If PR was the system in place, everyone's vote would count. The present system does not truly reflect the electorate's wishes. PR would encourage more to use their vote, rather than the apathy generated by the present system.
2007-01-14 05:38:14 · 9 answers · asked by Rainman 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
It's interesting that we are getting answers from Americans -- I hadn't considered the USA would enter the debate because PR appears to be alien to their way of governing and yet some of the replies indicate that isn't the case. Germany has PR and even the small parties have their representatives. OK it means some of the larger parties have to do a deal with others so as to form a majority but that's a good thing since it puts a stop to laws being passed that are intended to provide benefit to those who are supporters of the ruling party.
2007-01-14 08:25:49 · update #1
It depends on where you want to bring it in. I'm completely against PR for the House of Commons as it results in weak executive which will always have to pander to it's own party's extremists in order to keep their support. You also get coalition governments with policies negotiated between 2 or more party leaders, which no-one voted for as before the election the parties campaigned against each other on completely different policy platforms. But that said, for a revising chamber like a future elected House of Lords or Senate, then yes, PR would be good as it would accurately reflect the views of most people and prevent any 1 party being in control of both the primary chamber (commons) and the revising chamber (lords/senate)
2007-01-14 08:59:27 · answer #1 · answered by mark 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
perhaps, however it would completely eliminate national responsiveness to local needs. In our government type, representatives represent specific areas of the country, and regardless of the political makeup of their constituency care about local issues. For example, both republicans and democrats from Connecticut fought recently to keep the submarine base at Groton, which is very important for the local economy. Even though democrats don't like big military spending, and even though connecticut is by far a mostly democratic state, the democrats and republicans from connecticut working together convined a Republican controlled BRAC (base realignment and closing commission) to spare the base. This type of thing would be impossible under a proportional representation system.
This entire post assumes you're American. If you're not, then in a smaller country like the UK PR might be a good idea, however it does give a very large voice to minority parties. In fact, it might give such a large voice that a coalition government would be needed, that is almost never good (look at Isreal, Italy, etc... for examples)
2007-01-14 05:45:25 · answer #2 · answered by John C 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We have proportional representation in the form of the number of Congressmen from each state.
Our Founding Fathers rejected completely proportional representation for good reasons.
One or two large states could "rule" the country because they could outvote everybody else.
Minorities would not be protected. If a majority voted to deny rights to African American people, or to imprison Jewish people, there'd be little to prevent them from doing it.
The current system represents the electorate's wishes better than any of the alternatives.
2007-01-14 05:51:29 · answer #3 · answered by chocolahoma 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What? That would introduce democracy and it would all be our fault. The present system means that we can get a dictatorship based on 40% of the vote and then moan about it for five years. And we British enjoy a good moan.
(Any Americans looking in - it's called irony, don't worry about it.)
2007-01-14 05:44:25 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Nothing will encourage people to vote all the time there are people standing for election that are self centred, selfish and out for their own ends.. That is why people have become disillusioned with elections and government
2007-01-14 05:49:33 · answer #5 · answered by Bluefurball 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't like it at all. That way you give tiny parties with few votes a disproportionately large influence. And do we really want BNP members of parliament? I don't think so.
2007-01-14 05:46:03 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Them with the biggest proportion likes it best.
2007-01-14 05:43:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The liberal democrats, because they have the most to gain from it/
2007-01-14 05:45:08 · answer #8 · answered by Miss Behavin 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
that might work if America was a full blown democracy...but we are not...we are a Republic...we elect people to make choices for us...
2007-01-14 05:42:12 · answer #9 · answered by turntable 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋