Proportional representation -- yea or nay?

[Poi E]

The only people PR will change the game for is the lib-dems and the dominant interests they represent. The electoral system is not the main problem - the main problem is that society is run in the interests of a group of interlocking elites whose power is mainly in the economic sphere but whose also use a system of political legitimation to defend or extend their interests. This system of political legitimation stems from that economic dominance, it's a secondary feature. Changing it won't change the system - it'll just make the way legitimation occurs slightly different. What will happen under PR is that those dominant interests will adapt to the new system and make it its own as much as FPTP ever was - look at other countries with PR, the same interests dominant totally there, they're just elected differently. Labour, the tories and the lib-dems will sit on PR and leave zero room for anything else. If you really want democracy you should be calling for economic democracy not PR.

Great summary. Mind if I trot this out to mates? They never bother reading the Com Manifesto when I give it to them. Not like it is very fucking long.

 

[butchersapron]

In the last proportional national elections the lib-dems got 13%. That's why they don't want PR. Because they would become nothing again. That's what the lib-dem vote is shorn of tactical voters. Almost 50% are tactical voters.

(edit: to PE -course you can - it'll become clearer in real life soon anyway.)

 

[moochedit]

If we did get PR then people would vote differently than they do under FPTP, and it is hard to predict who they would vote for. But I think that the lib dems would lose votes if we got PR as there would no longer be any reason to vote for them. Same would happen to other single issue party's, if there objectives were met like the SNP (if scotland became independent) and UKIP (if we left the EU).

Lib dem support consists of:

1) Labour supporters tactically voting in lib/tory marginals.
2) Tory supporters tactically voting in lib/lab marginals.
3) People who vote lib dem ONLY because they want Proportional Representation.
4) People who like to "sit on the fence".
5) People that vote for them because of "bandwagons" they have jumped on like anti-iraq war/scrapping Id cards/etc.

If we had PR 1 , 2 and 3 would have no reason to vote for them anymore, while other small (or new) party's might be closer to the view of people in group 5 and would now stand a chance of winning seats.

 

[TAE]

Under PR it would be far easier to get smaller parties into parliament.

 

[articul8]

Under PR it would be far easier to get smaller parties into parliament.

Not automatically - there are different systems with different thresholds. 3 member STV for example would mean that parties would need 25% to get elected. Not "far easier".

 

[Random]

I think PR would not result in any serious social change, but it'll be good for a laugh as more nutters and extremists get into national politics.

Over here in Sweden we have two big parties, and a half dozen or so smaller ones that get around 5% of the vote each. Every government is invariably led by one of the two big parties, with the smaller ones making massive compromises to get a piece of the action. For example, the Left Party (ex-communists) have just agreed to accept 90% of the cuts made by the current conservative-left government; this is so that the Left party can get into an opposition coalition with the social democrats, who are a neo.liberal party. The main difference in politics between Sweden and the UK lies in the limits, derived from politics outside parliament, which determine just how neo-liberal the ruling parties are allowed to be. One such factor is the massive class-compromise that still exists between the employers and the unions.

 

[moochedit]

If we did change to PR then it is likely that there will be party splits/mergers/MP's crossing the floor, etc in the 3 main party's
as there are lots of MPs in the "wrong" party.

 

[moochedit]

If we did get PR then people would vote differently than they do under FPTP, and it is hard to predict who they would vote for. But I think that the lib dems would lose votes if we got PR as there would no longer be any reason to vote for them. Same would happen to other single issue party's, if there objectives were met like the SNP (if scotland became independent) and UKIP (if we left the EU).

Lib dem support consists of:

1) Labour supporters tactically voting in lib/tory marginals.
2) Tory supporters tactically voting in lib/lab marginals.
3) People who vote lib dem ONLY because they want Proportional Representation.
4) People who like to "sit on the fence".
5) People that vote for them because of "bandwagons" they have jumped on like anti-iraq war/scrapping Id cards/etc.

If we had PR 1 , 2 and 3 would have no reason to vote for them anymore, while other small (or new) party's might be closer to the view of people in group 5 and would now stand a chance of winning seats.

and of course even if we stick with first past the post, many people in groups 1,4 and 5 will already be leaving because of the lib/tory pact while many in group 3 will leave if the voting system does not change. Who they defect to is another matter, although group 1 would "go home to labour" and group 3 might defect to the Greens (who also want PR).

 

[moochedit]

Instead of the "yellow torys" we could do with a "PRO-PR" party that has the following simple manifesto:

1) If we win a majority of seats (326+) in the house of commons, we would:

a) Pass a bill to change the electoral system to PR.
b) Call an immediate general election under PR in which we would NOT stand.
c) Disband ourselves as our work is done !

2) If another party wins a 326+ majority or if it's a hung parliament we would:

a) all our elected MPS would resign their seats forcing by-elections in which we would NOT stand.
b) We would then stand again at the next general election on the same platform.

 

[ymu]

Not automatically - there are different systems with different thresholds. 3 member STV for example would mean that parties would need 25% to get elected. Not "far easier".

33%

 

[articul8]

No, 25% is the threshold - formula is 1 over (candidates plus 1). So, for example you could have candidate A) on 35%, candidate B) on 32% and C) on 28% all elected. This is because no other canidate in this example can possibly get over 25% (threshold). So 2 candidates who score less than 33% are elected. Once they cross the 25% theshold they know they are elected (it is not possible for 3 candidates to get more than 25% and another one to be elected)