proportional representation what does it mean?

Question

with the failure of todays supposed democracy by first past the post parties, that have to give in constantly to richer parts of the community like lawyers, to ensure getting enough support to remain in power. governments create new regimes like lawyers who to me shouldn't be allowed their oath its rubbish and they are more like the new mafia than the victims friend and support ,change things to a true democracy vote proportional representation, where your own area has a true democratically elected representative that does not have to bow to party politics to stay in parliament.

Answer 1

I also wonder why the question has been posted in this category. However Katrine is wrong. People are more sophisticated than what she thinks. Having a PR voting system does not imply that there'll be a proliferation of political parties, and consequent coalition governments. People will adapt their voting habits to the changed system. There are plenty of examples of countries with PR, where there is still a two party election race, with any smaller parties getting just a token representation, which has no effect on the balance of power.

Answer 2

Most Americans believe that who wins political races is decided on election day by the voters. But in a single-member district electoral system that is frequently not true. Who wins is often determined before voters even go to the polls – sometimes many years before. The outcome is decided by those who draw the district lines. If they decide to create a district that is 70 percent Republican, there is little chance the Democratic candidate will win. And Republican candidates will usually lose if a district is drawn so that it is predominantly Democratic. Voters go to the polls confident in the illusion that they control the fate of the candidates. But in reality they are often only participating in the last act of political play whose ending has already been written.

In a single-member plurality system, the power of the vote pales in comparison to the power to draw district lines. The districting process not only can determine which candidates will win in specific districts, but also can determine which party ultimately controls our local, state, and federal legislatures. In a very real way, then, the political manipulation of district lines devalues the vote and undermines the democratic process.

Answer 3

Uh, sure, but then it becomes almost impossible to form stable parliamentary majorities and governments. You end up with a political world of hundreds of petty parties and ever-shifting coalitions. In the end, in order to be able to get things done, the government is inevitably driven to forming 'stable' coalitions -- that is between 2-3 ruling parties that begin to function like a bloc and rule the country for 20-40 year stretches. In other words, you either get total chaos, or you get the same monolithic political behaviour you get with majority representation, if not worse.

Check out the number of political parties that existed during the Weimar Republic in Germany; the instability caused by that system helped to create a power vacuum which encouraged the rise of the Nazi party.

Answer 4

The theory is good , Parliament would be made up of those who won the highest percentage of votes in their own constituency regardless of it's size .
Rather than as is those who win the highest number of votes for no other reason than they have the largest most populated constituency's .

Answer 5

i don't think it would work....to me it's like turning a constituency into a republic; which i know, sounds a little far out but (i know what you're trying to say, more power to the people)....i just think to that we're a country for a reason, because we can be unified, because there are universals between us. i don't think that anything would change drastically anyway if reforms like this were to take place

Answer 6

lol, wrong department mate.