Proportional Representation

[-:Undertaker:-]

Proportional Representation is a method of voting in elections. What it means is that basically the number of votes you get = determines your power in parliament/the number of seats you have.

The method we in the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland currently use is known as 'first past the post' which basically means this;

Below are some made up election results of the system we use;


-----------------------------------------------------

Aintree (counts as 1 seat)
voters: 100,000

Conservative recieve: 40,000
Liberal Democrats recieve: 35,000
Labour recieve: 20,000
UKIP recieve: 5,000

Winner: Conservatives, who gain 1 seat.

-----------------------------------------------------

Glasgow East (counts as 1 seat)
voters: 5,000

Conservative recieve: 1,000
Liberal Democrats recieve: 1,000
Labour recieve: 2,500
UKIP recieve: 500

Winner: Labour, who gain 1 seat.

-----------------------------------------------------

So that would mean so far in the General Election, both Labour & Conservative would have 1 seat each in the house of commons. The problem and injustice of this is, Labour only recieved 2,500 votes compared to the Conservatives 40,000 votes but both count equally as 1 point closer to forming a government.

It also means that smaller parties such as UKIP who had no MP's in parliament despite recieving 2.38% of the national vote, although they do now have 1 MP, but only because a conservative defected to them in 2008.

Below is a genuine graph from the 2005 General Election which clearly shows how Labour have too many seats in parliament whereas the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats & UKIP are under-represented. If we had proportional representation each party across the country would be equally represented according to how many votes they recieved in an election.



So the question is, do you think the current system is fair or should we have proportional representation?

[Hazza]

Nope simple because it didn't work in Germany in the early 1900s because on laws were being passed, many coalitions were built to try and pass laws but by the time they got enough parties together the original law had changed, its stupid if you think about. It might be a 'fairer' way but its not practical.

[Virgin Mary]

No. It's stupid. It's like putting loads of people with different opinions in one room and asking them to come up with same ideas.

[Immenseman]

Awful idea. I don't see how it would work, people wouldn't be able to come to conclusions. When Government need to act quick on certain situations this system would make it a lot harder due to parties not agreeing. Too many parties would want different things to happen.

[-:Undertaker:-]

However it would mean a more fair representation if parliament, governments' would be more forced to stick by their manifesto or face defeat in a vote. I don't see how it is fair that Labour can get one seat in Scotland with only 5,000 people living in it whilst the conservatives in another constituancy could get 17,000 votes and still not even win that seat. That would mean the opinions of 5,000 people are placed over the opinion of 17,000 people.

The problem now is once a government is in, it can turn it's back on its promises and manifesto as much as it likes and can force any law they want through parliament because of a bloated and unjust majority compared to other parties.

[Bun]

Definitely stick with FPTP. It's simple, effective and easy. Why would you want to make things more confusing and discourage participation in politics? At least this way everybody knows what they are doing and if you don't like it, don't play the game.

[FlyingJesus]

Fairer is not the same as better. Minority governments are a far more dangerous thing than majority governments of people you might not like

[-:Undertaker:-]

In a fair parliament with PR, a government would have win support from other parties, to make sure the laws benefit and are supported by a large section of society. If we had proportional representation I doubt acts like the Lisbon Treaty could be forced through - that is democracy.

Proportional representation means that everyone gets a say, as they should in a democracy. Take the Lisbon Treaty for example, Labour promised a referendum on the treaty if they were voted in for a third term, they got voted in and what happend? - they knew they would lose so they rammed it through parliament.

[PriceTags]

If no party gets the most seats, all hell will break loose and smaller parties with dangerous views will be able to get in power more easily!!

[-:Undertaker:-]

If no party gets the most seats, all hell will break loose and smaller parties with dangerous views will be able to get in power more easily!!

If we got to a hung parliament then they would not be able to unite, the BNP are partly socialist from what I gather and UKIP are the opposite. The only coalitions being formed would be ones like below;

Conservative & UKIP
Conservative & Liberal Democrats
Labour & Liberal Democrats
Labour & Green Party
Liberal Democrats & Green Party

Besides, if a 'dangerous' party did get it, it would not be able to do anything. Do you really think the army, NATO & the world would stand by while we set up concentration camps, I know they wouldn't. That was Europe in the early 1900's, not the twenty first century.