Will Introducing Proportional Representation Increase The Number Of People Who Vote In General Elections?

Question

Even though I am ashamed to admit it I have not bothered voting in the past two general elections. The reason why is that I live in an area where even in the landslide election of 1997 the Conservative MP was re-elected with a huge majority.

In other words I think that my vote is just a complete waste of time as the tories will always win in my constituency.

However, if proportional representation was introduced within the UK electoral system then I would vote in general elections as my vote would actually make a difference.

Would you agree with me that the introduction of proportional representation within the UK would actually increase the number of people who bother to vote for the reasons I have highlighted above?

Answer 1

no

Answer 2

No. People here are just to apathetic.

It would however be more representative of the wishes of those who did vote. Had this been the case at the last elections new labour would not have an overall majority as less than 50% of those who bothered to turn out voted labour.

Answer 3

Yes I think it would, for exactly the reason you have just given. If you live in a safe seat your vote is effectively meaningless, so why bother?

In the last general election the tories won the popular vote in England, yet Labour won more seats which is unfair. It is also possible for elected governments to redraw the electoral boundaries to create more safe seats for themselves - a process known as ´gerrymandering´. Interfering with democracy this way would also be prevented with the introduction of Proportional Representation.

Finally, we would also see smaller parties being represented. Thus, the Greens, UKIP and the BNP would also have a presence in parliament and would increase the variety of debate.

All of the above reasons would help to reignite some life into our democracy and would, I believe, increase turnout. However, the main parties are against it for obvious reasons.

Answer 4

I don't think PR would make much difference. Voting figures have not gone down because we don't have PR; they have gone down because the last 10 years have shown the voters what their leaders are like - snobbish, money-worshipping, cruel to the poor and the oppressed, sycophantic to the billionaires - and above all corrupt.

A new government - or better still a new assortment of politicians not tainted with sleaze, cash for honours, the "suicide" of a government scientist and vote-rigging - is the only way to even begin to get the public involved. All the rest are just gimmicks.

Answer 5

I did vote for UKIP and knew finished nicely that they does no longer get everywhere besides because of the fact the traditional guy in the line in the united kingdom is unwell in the top and loves extreme taxes and getting shafted consistently via the LibLabCon elite. Mine is a protest vote on the unwell undemocratic equipment that has been compelled onto us via our weasel politicians that have sucked as much as the ecu for some years now. observe how lots of them LibLabCon politicians finally end up with extreme-high quality posh jobs on the ecu parliament..... seem at Kinnock and his misses case in point LORD and woman Kinnock OMG! Is that what we particularly need in Britain? PR could make a distinction, nonetheless I doubt it some how, as too many human beings won't think of exterior of the LibLabCon container. Meet the hot boss, comparable because of the fact the previous boss.

Answer 6

No. It would just make our system hostage to minor parties - look at the struggle they have had forming an administration in Wales because of PR.

Better to keep the present constituency system, but have an alternative voting system where we rank candidates 1,2,3 in order of preference and lower polling candidates are eliminated (and their 2nd preferences redistributed) until one person has over 50% support. Interestingly the Labour Party used this method for their internal elections. and they use it in Australia as well.

Answer 7

No I would not agree it might well lead to government by minority.
we should make it a criminal offence not to Vote. We would perhaps then have a better idea of what people wanted.
But on the ballot sheet people should be able to abstain, in other words they would be saying I don't think any of you are fit to rule.
The politicians would hate this and would not be able to claim they had the support of the so called silent majority which is what many of them claim.

Answer 8

If you really want to make a difference, if you really want to affect policy, the way to do so is to ensure that MPs truly represent the majority view of their constituents, on every issue. The majority view on every issue must first be known.
A website has been recently launched to canvas the majority view, on every issue, for every community. It is free, anonymous, carries no advertising and does not try to sell anything. It covers over 25,000 administrative divisions in all 244 inhabited countries.
It is myverdict.net, potentially the most important site you will ever visit.

Answer 9

I find i agree with voice on this one. I would like to see a fairer and more democratic system. I also think voting should be mandatory.
Agree entirely with Michael B's assessment of the last ten years.

Answer 10

Probably not.

However, I think that voting should be compulsory (as in Australia, I believe) but with a box for abstentions. Then, if abstentions are the majority in a constituency, the election is rerun in the constituency with different candidates.

Answer 11

hi there,

in northern ireland we have pr already in place for local elections.

We do have a high turn-out, but with the pr we are told by the party we want to vote for exactly which representative to vote for in a certain area (voting strategy) which really downplay the whole idea of pr - it's just strategic voting to keep the 'other side' out!

Sophia