Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Proportional representation -- yea or nay?

Should Britain adopt a form of PR for general elections


  • Total voters
    121
Accurate representation be damned

I'm speechless (typeless?). If that's your attitude why should a country even bother with an election if you don't care about it accurately representing what people want?

Personally I don't vote as I feel I'd be validating a broken system, however PR is the lesser of two evils here.

 
Does my (oblique) point about how the legislature is structured have any relevance? (Tying this in with the constitutional point that lbj made earlier + the Germany example).
 
I'm speechless (typeless?). If that's your attitude why should a country even bother with an election if you don't care about it accurately representing what people want?

Personally I don't vote as I feel I'd be validating a broken system, however PR is the lesser of two evils here.



Don't be .Electoral democracy is not real democracy. Economic democracy is.

Indeed, why should they even bother.
 
I'm speechless (typeless?). If that's your attitude why should a country even bother with an election if you don't care about it accurately representing what people want?

Personally I don't vote as I feel I'd be validating a broken system, however PR is the lesser of two evils here.



'Lesser of evils' or 'least worst' is the rationale that a few LibDem voters have given today about why they vote/voted the way they do. When it comes down to it, all that serves to do is move the parties further in the direction they were already heading i.e. right.
 
I've been thinking about all this. I voted lib dem in an area I was sure they'd lose in, in the hope that their share of the vote nationally would go up without their seats going up much - hopefully making the current system seem unworkable and lead to electoral system reform, fwiw I favour STV, like the Lib Dems. In fact they lost seats and their share of the vote remained the same. They're still totally screwed under the current system.

So anyway, my big objection to FPTP is how it means the power to elect a government is shared disproportionately. I've got no preference for or against coalition politics, but obviously FPTP is more likely to give us a majority government. It's not right that we should allow floating voters who are probably about 10-20% of the constituents in maybe 10% of the constituencies (that's 1-2% of the people for those able to vote for those poor at maths) to decide the government for the other 98% of us. Now the lib dems could possibly wield power one way or the other, even though they're the third party. Results like the current one are likely to be mirrored under the a PR system from what I can see. So under a PR system, wouldn't we just be swapping the decision making from the floating voters in the marginals to the leaders of the third and fourth placed parties? How's that more democratic?
 
'Lesser of evils' or 'least worst' is the rationale that a few LibDem voters have given today about why they vote/voted the way they do.

I dont know anything about the lib dems, but the logic is sound in the context of the current system.
 
I dont know anything about the lib dems, but the logic is sound in the context of the current system.

I'm not going to attempt to argue logic in the small hours :D But surely you can see that your qualifier of 'context of current system' is the key part. You're essentially arguing for a diluted version of the current system.
 
I'm not going to attempt to argue logic in the small hours :D But surely you can see that your qualifier of 'context of current system' is the key part. You're essentially arguing for a diluted version of the current system.

For the sole reason that there doesn't appear to be any possible alternatives. I agree wholeheartedly that the context qualifier is the key part, as I said earlier if we are stuck with this system lets at least try to make it a bit better where it can be.
 
For the sole reason that there doesn't appear to be any possible alternatives. I agree wholeheartedly that the context qualifier is the key part, as I said earlier if we are stuck with this system lets at least try to make it a bit better where it can be.

There are alternatives. What's lacking is a clear way of presenting them + how to get there (cos it wouldn't happen overnight barring revolution, and even then the revolting would need to know how to organise what happens next).
 
This is why I said there doesn't appear to be alternatives, we are actually agreeing I'm just too thick to articulate it correctly :D

Well, we're not actually agreeing cos I'm not an advocate of PR as a lesser evil.

If the poll had been about supporting full representation, I might have voted differently. But even then, that would have been a 'lesser evil' approach.
 
PR is not a good idea as in the end it's Party Representation,ie allowing parties rather than voters to decide who gets elected . The fairest system would be the Alternative Vote (voting 1, 2, 3 and not just X), ie not First Past the Post but the First to pass 50%.
 
PR is not a good idea as in the end it's Party Representation,ie allowing parties rather than voters to decide who gets elected . The fairest system would be the Alternative Vote (voting 1, 2, 3 and not just X), ie not First Past the Post but the First to pass 50%.

Only with certain systems.
 
Once again you seem to be suggesting that unless we change everything overnight, we may as well not change anything.

5 times you've trotted this idiocy out. After the 3rd time i said if you did it once more it would make you a liar. And here we are.
 
Its a rubbish system.

Life is about winning or losing. Simple as. Our politics needs to reflect that. All PR does is give a voice to the losers.

you're saying that some people's votes are worth less than others?

which is the system we currently have so no surprise there then.
 
Back
Top Bottom