Do you think that Britain need proportional representation?

Question

it seems mad that the largest percentage of population that vote for one party or another does not mean that party would be elected

BNP who is talking about the BNP I was talking about a fair voting system

http://www.parliament.uk/ for house of lords latest

Answer 1

Yes we most definitely do!!....For too long we have been fobbed off with the same old same old!!...Now they are wanting US to pay for their lies in the run up to the election if we vote for them or not!!!! Politics in this country has become a JOKE and a nice earner for the people elected.(Usually by the backdoor)!!! One of the first things 'OUR TONE' did when he was elected was to change the boundaries in certain areas knowing it would win seats!! We need a more honest and transparent way of holding elections in this country that will mean that peoples votes really DO count because at the moment it is a farce!!! Maybe then people like 'SNOOKSVILLE' will not only get the education to read but also be able to understand and comprehend a question before giving a ridiculous answer that isn't even related to the question!!!!

Answer 2

I do think proportional representation is needed in the election for the Westminster parliament, and I think it will probably be implemented for elections to the upper house, when the House of Lords is replaced. After that happens, I don't really see any effective argument against PR for the commons being possible.

Here in Scotland I think the mixed Member Proportional system has worked well in that it has so far given us a mix of MSP's very similar to the percentage of people in Scotland who voted for each party.

The Argument against PR usually comes down to "there can never be a strong government due to perpetual hung parliaments" and "it gives minor parties disproportionate power"

Well the Labour/Lib Dem coalition (whether you agree or disagree with their policies) has been a pretty strong governing force in Scotland, and the moderating influence of the Lib Dems has protected Scotland from some of Labours worst excesses that they have got away with implementing in England (student loans for example). The whole idea of PR is that a particular party can only get an overall majority if over 50% of the electorate vote for it. Surely they don't deserve an overall majority unless that is the case. As far as minor parties gaining "disproportionate power" is concerned, minor parties in Scotland have gained proportionate representation in Parliament, not disproportionate or any other kind of "power". The balance of power can never be held by a minor party as long as the largest party is willing to make a few concessions and do a coalition deal.

As for the BNP gaining representation through PR - as the first answer here feared - maybe a couple of BNP seats wouldn't be a bad thing. I doubt whether BNP representatives would be very effective in a democratic forum anyway. I reckon they would just be shown up for what they are, and would be lucky if they lasted for more than a single term.

Answer 3

I doubt the present system was ever appropriate but there may have been justification for it in the long distant past. Now, with mass communication blending regional cultures and homogenate business franchises dominating the economic landscape nationally, there's no excuse for it. If the country as a whole is to be fairly reflected in parliament PR should be implemented as soon as possible.

Proportional Representation is Proper Representation.

I remember, when I was a kid, trying to follow the election coverage one year with my calculator. It was very confusing. I could not understand how all the votes cast for the Liberal Democrats could total 20 odd percent, nationally, but result in only about 2% representation in parliament. I thought I must have put the decimal point in the wrong place somewhere in the calculations. I checked my sums over and over but I couldn't find the mistake. I hadn't made any mistake. That was the level of disproportion the first past the post system produced. It still produces misrepresentation in parliament and NEEDS to be changed.

Answer 4

I know I shouldn't be in here but I think both Britain and the USA need proportional voting systems. Luckily for the UK, it's way ahead of us Americans (unfortunately) with PR because Wales and Scotland use a modified version of the German Mixed Member Proportional system (or the term Additional Member System which is used in Britain). Maybe UK and New Zealand can help us Americans get rid of the sham of a democracy (duopoly) we have now. I'm working for electoral reform (and proportional voting systems implementation) in the USA and have received some support but nothing serious. I hope UK gets proportional representation for the Commons so that way the USA can follow you (just like we did with the two-party system and first past the post system) and will be praying for it so this can wake the USA up. Very interesting question by the way and I'd like to know what's happening with the Lords' reform. Thanks!

Answer 5

I am entirely opposed to PR [proportional representation] on the grounds that it is the method of vote counting by which both Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini were elected to power in their respective countries.

The PR system also lets in lots of loonies - esp. of the extreme right and left. It will, if introduced in UK allow the BNP to gain seats in the Commons.

No. I think we should stick to the first past the post, winner takes all system we've got now. It works.

Answer 6

Did you know that under our voting system the party with the most votes overall may not even win the most number of seats
In most cases more people will vote against a winning candidate (or party) than will vote for him/her/it.
Proportional Representation is not a voting system, in itself but a generic terms for a style of voting system.
When the British government "field tested" PR they chose the worst and least democratic system, the one which removes power from the electorate and gives it to the party. You don't even get a choice of candidate
A system such as the single transferable vote is fair and reduces the chances of gettng the worst candidate, or the one you like least.
Government which are elected using PR tend to fragmentary and weak coalitions, and are less accountable as no one knows who to blame when things go wrong
So you have to choose between weak, unaccoutable but democratically elected goverment, or strong, stable but undemocratically elected goverment

Answer 7

We already have PR for regional elections (London, NI, Wales, Scotland) and European elections.

I'm not convinced that pure PR would be the right answer for Westminster though as it would lead to hung parliaments and give disproportionate power to minor parties. I would prefer an Alternative Voting system where we rank candidates in order 1 = 1st choice, 2 = 2nd choice etc.

At the count the lowest polling 1st choice candidate is eliminated and their 2 votes shared out to other candidates, and this goes on until someone has 50%+ of the vote and is elected. At least this method (which is used in some countries - Australia and France I believe) ensures that the winning candidate has majority support, even if not the first choice for some.

P.S. I believe Labour tried to introduce PR before the Second world War, but it was defeated by the Liberals siding with the Tories. Ironic when you consider who is now most in favour of PR.

P.P.S. KBW - your comment about Blair changing boundaries is a complete fabrication. In the UK electoral boundaries are set by an independent Commission. In fact they have just finished revising boundaries for the next General Election, and it would lead to Labour losing 30+ seats without any electoral swing whatsoever.

P.P.P.S. A True Gentleman - What is the basis for your criticism of my answer? It is either my opinion (certainly not Labour Party policy) or is, as far as I believe, fact. Your shallow party political posturing is pathetic.

Answer 8

The present system may have its flaws but it usually does result in one party gaining most seats and therefore a mandate to govern. PR often leads to coalition style government because no party has an outright lead.

Answer 9

We need it desperately!

I think Mojo, in his usual display of blind love for all things Blair and New Labour has conveniently forgotten about the Jenkins Commission and the findings that were just brushed under the carpet when Blair discovered that he may lose an election due to PR.

Typical New Labour spin & lies!

Don't vote Labour!!

Answer 10

britain needs psychiatric representation, to put it right in the head so they can learn what an honest man is that dont lie, before they can vote for anybody, we have spent 40yrs voting for traitors.