Electoral Reform

[TestMangler]

Here's a simple guide to the differences between PR and FPTP.

https://keydifferences.com/differenc...sentation.html

I can't say if it's biased or not, do your own research.

I personally prefer the idea of voting for a party that then gets seats proportionally according to its share of the votes, rather than voting for someone who has never lived in my area and was parachuted in by the party exec. However, I don't know enough about PR to know what the potential pitfalls of that system are and intend to do more research before I decide which flag I'm running up the pole.

The D'hondt system used in Scotland creates a pretty accurate (in most ways) proportion of voting popularity to seats. It's a mixture of constituency and regional lists, so for example if a party takes all the constituency seats in a region, they have virtually no chance of taking a regional list seat, which means that these seats are distributed to the other parties based on a vote share. If the SP was FPTP, it would have the SNP on 50 or something with the other seven seats split between the opposition parties. So, not balanced at all, but the regional list, based on D'hondt, pretty much leaves you with seats in proportion to votes. It's a system used in a lot of countries and a ton more democratic that FPTP.

[malvolio]

Regardless of how you do PR, its weakness is either you end up with a totalitarian government (unlikely but possible) or one that is dependent on coalitions which are inherently unstable.

At least FPTP gives a government with a clear mandate and a united opposition.

[TestMangler]

Regardless of how you do PR, its weakness is either you end up with a totalitarian government (unlikely but possible) or one that is dependent on coalitions which are inherently unstable.

At least FPTP gives a government with a clear mandate and a united opposition.

FTPT generally gives power beyond the proportions that the country voted for, like Blair getting 150 or so seats more than the tories in 2005 with about 3% more of the vote share.

[d000hg]

Yes there will be some negotiating between potential coalition parties and what happens is that the most extreme policies get ditched and you get a moderate government most people can live with not a far left Corbynista or far right Johnson dictatorship

Johnson isn't a dictator and his government isn't far right. And if Corbyn is hard left, he never got anywhere near leading his party to form a government. FPTP kept the corbynites out of power; under PR that wouldn't be the case.

[SueEllen]

Regardless of how you do PR, its weakness is either you end up with a totalitarian government (unlikely but possible) or one that is dependent on coalitions which are inherently unstable.

At least FPTP gives a government with a clear mandate and a united opposition.

The UK coalition government in 2010 wasn't unstable.

There are forms of PR for different governments, assemblies and Mayors in different regions of the UK. They have got rid of one for the Mayor of London simply because no-one actually made use of the type of PR - transferable vote - used.

[WTFH]

Regardless of how you do PR, its weakness is either you end up with a totalitarian government (unlikely but possible) or one that is dependent on coalitions which are inherently unstable.

At least FPTP gives a government with a clear mandate and a united opposition.

FPTP means the opposition is a coalition, not united.

[Eirikur]

Regardless of how you do PR, its weakness is either you end up with a totalitarian government (unlikely but possible) or one that is dependent on coalitions which are inherently unstable.

At least FPTP gives a government with a clear mandate and a united opposition.

I wonder how all these countries with PR manage?
clear mandate based on the will of a minority

[hugebrain]

Under PR there’s no way of voting out an MP who isn’t any good. Which is a bit of a flaw.

Presumably you have to suck up to the present party leader to get to the top of the list, so instead of a healthy mix of different views within a party you get a homogenous bunch of yes men.

[TestMangler]

Under PR there’s no way of voting out an MP who isn’t any good. Which is a bit of a flaw.

Presumably you have to suck up to the present party leader to get to the top of the list, so instead of a healthy mix of different views within a party you get a homogenous bunch of yes men.

You can still vote out a constituency MP under a lot of PR systems. You cannot, like you say, prevent a party leader from reinstating that MP via 2nd preference lists. The issue there, is with the party leader who does that, rather than with the voting system.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Sounds like a recipe for weak coalition governments. No thankyou.

Because the current 80 seat majority which came on 43.6% of the vote, is such a roaring success.