Do you think the UK electoral system should have proportional representation?

Question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation

I think it should, because it would mean politicians would be leading by example.

How can they expect the different groups of society to integrate if they, the political parties will not even entertain the idea of ruling integratively??

Answer 1

I think the UK does need a different system of voting. Pure PR would not see inspirational governments, so a system like single transferrable vote (STV) would be much better.

With STV you don't just have one vote, you can vote for all the candidates in your preferred order, so if you wanted to vote for the candiates in this order (see below) you'd just put 1,2,3, etc next to their names.

Labour Party 1
Green Party 2
Liberal Democrats 3
Independent 4
Community Group 5
Conservative 6
UKIP 7
BNP 8

The votes would be counted into the eight candidates first choices. If one candidate gets 51% of the vote they would be elected outright.

If no candidate gets 51% of the vote the candidate with the lowest number of votes is knocked out of the race, the 2nd choice votes on those ballot papers would then be distributed out to the remaining 7 candidates.

Again if no-one got 51% of the vote combined then the seventh place candidate would be knocked out and the 2nd choice votes on these ballots papers distributed.

This would continue until one candidate has 51% of the vote.

This system will take longer to count but will actually see people being elected with a majority of votes and therefore will be more trusted.

Answer 2

May I suggest you do a course in Government and Politics at your local college? There is no simple answer to such a complicated question. The perceived advantages can become serious disadvantages. For instance:

You have no constituency MP representing your local views.

You would undoubtedly get at least one lunatic from the BNP in Parliament.

You would almost certainly have a coalition, where personal deals would be done to ensure legislation gets through.

It goes on and on. The clearly undemocratic result of our current system is obvious, but PR is not by any means the only answer.

What is does ensure is that you do not have a STRONG Government. The main question to answer is, do we need one? If the answer is Yes, no to PR, and if No, then perhaps PR.

But you need a far greater understanding of the pros and cons before getting an answer, and this is quite clearly NOT the right forum to gain that.

Answer 3

Yes, I do.

If you go back to the 1997 elections, Labour achieve a huge House of Commons majority with less than 48% of the popular vote. Isn't that where our Problems started.

There need to be checks and balances within any system, and a fairer division of seats would ensure that and prevent the type of 'Presidency' we are now suffering under!

What is the point in asking people to vote when they are in an electoral ward that has a huge majority for another party? This is why people feel their votes don't count.

Answer 4

there has been communicate of the two removing the Electoral college or reforming it, yet no longer something has ever come of it. we've had fairly some disputed elections wherein the loser actually had extra desirable widespread votes, yet lost the Electoral vote. i do no longer might desire to re-open the injuries from the dastardly stolen election of 2000. we are, all too attentive to it. In 1876, Samuel J. Tilden had extra desirable widespread votes than Rutherford B. Hayes. 17 Electoral votes from fairly some Southern states have been in dispute. a different electoral fee presented all 17 votes to hayes, subsequently giving him a 185 to 184 Electoral Vote win. In 1888, Grover Cleveland, working for re-election, had extra desirable widespread votes than Benjamin Harrison, in spite of the undeniable fact that the Hoosier Republican had extra desirable Electoral votes, and consequently, gained the election. Cleveland have been given right here lower back 4 years later, and beat Harrison, transforming into the only president to serve 2 non-consecutive words. In 1824, Andrew Jackson led interior the common vote, yet as no longer between the applicants gained a majority of the Electoral Vote, the election grew to grow to be into thrown into the abode of Representatives. the 2d-place finisher John Quincy Adams grew to grow to be into elected. In 1800, the election grew to grow to be into thrown into the abode of Representatives. In those days, Presidents and Vice-Presidents did no longer run as a set. Whoever have been given the optimal sort of votes grew to grow to be into elected President, whoever had the 2d optimal grew to grow to be into elected Vice-President. the two Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr had seventy 3 Electoral Votes each. Incumbent President John Adams have been given right here in 0.33 with sixty 5 Electoral votes, and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney had sixty 4 Electoral Votes. After 36 ballots, the abode elected Thomas Jefferson as president and Aaron Burr as Vice-President. The Electoral college actually desires to be reformed. The 'winner take all' kit, theoretically facilitates somebody to win the 12 optimal populated states, lose the something 38 states or perhaps nonetheless win the presidency. The Electoral college might desire to be reformed with one Electoral Vote consistent with Congressional District. consequently, if mutually because it is composed of a state like California with 50 + votes, the vote could be divided as consistent with the top results of each Congressional District.

Answer 5

No, not for the House of Commons. We don't want to start having coalitions. I would use it however on a county-constituency basis (like the US senate or German Bundesrat, each county would elect) for a fully-elected House of Lords.

Answer 6

Yes