"PR is the only fair/democratic way of electing parliaments - avoids unfair vote/seat ratio". Do you agree?

Question

Apparently only UK & USA, in advanced/civilised communities, have elections which are not democratic. '1st past the post' can't truthfully be called democratic, since the votes/parliament-seats ratio is never balanced. Fair/sensible people believe PR systems give more power to the individual since his/her vote counts. This would, obviously, also improve the UK's dismal voting turnout knowing each vote counts. Voting 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc, next to each candidate would make all political parties strive to improve their manifesto & policies to suit as many voters as possible.

Answer 1

Well, it seems you are right there but then look what can happen.

For a considerable times in Israel the balance of power was held (and to some extent sill is held) by a small number of religious zealots.

Imagine a very close election in the UK with the BNP doing quite well, we could end up with them holding the balance of power.

What would happen, I believe is that politicians, already far to much affected by the tabloid press would play more and more to the 'gallery'.

So no I don't agree, it's a seductive idea but not one, I think, that bears close scrutiny

Answer 2

There is a well-established academic finding, Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, which demonstrates that it is impossible to have a perfectly fair electoral system.

I agree with you generally about PR, but even with that system there are problems. To work it needs multimember consitutencies, because otherwise only the middle of the road candidates will be elected. But the size of the constituency influences the result. Look at the UK European elections. In the four member North East England constituency, the Greens have no chance of being elected whereas Caroline Lucas, their UK European leader, manages to get elected in South East England because in a much larger constituency the proportion of the votes needed to get in is much smaller.

European Elections also highlight the point that fair elections must allow voters to choose between candidates and not parties ("closed lists"). Otherwise large parties can put dodgy candidates at first place on their list so that they get eclected despite personal unpopularity.Again, in South East England Labour lost one of its two MEPs last time, If there had been individual voting I would have split my vote between the Greens to give a personal vote to the Labour MEP who lost his seat, because he had a particularly good record on helping East Kent and on transport issues. In practice, as I indicated by naming a Green candidate, the "closed list" leads to the middle-sized parties putting one big name candidate at the top of the list: any elected members elected from lower places become second class because electors do not know who they are.

Also, no election is fair and democratic if the registers are not accurate and if there are unfair election practices. The accuracy of the register in the UK is a matter for concern. recent provisions for proxy and postal voting are insecure. There have been several recent convictions of candidates who have tried to fiddle proxy or postal votes - how many more cases have gone undetected?

The democratic deficit for provincial English voters, who have no regional government (or rather an indirectly appointed one that nobody knows about) , and whose Westminster constituencies are larger than those elsewhere even though MPS form elsewher in Britain can interfere in English affairs devolved elewhere in the UK, is a scandal.

My personal feeling is that above all the electoral system should be fair and consistent. At present, in the UK there is a mess of first past the post for Westminster, "top-up" list systems for London, Scotland and Wales and "closed list" PR for Europe. There should preferably be PR using Single Transferrable Vote to choose between individual candidates in equally sized seats or first past the post, again in equally sized seats.

In short, I agree with you about PR. However, there are even more serious concerns about the UK electoral system which you should not overlook by focussing on the minutiae of different voting systems.

Answer 3

Agree with this completely. Proponents of the UK 'first past the post' system claim that this delivers 'strong government' and that PR seldom delivers one winning party with a clear mandate to govern. No party with an overall majority is equated with legislative gridlock. Examining PR around the world does suggest there is something in this but equally 'strong governments' tend not to be very accountable governments. I think governments should accurately reflect the democratic will of the people and that we should expect our politicians to work with one another, regardless of party affiliations. It is very likely that those who can't do that will not be re-elected.

Answer 4

First past the post is democratic and also sensible it puts a block on hung parliaments . With hung Parliaments you can have parties sacrificing there manifesto in which there supporters voted them on and that's more fair.?

Answer 5

i love the conception of equivalent rights, yet i don't think of which ability we should be a similar in each and every way. i love our differences, and that i'm happy we are attending to the bottom of rights vs. mere alternatives. i pick the right to vote. yet i actually do not care if I actually have the right to develop a beard as a woman. i assume I do have the right, yet i imagine i'd nevertheless truly no longer LOL. i imagine adult men take position to be the perpetrators of a lot of this social rigidity. and that i don't think of that's totally unfair or unfounded and right that's why: You and that i, as women, we do not care if a guy is ingesting an apple martini. yet there are a spread of adult men available mocking one yet another for lack of what they think about to be masculinity in some adult men. that's no longer the apple martini. those adult men purely experience the martini guy is a few form of affront to their personal version of manhood. Is there, purely perchance, something female about the guy ingesting the apple martini? because my husband might want to drink one and by no ability be girly about it. What we truly favor to provide up doing is judging eachother -- everybody. no matter if he's drining a fruity drink or donning a skirt doesn't remember. What we are offended by is the actual incontrovertible actuality that he will be form of female, or gay, or leaning in that route. And that, my acquaintances, isn't any one's corporation. that's unfair to guage poeple in accordance with something yet their movements.

Answer 6

Yes it is the most fair a proportionate was of holding elections. However, elections would be far less intruiging and less policies would be carried out due to the need for consensus politics

Answer 7

Yes! And a Strong Government is not necesasarily a good thing. If a government is weak, then every move is scrutinised. They cannot afford to make a mistake, and therfore tend not to.

Answer 8

No, I like old money to keep us straight, because they look down on us they can make dispassionate decisions eg house of lords not pupularist tosh like the namby pamby commons.

Answer 9

there seems to be a growing trend in the uk to just change things all the time. i would like our laws etc to stay the same for , maybe just a year or sommat.On that basis alone--- no.