was extremely badly handled; that said, I think AV is actually a slightly worse system than FPTP and it was comprehensively rejected. 

People in the UK seem to feel comfortable with a FPTP system that delivers a local MP. It’s a system we’ve had for a very long time and it seems many people in the UK don’t even know how other countries vote, let alone much care.  The two major parties absolutely don’t want it either.  Not sure if the Lib Dems much will either after the latest result.

If we were to have a form of PR, ideally I’d want a system such that overall nationally you vote for a party, all those votes are tallied up and party control is allocated according to those percentages and MPs are assigned accordingly.  But there’s all sorts of complications that throws up. You’d have to treat England, Scotland , Wales and NI separately so that there’s a fair accounting of the likes of PC, SNP, DUP etc who can only run in their own (smaller population) countries. Then you have the issue of how a local MP is assigned to a local area, who ends up going where?  Currently there are a huge number of people who vote because of their local MP themself and not the national party. It also seems to kill the notion of a local independent MP running on local issues, diluting their vote share nationally would cripple them.  All factors that are not insurmountable, but I think you need a groundswell of feeling of change to enact it and I simply don’t see that we have that.

[Fan The Flames]

Bang on cue LBC are talking about PR this morning.

[Fan The Flames]

Jerusalem for me as the new national anthem.

[whelk]

1 minute ago, Fan The Flames said:

Jerusalem for me as the new national anthem.

Freed from Desire for me

[sadoldgit]

54 minutes ago, whelk said:

 

Surprised at SOG getting manipulated by Farage though. Quite funny Lib Dems getting loads more seats than Reform wit( lower percentage of vote - massive plus for FPTP.

In what way have I been “manipulated by Farage” Whelk?

I have been an advocate for the implementation of some kind of PR in the UK for years, hence years voting for LibDems. It is natural to want to discuss it straight after an election isn’t it?

My choice of National Anthem - I Vow To Thee My Country

Edited July 6 by sadoldgit

[Fan The Flames]

The thing about this election, people wanted the Tories out up and down the country because of all the shit they've dished up, also people weren't really excited by Labours limited offer. And the results of the FPTP system really reflected this perfectly, Tories booted out and a low Labour vote share, both should take the messages the electorate have given them.

[whelk]

18 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

is natural to want to discuss it straight after an election isn’t it?

Not really. Been same as every election in my lifetime. I get LBC need debate material but not going to happen however many fuckers phone in. Do you want Local govt elections overhauled after every local election?

[sadoldgit]

2 minutes ago, whelk said:

Not really. Been same as every election in my lifetime. I get LBC need debate material but not going to happen however many fuckers phone in. Do you want Local govt elections overhauled after every local election?

You may find it boring Whelk, yet here you are.

I don’t want it overturned after every election, I just want a fairer system.

[badgerx16]

32 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

Jerusalem for me as the new national anthem.

Tubthumping by Chumbawamba.

[Lighthouse]

21 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

The thing about this election, people wanted the Tories out up and down the country because of all the shit they've dished up, also people weren't really excited by Labours limited offer. And the results of the FPTP system really reflected this perfectly, Tories booted out and a low Labour vote share, both should take the messages the electorate have given them.

I think we’d all be somewhat underwhelmed if after all this talk of booting the Tories out of power, all we effectively got was a roughly 5% shift in the makeup of parliament.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Fair play to Soggy for getting on his old hobby horse & parroting Nigel’s lines. & without PR in the European elections we’d probably have never heard the name Nigel Farage. So again, fair play to Soggy for going into bat for it. Although I suspect the desire to see it isn’t  principled, more an opportunity to post “far right” pony when there’s 16% “far right racists” sat on the opposition benches. 
 

I’ve always been in favour of FPTP & this election absolutely highlighted why it’s the best  form of democracy imo. Local people electing a representative to represent them in a Westminster, what could be purer than that? Liz Truss,  JRM,the fat lazy arse with a 19k majority in my constituency,  all the cabinet ministers that lost their seats, Ashworth, all booted out by local people wanting someone else to represent the local area. They would all have been on party lists or some other device and been walking into Parliament next week. The big moan about “safe seats” and “wasted votes” are only that, because the voters  make them that and increasingly safe seats are becoming a thing of the past. 
 

 

[whelk]

7 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

You may find it boring Whelk, yet here you are.

I don’t want it overturned after every election, I just want a fairer system.

I’m here to tell you how boring it is hearing people go on - although could apply that to a large number of your posts I guess. Feel free to get excited at the prospect though and get max use out of your fiver by posting up links to how they vote in Papa New Guinea.

[sadoldgit]

7 minutes ago, whelk said:

I’m here to tell you how boring it is hearing people go on - although could apply that to a large number of your posts I guess. Feel free to get excited at the prospect though and get max use out of your fiver by posting up links to how they vote in Papa New Guinea.

Get out of the wrong side of the bed as usual eh Whelk?

Look, I started this thread because there had been some discussion about PR on the election thread and I thought it deserved a thread of its own. If you are bored with the subject why bother? Why not toddle off somewhere else and call someone else a c**t? I am sure there are still a few on here you haven’t abused yet.

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

Freed from Desire for me

Saturday night for me.

[AlexLaw76]

15 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Saturday night for me.

Whigfield?

[Weston Super Saint]

15 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Whigfield?

The one and only.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

5 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

The one and only.

I thought the one and only was Chesney Hawkes? 🙂

[egg]

1 minute ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

I thought the one and only was Chesney Hawkes? 🙂

That's my vote. 

[whelk]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

Get out of the wrong side of the bed as usual eh Whelk?

Look, I started this thread because there had been some discussion about PR on the election thread and I thought it deserved a thread of its own. If you are bored with the subject why bother? Why not toddle off somewhere else and call someone else a c**t? I am sure there are still a few on here you haven’t abused yet.

Apologies SOG, unnecessarily rude of me 

[Turkish]

Right said Fred Deeply Dippy

[sadoldgit]

38 minutes ago, whelk said:

Apologies SOG, unnecessarily rude of me 

No worries Whelk, if I didn’t go a few days without being abused by you I would worry that something was wrong. 😘

I do take your point though. Yes, it does crop up at every election, probably because the FPTP system is far from ideal. I have heard strong arguments for both over the last few days and can see the case from both sides. What I can’t get my head around is how unbalanced the vote per seat is under FPTP.

A  consequence of PR is that Reform would have a much greater representation in the Commons, but it we believe in democracy, the seats in Parliament should reflect the votes cast and by extension, the will of the people.

[Weston Super Saint]

4 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

No worries Whelk, if I didn’t go a few days without being abused by you I would worry that something was wrong. 😘

I do take your point though. Yes, it does crop up at every election, probably because the FPTP system is far from ideal. I have heard strong arguments for both over the last few days and can see the case from both sides. What I can’t get my head around is how unbalanced the vote per seat is under FPTP.

A  consequence of PR is that Reform would have a much greater representation in the Commons, but it we believe in democracy, the seats in Parliament should reflect the votes cast and by extension, the will of the people.

Like the Brexit vote that you have championed for years?

[badgerx16]

15 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

😘
What I can’t get my head around is how unbalanced the vote per seat is under FPTP.

Votes per seat will always be skewed in favour of the winner;

[badgerx16]

The LDs and Greens would show a better votes/seats ratio if they concentrated more on seats they might win rather than putting up candidates across the board.

Alternatively, under PR, where would protest and local interest independents go ? How would the successful pro-Gaza MPs have faired ? How do you run by-elections ?

[sadoldgit]

They wouldn’t have to worry about targeting winnable seats under PR. There must be a system for by-elections as many countries already use PR. I think there is a different system of dealing with local issues specifically, not being an expert on PR I can’t answer but there was a guy on the radio earlier who had all of the answers. If there was enough support for Pro Gaza across the country they would get seats. It also raises the question of do we want to send people to Parliament on single issues?

One of the points he raised struck a chord. Apparently it is estimated that 25% votes cast were tactical votes. In our own poll nearly a third said they were voting tactically. You shouldn’t have to vote to what you don’t want in order to get something you might prefer. With PR there is no need to vote tactically.

Edited July 6 by sadoldgit

[Lord Duckhunter]

3 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

I think we’d all be somewhat underwhelmed if after all this talk of booting the Tories out of power, all we effectively got was a roughly 5% shift in the makeup of parliament.

Great point.

As the Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band sang “No Matter Who You Vote For The Government Always Gets in”. That could be the campaign slogan for PR. The same suspects would be walking into Westminster next week, Truss, Mordaunt, Shapps, JRM, Steve Baker. Ed Balls  and Cleggy would probably still be heavily involved in deciding our laws. Nigel Farage would have been in Parliament for years by now. Soggy bangs on about Government for the people by the people, but there’s no purer form than FPTP. PR is government for the people by technocrats & party apparatchiks. 

[badgerx16]

45 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

They wouldn’t have to worry about targeting winnable seats under PR. There must be a system for by-elections as many countries already use PR. I think there is a different system of dealing with local issues specifically, not being an expert on PR I can’t answer but there was a guy on the radio earlier who had all of the answers. If there was enough support for Pro Gaza across the country they would get seats. It also raises the question of do we want to send people to Parliament on single issues?

One of the points he raised struck a chord. Apparently it is estimated that 25% votes cast were tactical votes. In our own poll nearly a third said they were voting tactically. You shouldn’t have to vote to what you don’t want in order to get something you might prefer. With PR there is no need to vote tactically.

On the single issue question, how many Tories in the previous Government got in purely to ''Get Brexit Done'' ?

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

. If there was enough support for Pro Gaza across the country they would get seats. It also raises the question of do we want to send people to Parliament on single issues? 

This is the whole point of FPTP & why the Americans vote for their president the way they do. It protects low population areas & stops all decisions and policy favouring the high population areas. 6 Cornish MP’s could influence legislation when there’s a small majority,  far more than 600,000 votes ever could. If Gaza support is important to a local area, why shouldn’t that view be reflected in Parliament. Fuck me, people moan about London enough as it is, imagine how bad it would be if legislators were elected under PR. 
 

Who are you to decide on what or how many issues people can be elected over. Ridiculous….

Edited July 6 by Lord Duckhunter

[egg]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

They wouldn’t have to worry about targeting winnable seats under PR. There must be a system for by-elections as many countries already use PR. I think there is a different system of dealing with local issues specifically, not being an expert on PR I can’t answer but there was a guy on the radio earlier who had all of the answers. If there was enough support for Pro Gaza across the country they would get seats. It also raises the question of do we want to send people to Parliament on single issues?

One of the points he raised struck a chord. Apparently it is estimated that 25% votes cast were tactical votes. In our own poll nearly a third said they were voting tactically. You shouldn’t have to vote to what you don’t want in order to get something you might prefer. With PR there is no need to vote tactically.

The highlighted part confuses me.

It again questions our democracy. People can stand on whatever they choose, and people either vote for it or they don't. That can be on a single issue, or anything. 

Moreover, it flies in the face of your support for PR. If, for example 3% feel really strong for a pro Gaza cause, then under a 650 seat parliament, we've got 20 or so MP's sitting in parliament on that solitary issue. PR increases the prospect of singe issue getting a platform in parliament, ditto people with extreme views. 

 

[Fan The Flames]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

The LDs and Greens would show a better votes/seats ratio if they concentrated more on seats they might win rather than putting up candidates across the board.

Alternatively, under PR, where would protest and local interest independents go ? How would the successful pro-Gaza MPs have faired ? How do you run by-elections ?

On you first point, they put candidates up everywhere to give every green a box to tick in the election, collect as many votes as possible, so they can build a better case for PR. I'm pretty sure that they then just concentrate their election efforts in the winnable seats.

[Lord Duckhunter]

The SNP would be fucked under this Soggy PR. They’re pretty much a single issue party, with only  a tiny % of the UK population giving a shiny shite about their independence. 

[Fan The Flames]

23 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

This is the whole point of FPTP & why the Americans vote for their president the way they do. It protects low population areas & stops all decisions and policy favouring the high population areas. 6 Cornish MP’s could influence legislation when there’s a small majority,  far more than 600,000 votes ever could. If Gaza support is important to a local area, why shouldn’t that view be reflected in Parliament. Fuck me, people moan about London enough as it is, imagine how bad it would be if legislators were elected under PR. 
 

Who are you to decide on what or how many issues people can be elected over. Ridiculous….

Aren't our constituencies roughly the same population size?

[badgerx16]

6 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

Aren't our constituencies roughly the same population size?

Yes, but LD's point about regional parties/issues is something that PR would dilute. The thing about the US Electoral College is to prevent the more densely populated States dominating the more 'empty' ones in the Midwest. I'm not sure these 2 situations actually bear comparison.

Edited July 6 by badgerx16

[sadoldgit]

48 minutes ago, egg said:

The highlighted part confuses me.

It again questions our democracy. People can stand on whatever they choose, and people either vote for it or they don't. That can be on a single issue, or anything. 

Moreover, it flies in the face of your support for PR. If, for example 3% feel really strong for a pro Gaza cause, then under a 650 seat parliament, we've got 20 or so MP's sitting in parliament on that solitary issue. PR increases the prospect of singe issue getting a platform in parliament, ditto people with extreme views. 

 

I was just raising the question, not suggesting that we shouldn’t. As you say, it’s a democracy and if enough people vote for candidates standing on a single issue they will get elected under either system. I understand that some PR systems have a % you must reach before you start gaining seats to keep out the fringe elements. Not so democratic of course but still more democratic than our current system.

I should add that I support PR in principle. I’d have to see how it would work in practice before I would vote for change. There are still elements of various systems that are problematic but various different systems have various different workarounds. We don’t have to buy one off the shelf, we can get one tailor made, should we so wish.

I missed the guy’s name who was talking about PR this morning, but he knew his stuff and was very persuasive.

I have little recollection about the previous referendum other than we weren’t offered a proper choice of systems and the whole thing was fudged. At some point in the future it needs to be addressed properly, even if we make the decision to stay as we are.

When asked why Labour would bother to engage with the process after winning such a large majority, he pointed out that they rarely win power and, with the way the vote fluctuates, could find themselves back in the political wilderness again after a term or too. PR can provide a more measured response at the polls  with fewer wild swings which could protect them from the backlash that the Tories have experienced after a long period in power.

[badgerx16]

Would we be happy with perpetual coalitions ? After all, you would still be voting for a single party rather than a selection.

Edited July 6 by badgerx16

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, Fan The Flames said:

Aren't our constituencies roughly the same population size?

Do you need 100k constituencies under PR? I imagine you’ll end up with Regions long term,  but pure PR  where 20% of votes equals 20% of seats , you don’t.