[Kosh]

I always point to Italy when people start on about proportional representation. Proves what a complete farce that system can end up as.

Scottish system seems to work quite well in terms of representation, if not actual parliamentary power.

So appearently it is just hit and miss.

[karajorma]

Thing is that you alter the effect when people know that the result has no real power. Besides the real nutcases don't run for scottish parliament.

[aldo_14]

Thing is that you alter the effect when people know that the result has no real power. Besides the real nutcases don't run for scottish parliament.

Scottish Senior Citizens' Unity Party? (1 MSP)

You forget - we have Labour here too.  Thanks to PR, they're forced to ally with the Lib Dems (imperfect, but it removes some of the Westminister excesses).

[karajorma]

The make up of the parliament kinda proves my point though. There are a lot of parties in there that no one would trust in the slightest to run the country (Greens, SSCUP etc) but who get in because of fringe voters. You're pretty lucky not to have any BNP members to be honest.

[aldo_14]

The make up of the parliament kinda proves my point though. There are a lot of parties in there that no one would trust in the slightest to run the country (Greens, SSCUP etc) but who get in because of fringe voters. You're pretty lucky not to have any BNP members to be honest.

Obviously someone would trust them, given that they're in there.  But isn't that kind of the point?  I mean, how many people trust Labour to run the country?  About 22% of the electorate IIRC.

[vyper]

Thing is that you alter the effect when people know that the result has no real power. Besides the real nutcases don't run for scottish parliament.

Scottish Senior Citizens' Unity Party? (1 MSP)

You forget - we have Labour here too.  Thanks to PR, they're forced to ally with the Lib Dems (imperfect, but it removes some of the Westminister excesses).

And gives us Joke McConnel.

[karajorma]

Obviously someone would trust them, given that they're in there.  But isn't that kind of the point?  I mean, how many people trust Labour to run the country?  About 22% of the electorate IIRC.

Still higher than the percentage that trust the BNP though.

The point most people who make arguments in favour of PR forget is that while something like 60% of the electorate who voted may not have trusted the winning party an even larger percentage didn't trust the other parties. Should the BNP get seats in parliament when 99% of the population think that they shouldn't be trusted?

[aldo_14]

Obviously someone would trust them, given that they're in there.  But isn't that kind of the point?  I mean, how many people trust Labour to run the country?  About 22% of the electorate IIRC.

Still higher than the percentage that trust the BNP though.

The point most people who make arguments in favour of PR forget is that while something like 60% of the electorate who voted may not have trusted the winning party an even larger percentage didn't trust the other parties. Should the BNP get seats in parliament when 99% of the population think that they shouldn't be trusted?

Yeah, but what about the vast amount of people left unrepresented?  I mean, even under PR you'll have a low number of BNP MPs if any; but in terms of the actual big 3 parties, it'll be a far more representative and fair system.  My vote, as it stands, has absolutely no value or effect upon British government.  Literally.  I have no voice.  And i'm joined, in my constituency alone, by thousands, because the Labour majority is so huge (about 50% vote).  Surely a system that installs a government who gets (by memory; I think the Tories got 33 and Lib Dems in the mid 20s) about 36% of the vote - 22% of the eligable electorate - yet dominates Parliament needs some form of reform? 

We'll never see it, sure, because of the advantage conferred upon the government by that system, but I don't think for a minute you can say there isn't a problem here.  i mean, nothing comes without price; the price of fair representation is giving the loonies a voice.  But as it is there are thousands - millions even - without a voice, and I think even using the Scottish pseudo-PR system you'd see them drown out the odd nutter that gets in (we don't really have any BNP presence atall in Scotland, and there's not too much of an equivalently fascist part to judge via).

[karajorma]

Yeah, but what about the vast amount of people left unrepresented?  I mean, even under PR you'll have a low number of BNP MPs if any; but in terms of the actual big 3 parties, it'll be a far more representative and fair system.  My vote, as it stands, has absolutely no value or effect upon British government.  Literally.  I have no voice.  And i'm joined, in my constituency alone, by thousands, because the Labour majority is so huge (about 50% vote).  Surely a system that installs a government who gets (by memory; I think the Tories got 33 and Lib Dems in the mid 20s) about 36% of the vote - 22% of the eligable electorate - yet dominates Parliament needs some form of reform? 

I agree that some change is needed to the first past the post system but PR is definitely not it. It's not just a case that it gives a disproportionate voice and authority to loony candidates who the majority don't want. PR results in higher numbers of hung parliaments and we all know what a problem that can cause. Where is your voice when the government the majority elected is forced to follow the whims of the minority party it has been forced to form a collition with in order to gain a majority? The minority party can choose to end their alliance at any juncture effectively giving them a veto over anything the majority party want to do. Where is the fairness in that?

I've seen that all the time in other countries and I think it's idiotic to have a system that routinely elects a leader unable to actually do anything. It simply results a much larger amount of backscratching and political horsetrading in order to get anything done at all.

[aldo_14]

Yeah, but what about the vast amount of people left unrepresented?  I mean, even under PR you'll have a low number of BNP MPs if any; but in terms of the actual big 3 parties, it'll be a far more representative and fair system.  My vote, as it stands, has absolutely no value or effect upon British government.  Literally.  I have no voice.  And i'm joined, in my constituency alone, by thousands, because the Labour majority is so huge (about 50% vote).  Surely a system that installs a government who gets (by memory; I think the Tories got 33 and Lib Dems in the mid 20s) about 36% of the vote - 22% of the eligable electorate - yet dominates Parliament needs some form of reform? 

I agree that some change is needed to the first past the post system but PR is definitely not it. It's not just a case that it gives a disproportionate voice and authority to loony candidates who the majority don't want. PR results in higher numbers of hung parliaments and we all know what a problem that can cause. Where is your voice when the government the majority elected is forced to follow the whims of the minority party it has been forced to form a collition with in order to gain a majority? The minority party can choose to end their alliance at any juncture effectively giving them a veto over anything the majority party want to do. Where is the fairness in that?

I've seen that all the time in other countries and I think it's idiotic to have a system that routinely elects a leader unable to actually do anything. It simply results a much larger amount of backscratching and political horsetrading in order to get anything done at all.

But if a government receives its votes proportionally, then it has to face the consequences of who it chooses as a political partner, too; there is a danger of power simply being transferred into minor coalition partner/s, yes, but on the other hand every vote counts and there is an inherent risk in choosing a partner in government (assuming that a minority party would possess sufficient votes for a majority; in the current situation it wouldn't be the case in either Westminister or Holyrood) that offends the voters.  Besides which, we have to ask if we wish to reduce the number of hung parliaments; the current system equates to an elected dictatorship in many ways.

[karajorma]

But is the chaotic morass that you end up with from a PR system any better?

At the moment the major check on the government's power is the danger of a backbench revolt. With a PR system the effect is the same but the parties involved are even more disparate. Furthermore if the minority party doesn't possess enough seats to create a majority you end up with the government having to make a coalition out of several minor parties. All of which means you end up with even more ridiculous amendments being required for bills to pass because every single party wants to have their say. 

So you end up with the same situation, more amendments to bills in an attempt to please everyone and on top of that you get fringe party loonies into the mix.

I fail to see how this is any better than the first past the post system.

Furthermore PR systems will actually penalise independant MPs who campaign on local rather than national issues because who's going to vote for them outside of their constituency?

[aldo_14]

But is the chaotic morass that you end up with from a PR system any better?

Is it necessarily a chaotic morass, or is that not just the worst possible case?  IMO it'd be the latter, in which case you have to weigh it and the likelihood of it against the likes of the current situation.  Is PR a chaotic morass in Belgium, or New Zealand?

At the moment the major check on the government's power is the danger of a backbench revolt. With a PR system the effect is the same but the parties involved are even more disparate. Furthermore if the minority party doesn't possess enough seats to create a majority you end up with the government having to make a coalition out of several minor parties. All of which means you end up with even more ridiculous amendments being required for bills to pass because every single party wants to have their say. 

So the major check on the governments power....is the government.

So you end up with the same situation, more amendments to bills in an attempt to please everyone and on top of that you get fringe party loonies into the mix.

How many fringe party loonies?  Isn't there a distinct possibility of PR working against them, because they can no longer target specific seats?  The BNP, for example, has a strategy of standing in areas of racial tension - would their chances of winning a seat in those specific wards not be better served by the current system, where their campaigning and finances can be focused?

Isn't the point of democracy trying to please everyone?  That's assuming, in any case, political parties in government and opposition would always be diametrically opposed.

I fail to see how this is any better than the first past the post system.

It reduces disenfrachisement, which in turn should increase the turnout.  You can look at the chaos of Italys results, sure, but they also got an 85% turnout.  The latter is most definately a healthier statistic than that for the UK system.

Furthermore PR systems will actually penalise independant MPs who campaign on local rather than national issues because who's going to vote for them outside of their constituency?

Dependent upon the PR system, though.  For example, the Scottish parliament uses a quasi PR system whereby there are both constituency elected MPs and PR elected MPs, something which IMO has worked very well in proportional terms.  How many MPs are elected on local issues anyways, though?

[karajorma]

Is it necessarily a chaotic morass, or is that not just the worst possible case?  IMO it'd be the latter, in which case you have to weigh it and the likelihood of it against the likes of the current situation.  Is PR a chaotic morass in Belgium, or New Zealand?

Is first past the post always an elected dictatorship though? If you're taking the best case examples so can I.

It's worth noting that both countries you mention aren't ruled by a simple majority and in many cases have had to form coalition governments with a minor party acting as the kingmaker. Furthermore you've basically chosen two countries that probably wouldn't have chaotic politics even under a first past the post system anyway.

So the major check on the governments power....is the government.

Even under a PR system you still have the government as the major check. It's just that the government is formed of two or more parties.

How many fringe party loonies?  Isn't there a distinct possibility of PR working against them, because they can no longer target specific seats?  The BNP, for example, has a strategy of standing in areas of racial tension - would their chances of winning a seat in those specific wards not be better served by the current system, where their campaigning and finances can be focused?

Points to the successes of the National Front party in France. Under a first past the post system parties like the BNP can't do more than take a couple of hotspot seats even if they do manage to take anything at all. Under a PR system they can take a much larger percentage of the vote. The BNP took 0.7% of the vote at the last election. So that means that PR gives them 4-5 seats as opposed to the bugger all they have now. How is that an improvement?

Isn't the point of democracy trying to please everyone?  That's assuming, in any case, political parties in government and opposition would always be diametrically opposed.

Nope. The point of democracy is to please the majority. A system that tried to please everyone would fail. It would please no one (again assuming that views are also diametrically opposed).

It reduces disenfrachisement, which in turn should increase the turnout.  You can look at the chaos of Italys results, sure, but they also got an 85% turnout.  The latter is most definately a healthier statistic than that for the UK system.

But you fail to consider the fact that the majority are largely politically illiterate. Getting them to the polls isn't automatically a good thing. I've always considered improvements in voter education to be hugely more important than PR.

Dependent upon the PR system, though.  For example, the Scottish parliament uses a quasi PR system whereby there are both constituency elected MPs and PR elected MPs, something which IMO has worked very well in proportional terms.  How many MPs are elected on local issues anyways, though?

Which reduces the number of seats available to be won based on local issues for a start. It also increases the disenfranchisement of the local vote since the area covered has to be larger. On top of that I'd argue that a fair number of independant MPs do win based on local support even if not local issues. The only way you're going to win an independant seat at a national election is if you are a famous celebrity.

[aldo_14]

[q]
Is first past the post always an elected dictatorship though? If you're taking the best case examples so can I.[/q]

Worst cases, I thought.  You implied that PR always led to a worst case of chaos.

[q]
It's worth noting that both countries you mention aren't ruled by a simple majority and in many cases have had to form coalition governments with a minor party acting as the kingmaker. Furthermore you've basically chosen two countries that probably wouldn't have chaotic politics even under a first past the post system anyway.[/q]

And the UK would?  The only example of it contradicts that.

Moreso, I'm not sure why a coalition government is considered necessarily bad.

[q]
Even under a PR system you still have the government as the major check. It's just that the government is formed of two or more parties.[/q]

Exactly.  The government has a structure that necessitates a different form of policy making, hopefully leading to a change in the psychology of government.  No longer is it a case of browbeating your own backbenchers with threats of delisting or whatnot.

[q]
Points to the successes of the National Front party in France. Under a first past the post system parties like the BNP can't do more than take a couple of hotspot seats even if they do manage to take anything at all. Under a PR system they can take a much larger percentage of the vote. The BNP took 0.7% of the vote at the last election. So that means that PR gives them 4-5 seats as opposed to the bugger all they have now. How is that an improvement?[/q]

Surely that depends on the form of PR?

Albeit, is this arguement not also denying representation to the non-loony small parties?  You can argue about keeping the BNP out, but is that a price worth paying for denying the other parties who are not raging racist ****wits?  Could the BNP afford a national campaign rather than targetted?   Would PR lead the BNP to actually having any effectual power, given that everyone (i.e. parties with a non-fringe vote) knows they are a bunch of ****s?  Isn't it more important to talk about addressing that 0.7% rather than just assume it'll be there eternally?

i mean, i'm not saying PR is infallible.  The question is, is it more fallible than FPTP?  Because the current system is scarcely faultless.

[q]Nope. The point of democracy is to please the majority. A system that tried to please everyone would fail. It would please no one (again assuming that views are also diametrically opposed).[/q]

Which FPTP fails at, going by the current governments voting percentage.  PR at least means the government has the votes of a majority.

[q]But you fail to consider the fact that the majority are largely politically illiterate. Getting them to the polls isn't automatically a good thing. I've always considered improvements in voter education to be hugely more important than PR.[/q]

And the two are opposed how?  Surely voters need a reason to want political education; as it is a lot of people know their vote means **** all, so what encouragement do they have in a system that rewards the minority lucky enough to be in marginal seats?

[q]
Which reduces the number of seats available to be won based on local issues for a start. It also increases the disenfranchisement of the local vote since the area covered has to be larger. On top of that I'd argue that a fair number of independant MPs do win based on local support even if not local issues. The only way you're going to win an independant seat at a national election is if you are a famous celebrity.[/q]

The Scottish parliament has local-issue elected MPs in any case, though - why do you a think there's a 'Save Stobhill' MSP?  If anything, the system here encourages it; you can cast a vote for both a constituency issue (local MP), and a national issue (party vote).  In fact, we have more independent MSPs than there are independents at the (larger) Westminister parliament.