Proportional Representation

[sizsells]

Would it be a good thing or a bad thing for the Country ?.. I mean we are supposed to live in a Democratic Country and surely if a party is voted in by a majority the majority will be happy or is our archaic system scared of change

[threegee]

I think it would work best in the house of lords. It would give them the moral authority to block really bad bits of legislation without this Parliament Act nonsense - where the govt of the day gets its way anyway, despite how appallingly bad its legislation is - and bad we have had!

Getting rid of the PM's right to pack the lords out with his own failed cronies has to be good for democracy anyway.

A lot of what Cameron says about decisive parliaments is correct, and he doesn't have anything like as much to gain by taking an anti position as Labour has. It currently takes 44,000 votes to elect a Tory MP, but only 26,500 to elect a Labour one.

Of course the LDs have by far the most to gain, but is it really fair that when the majority of people in a constituency want either a Tory or Labour MP they should somehow be foisted off with a LD? The solutions to this problem all look bad for Joe Public, involving more MPs when we could probably do with about 10% less, as per Cameron's proposals.

So beware of politicians proposing change, as it's very likely to involve an even longer gravy-train - all in the public interest of course!

[Malcolm Robinson]

I don't understand any of the proposed PR changes!!!!

I don't understand the machinations or the consequences.

Can anyone explain it?????????????

[Brett]

The country is in such a state that it won't really matter who gets elected, it's going to take longer than anyone would like to make head nor tail of anything.

Taxes are inevitably going to go up.

Get out while you can!!!

[mercuryg]

Before we start messing with the voting system we have to get more than six out of ten people to vote.

[threegee]

I don't understand any of the proposed PR changes!!!!

I don't understand the machinations or the consequences.

Can anyone explain it?????????????

And... I thought it would be you who explained it to us all!

It's very simple really: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote Obviously why loads of other countries are rushing to adopt it (and those few who do keep tinkering with it).

[Malcolm Robinson]

This is as clear as mud!

Various forms of proportional representation exist, such as party-list proportional representation, where the groups correspond directly with candidate lists as usually given by political parties. Within this form a further distinction can be made depending on whether or not a voter can influence the election of candidates within a party list (open list and closed list respectively). Another kind of electoral system covered with the term proportional representation is the single transferable vote (STV), which, in turn, does not depend on the existence of political parties (and where the above-mentioned "measure of grouping" is entirely left up to the voters themselves). Elections for the Australian Senate use what is referred to as above-the-line voting where candidates belonging to registered political parties are grouped together on the ballot paper with the voter provided with the option of "group voting" a semi-open party list/individual candidate system.

There are also electoral systems, single non-transferable vote (SNTV) and cumulative voting, all of which offer a variant form of proportional representation.

[sizsells]

Before we start messing with the voting system we have to get more than six out of ten people to vote.

Well it may be an incentive for folks to vote KNOWING its possible the party they feel more inclinded to vote for might get in.

As in the case around here where if Harold Shipman was standing for Labour he would get in as Mobius said on this forum a while back, consequentaly the way I see it there are 4 votes going to waste possibly.

[Malcolm Robinson]

And... I thought it would be you who explained it to us all!

It's very simple really: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote Obviously why loads of other countries are rushing to adopt it (and those few who do keep tinkering with it).

With thanks to the BBC.

What are the electoral alternatives being discussed?

1. Additional member system

2. Alternative vote

3. Single transferrable vote

4. Proportional representation.

Additional member system:

In this system, people get one vote for a constituency representative and one vote for a representative from a larger area such as a county or region.

Alternative vote:

Voters rank the candidates. If no candidate has 50% of first preferences then second preferences are counted and so on until someone has a majority.

Single transferrable vote:

Several constituencies are combined and voters rank the candidates. Members are elected once they pass a certain number of votes, known as a quota.

Proportional representation:

Everyone has a single vote. Each party has a list of candidates and the number of them elected depends on the number of votes the party gets nationwide.

So everyone clear now................

[sizsells]

With thanks to the BBC.

What are the electoral alternatives being discussed?

1. Additional member system

2. Alternative vote

3. Single transferrable vote

4. Proportional representation.

Additional member system:

In this system, people get one vote for a constituency representative and one vote for a representative from a larger area such as a county or region.

Alternative vote:

Voters rank the candidates. If no candidate has 50% of first preferences then second preferences are counted and so on until someone has a majority.

Single transferrable vote:

Several constituencies are combined and voters rank the candidates. Members are elected once they pass a certain number of votes, known as a quota.

Proportional representation:

Everyone has a single vote. Each party has a list of candidates and the number of them elected depends on the number of votes the party gets nationwide.

So everyone clear now................

PR is definatly the best idea

I cannot see why certain parties are scared of it

[threegee]

It's win-win for the Tories on this one. If the present negotiations break down they'll say this is what we are heading for IF we were to adopt PR. If they don't and a coalition is patched together then they'll say things would have been much better if we hadn't been compromised, and they'll be plugging that at the next election.

As far as Labour is concerned Gordon is quite prepared to put Labour at a huge disadvantage for his own immediate purposes, but senior Labour figures can see past the next few months and how this would be suicidal.

I wonder how many of the rent-a-mob demonstrating yesterday - if taken aside and asked to explain how what EXACTLY they were demonstrating for - could give a coherent answer as to how it would work in practise? It's one of the "simple" type of ideas (like communism) which appeal to the sorts of people who don't think through the practical consequences, and how human nature will exploit them.

All any form of PR will yield is more politicians, more public expense, more fudges, and more excuses why things don't change! It's a change to less change!

[sizsells]

It's win-win for the Tories on this one. If the present negotiations break down they'll say this is what we are heading for IF we were to adopt PR. If they don't and a coalition is patched together then they'll say things would have been much better if we hadn't been compromised, and they'll be plugging that at the next election.

As far as Labour is concerned Gordon is quite prepared to put Labour at a huge disadvantage for his own immediate purposes, but senior Labour figures can see past the next few months and how this would be suicidal.

I wonder how many of the rent-a-mob demonstrating yesterday - if taken aside and asked to explain how what EXACTLY they were demonstrating for - could give a coherent answer as to how it would work in practise? It's one of the "simple" type of ideas (like communism) which appeal to the sorts of people who don't think through the practical consequences, and how human nature will exploit them.

All any form of PR will yield is more politicians, more public expense, more fudges, and more excuses why things don't change! It's a change to less change!

And MORE democratic

[threegee]

And MORE democratic

Depends on what you mean by... I don't think that politicians hatching deals in secret is very democratic.

At least when you put someone in on a firm manifesto you've got some sort of benchmark as to whether they've delivered or not. With this form of horse trading you don't even know exactly what you're voting for, or the character and record of who you are voting for!

It all boils down to whether the MPs are representing you or their party. With FPTP they are representing you even if you didn't vote for them, and you can take your problem to them and they are obliged to listen. Who can you take a problem to when there's a hodge podge of various parties who don't necessarily represent your neck of the woods? If they are not there to represent their constituents what exactly are they there for, and in these days of instant communication do we even need them anyway?

The MPs themselves will tell you that the days of policy swaying speeches in parliament are long gone. They get up and spout and no one listens. The parliamentary process as was is totally pointless!

[sizsells]

Depends on what you mean by... I don't think that politicians hatching deals in secret is very democratic.

At least when you put someone in on a firm manifesto you've got some sort of benchmark as to whether they've delivered or not. With this form of horse trading you don't even know exactly what you're voting for, or the character and record of who you are voting for!

It all boils down to whether the MPs are representing you or their party. With FPTP they are representing you even if you didn't vote for them, and you can take your problem to them and they are obliged to listen. Who can you take a problem to when there's a hodge podge of various parties who don't necessarily represent your neck of the woods? If they are not there to represent their constituents what exactly are they there for, and in these days of instant communication do we even need them anyway?

The MPs themselves will tell you that the days of policy swaying speeches in parliament are long gone. They get up and spout and no one listens. The parliamentary process as was is totally pointless!

I fully understand your sentiments and your right hatching deals behind closed doors is far from democratic and the way politics is and has been for a long time I also believe is wrong.

These people are elected by the people to act in the best interests for the people apperently.

Politics needs a good kick up the backside as does the voting system I do think PR would be a start.

[Stephen]

With thanks to the BBC.

What are the electoral alternatives being discussed?

1. Additional member system

2. Alternative vote

3. Single transferrable vote

4. Proportional representation.

Additional member system:

In this system, people get one vote for a constituency representative and one vote for a representative from a larger area such as a county or region.

Alternative vote:

Voters rank the candidates. If no candidate has 50% of first preferences then second preferences are counted and so on until someone has a majority.

Single transferrable vote:

Several constituencies are combined and voters rank the candidates. Members are elected once they pass a certain number of votes, known as a quota.

Proportional representation:

Everyone has a single vote. Each party has a list of candidates and the number of them elected depends on the number of votes the party gets nationwide.

So everyone clear now................

What the BBC are calling Proportional Representation above is really the List system, I suppose you could call it 'Pure PR'. We have a form of it in European elections at regional level, and I would strongly oppose this at a nationwide level as it gives all the power to the political parties to choose the candidates at the top of the list who would almost certainly get elected.

Lib Dem policy is for Single Transferable Vote, and funnily enough this is also the policy of Conservative Action for Electoral Reform. This is currently in use for most elections in Northern Ireland (except Westminster), and council elections in Scotland. Also, I never realised until I read the Conservative site that it was in use in multi-member University seats in Westminster elections until University seats were abolished in 1950.

Additional Member System is the one used for the Scottish Parliament. I think it's not a bad idea as you can vote for someone as your local MP based on the person concerned, and cast a different vote for the party you would like to have most seats.

Alternative Vote isn't proportional, but it would mean every MP needed the support of at least 50% of their electorate, and would put an end to tactical voting. This was the system the Labour party were proposing until 10.01pm last Thursday when they appeared to convert to AV+, similar to the Additional Member System.

[Malcolm Robinson]

What the BBC are calling Proportional Representation above is really the List system, I suppose you could call it 'Pure PR'. We have a form of it in European elections at regional level, and I would strongly oppose this at a nationwide level as it gives all the power to the political parties to choose the candidates at the top of the list who would almost certainly get elected.

Lib Dem policy is for Single Transferable Vote, and funnily enough this is also the policy of Conservative Action for Electoral Reform. This is currently in use for most elections in Northern Ireland (except Westminster), and council elections in Scotland. Also, I never realised until I read the Conservative site that it was in use in multi-member University seats in Westminster elections until University seats were abolished in 1950.

Additional Member System is the one used for the Scottish Parliament. I think it's not a bad idea as you can vote for someone as your local MP based on the person concerned, and cast a different vote for the party you would like to have most seats.

Alternative Vote isn't proportional, but it would mean every MP needed the support of at least 50% of their electorate, and would put an end to tactical voting. This was the system the Labour party were proposing until 10.01pm last Thursday when they appeared to convert to AV+, similar to the Additional Member System.

Stephen,

I tried to par it down so we could see the basics, if I put down all the permutations we would run out of room!

I think the present system has been absolutely shown to be flawed, at exactly the worst time it could possibly pick! We really need a more modern electoral system but most I have read about are far too complex to deliver what is really quite a simple request?

[Monsta®]

so is the country sank then? should i book plane tickets to mexico now?

[Stephen]

Stephen,

I tried to par it down so we could see the basics, if I put down all the permutations we would run out of room!

I think the present system has been absolutely shown to be flawed, at exactly the worst time it could possibly pick! We really need a more modern electoral system but most I have read about are far too complex to deliver what is really quite a simple request?

Well STV is probably the most complex to count, but it isn't hard to vote. If Northumberland was a 4-member STV constituency, then you would have four Labour candidates, four Conservatives, four Lib Dems etc and would vote for all your preferred candidates in order of preference, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc

So if you lived in Wansbeck and wanted to vote Labour but preferred that someone other than Ian Lavery got elected, you could vote for the other 3 Labour candidates first and him 4th, and keep going for as long as you cared.

The result would probably be the most popular Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem candidates being elected and perhaps another Labour candidate - I reckon in this election it would have been Ronnie Campbell, not sure about the Conservative as there were no incumbents, Alan Beith, and A.N.Other. They would all be our MPs and we could choose whichever one we wanted to represent us if we had any issues we wanted them to take up.

The biggest drawback (unless of course you are against proportional voting on principle) is the number of names on the ballot paper.

[Malcolm Robinson]

so is the country sank then? should i book plane tickets to mexico now?

Only if you want to fly through that dammed ash cloud again........

You could always try Yoga airways..........

[Malcolm Robinson]

Well STV is probably the most complex to count, but it isn't hard to vote. If Northumberland was a 4-member STV constituency, then you would have four Labour candidates, four Conservatives, four Lib Dems etc and would vote for all your preferred candidates in order of preference, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc

So if you lived in Wansbeck and wanted to vote Labour but preferred that someone other than Ian Lavery got elected, you could vote for the other 3 Labour candidates first and him 4th, and keep going for as long as you cared.

The result would probably be the most popular Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem candidates being elected and perhaps another Labour candidate - I reckon in this election it would have been Ronnie Campbell, not sure about the Conservative as there were no incumbents, Alan Beith, and A.N.Other. They would all be our MPs and we could choose whichever one we wanted to represent us if we had any issues we wanted them to take up.

The biggest drawback (unless of course you are against proportional voting on principle) is the number of names on the ballot paper.

Why not just get rid of political parties and vote for people who you believe are up to the job instead of ones because they wear the right coloured rosette?

[sizsells]

Why not just get rid of political parties and vote for people who you believe are up to the job instead of ones because they wear the right coloured rosette?

The Colour makes no difference to me ..........I,m colour blind

[Monsta®]

Only if you want to fly through that dammed ash cloud again........

You could always try Yoga airways..........

nah it'll never take off!

[Stephen]

Why not just get rid of political parties and vote for people who you believe are up to the job instead of ones because they wear the right coloured rosette?

The Independent Network did endorse 47 candidates in the election and there were others, including one in Wansbeck - so they were there, but people didn't vote for them. For some people it's about electing an individual as your local MP, for others it's about voting for a manifesto for the country. IMO a voting system should try its best to let people do both.

[Malcolm Robinson]

The Independent Network did endorse 47 candidates in the election and there were others, including one in Wansbeck - so they were there, but people didn't vote for them. For some people it's about electing an individual as your local MP, for others it's about voting for a manifesto for the country. IMO a voting system should try its best to let people do both.

Aren't quite a few people who voted for a manifesto about to see their vote compromised considering the horse trading which is going on and isn't that a fact of life within the realms of PR style voting?

[threegee]

Why not just get rid of political parties and vote for people who you believe are up to the job instead of ones because they wear the right coloured rosette?

Because you couldn't! One way or another they'd club up - even covertly. With parties at least you know broadly what they support and are agin. Most people don't bother to do their research; how many people voted LibDem just because it was neither Labour nor Tory without checking exactly what they were voting for? The majority I'd wager! I'm Nick and I'm different, without being required to specify how they were different, and with no (modern) record of failure, was the most powerful thing they had going for them. So, difficult even with parties, and near impossible without!

The alternative is to get rid of MPs and simply elect a government. That won't at all appeal to the political classes as it means many fewer politicians. The so-called constituency work could be done by an expansion of the ombudsman, possibly merging it all into the local CAB. Combine that with some on-line opinion canvasing with teeth, and mandatory e-referendums on major matters, and you'd likely get a stronger democracy at a much lower price.

Can someone explain what happens when you've taken a problem to an MP and it has been progressed a way, then that MP is suddenly removed from office?