UK election system vs Proportional Representation

doh.ie

Check this out:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/seatcalculator/html/default.stm

Give each party or group 25%... click Calculate.

Hmm. What an odd system.

Thank God we have Proportional Representation here.
Would love to see what the UK results would be if it were in place.

Shabadu

True. Ireland has one of the best electoral systems in the world in terms of fairness, and thankfully electronic voting won't come in till the serious faults are ironed out. *phew*

Dinner

PR is definatley the fairest and best way to vote.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Blackjack

While the choice might only be PD/FF or FG/LAB, PR certainly beats the first past the post system. Generally the larger parties field a few candidates in the larger constituencies in order to maximise their transfers, which is largely why you are left with the above options. Outside of those parties you really only have the Independants, who largely get in on topical issues or the more extreme Left (SF, Socialist's etc) or Right wing (Christian Solidarity or whatever).
FPP tends to have smaller constituencies with 1 seat up for grabs, whereas PR has larger constituencies with a number of seats, thereby (well, in theory anyway) getting a better representation of the voting public's wishes.
In the UK the only real choices are Labour, Tory or Lib Dems. Regardless of what order you would like to see them in, the system will only allow 1 candidate to win through.
In PR you are likely to see others outside of the main parties take seats that they would not otherwise get in FPP.

RagShagBill

The only problem I see with PR is that it has a tendancy to produce more instable governments. However, long live PR.

Victor

Blackjack wrote:

In PR you are likely to see others outside of the main parties take seats that they would not otherwise get in FPP.

Probably, but PR-List much less so than PR-STV. PR-List (e.g. Germany) tends to favour small-medium parties over independents.

A Dub in Glasgo

A very poor system in the UK for actually reflecting the wishes of the people.

The winner in the election is Labour with a comfortable majority. They can then form a government having attained junst over 36% of the vote. The rest (ie 64%) will just have to lump it.

Democracy in action?

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

A very poor system in the UK for actually reflecting the wishes of the people.

The winner in the election is Labour with a comfortable majority. They can then form a government having attained junst over 36% of the vote. The rest (ie 64%) will just have to lump it.

Democracy in action?

Hard to say as that 64% include 33% or more of the Tory party who would not be of the hue to agree with the 36% or the 23%.
A lot of them wanted different things, and thus the polarity and of course there was a few per cent who would be tactical voters.
Coalitions would be the result of pr there and probably a LIB/Dem labour permanent affair unless the Tories got very strong which I think unlikely or a fourth force came into being.

What I found interesting is the poor performance of UKIP this time round and of course the poor performance of veritas.
The smile was wiped off the face of a guy that thinks the Irish are a race of pixies.
Their poorer performance was maybe down to the Tories taking back some of their clothes on the asylum issue and their strong defence of the pound,and continued cynical approach to Europe etc.
The Tories benefited from some of the labour dis affection in the marginals aswell.

Victor

Democracy at work

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/html/region_4.stm

BlitzKrieg

Scottish parliment uses a combination of PR and first past the post. It's interesting how the results turn out. In FPTP The green party doesnt even bother to stand for election, yet in PR they win a respectable number of seats. Its all quite interesting the difference it makes.

Political professers feel that the STV system in Ireland is one of the fairest in the world.

m1ke

What has first past the post delivered in the uk?
3 strong and exceptionally good Labour government's. It has also kept out small radical/fascist parties like UKIP, BNP, Veritas.

I find it hard to criticise the electoral system considering the way it's delivered such good government in the UK. Isn't that the point of having an election? to deliver a strong government, who govern without interferance or having to pander to the wishes of tiny parties in coalition with them - who end up having a disproportionate amount of influence.

PR at local level is a good thing, local/regional assemblies, devolved power.... all good. But in central government.... there's a strong argument for keeping FPP. Imagine a coalition government made up of conservative, bnp, ukip, ulster unionists and other's.... horrible to even think about.

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

Hard to say as that 64% include 33% or more of the Tory party who would not be of the hue to agree with the 36% or the 23%.
A lot of them wanted different things, and thus the polarity and of course there was a few per cent who would be tactical voters.
Coalitions would be the result of pr there and probably a LIB/Dem labour permanent affair unless the Tories got very strong which I think unlikely or a fourth force came into being.

What I found interesting is the poor performance of UKIP this time round and of course the poor performance of veritas.
The smile was wiped off the face of a guy that thinks the Irish are a race of pixies.
Their poorer performance was maybe down to the Tories taking back some of their clothes on the asylum issue and their strong defence of the pound,and continued cynical approach to Europe etc.
The Tories benefited from some of the labour dis affection in the marginals aswell.

the Problem with FPTP as well as delivering a majority of MPs on a 36% share of the vote is that it prevents people from voting for who they want to vote for
the Greens UKIP etc who all made a good showing in the european election (PR)did not make any impression in the FPTP system

people are forced to vote for the person they find least disagreeable in order to prevent someone more disagreeable from winning
In fact Blair and Labour used this very point in order to frighten people away from from voting Lib Dem ie vote LD and you will get the Tories

cdebru

m1ke wrote:

What has first past the post delivered in the uk?
3 strong and exceptionally good Labour government's. It has also kept out small radical/fascist parties like UKIP, BNP, Veritas.

I find it hard to criticise the electoral system considering the way it's delivered such good government in the UK. Isn't that the point of having an election? to deliver a strong government, who govern without interferance or having to pander to the wishes of tiny parties in coalition with them - who end up having a disproportionate amount of influence.

PR at local level is a good thing, local/regional assemblies, devolved power.... all good. But in central government.... there's a strong argument for keeping FPP. Imagine a coalition government made up of conservative, bnp, ukip, ulster unionists and other's.... horrible to even think about.

so you believe the purpose of the electoral system is to deliver a strong government rather than deliver a government that actually reflects the wishes of the electorate

cdebru

Victor wrote:

Democracy at work

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/html/region_4.stm

it is hard to believe that Blair can go around the world preaching about the virtues of democracy while presiding over a system that any tin pot dictator would be proud to have

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Victor

m1ke wrote:

Imagine a coalition government made up of conservative, bnp, ukip, ulster unionists and other's.... horrible to even think about.

See 1992-1997. :rolleyes:

cdebru

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

and your point is

Victor

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41120000/gif/_41120145_winning_party_share_gra416.gif (from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/constituencies/default.stm)

Labour got 81% more seats than the Conservatives, with only 9% of the vote. While strong government is important, so is balance. So is accountability.

Blackjack

What Victor Said.
With PR-STV, you have a better chance that your opionion is counted, as it takes the order of preference. The election of this week is a prime example of this. The distribution of the vote is entirely disproportionate to the seats won.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

cdebru

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

particularly countries where britain was the former occupier

and just because most other countries use this unfair system does not make it right


no system is perfect and the PR stv system does give an advantage to larger parties however it does bare some resemblance to the wishes of the people

unlike FPTP which has the ability to give results that bare no resemblance to the wishes of the people and can actually force people to vote against canidates rather than for canidates

Capt'n Midnight

FPTP tends to be all or nothing and many countries with it have a two party system. In theroy you can have a government with 25% of the electorate - actually less because of split votes less than half of the vote is needed and also then the populations vary in the constitiuencies. With a two party system you are getting a choice of benevolant dictartorship.

With FPTP here it would be an FF government without even the PD's to act as [strike]lapdog[/strike]watchdog. 41% was the average - in most single seaters it would top the pole unless there was tactical voting amongst the others. Look at how many times they have tried to get rid of it.

PR results in coalitions of smaller parties mainly because the smaller parties can still exist in such a system without concentrated localised support.

The real debate should be over the numbers of seats in a PR constitiuancy. Perhaps in the UK they should start with 1 then 2 in order to explain it more easily. Splitting the country into 3 / 4 / 5 seaters would be scary

The other problem with PR is that especially in the larger 5 seaters some other candidates can sneak in on a lot less than 1/5 of the vote - this can get small parties more than thier fair share of representatives elected.

oscarBravo

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

41% of what, exactly? The first-preference vote? How many times does it have to be explained that the whole point of PR/STV is that the first preference is not the sole deciding factor?

cdebru

http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm40/4090/contents.htm


the jenkins report on electoral reform in the UK

although as PR is not favored by labour or the tories it is unlikely to be ever implemented unless there is a hue and cry in the uk now that they have a majority government on a 36% vote share

and to think they sneered at george w

aodh_rua

I have to agree with all the pro-PR voices - although I think that our 5 seaters give Fianna Fail and their ability to manipulate transfers more seats than their percentage vote would entitle them.

In terms of the UK, I think their system is particularly faulty in the North where in the past tactical Unionist voting meant that majority Catholic\Nationalist areas had a UUP MP (pre-McGuinness Fermanagh had Martin Smith I think). In a completely polarised electoral environment first past the post seems completely inappropriate as you inevitably end up with a significant proportion - even a majority - of the popluation left unrepresented.