Yes, but similarly FPTP means that 49% of the electorate could be ignored. In fact, given the variation in constituency sizes, it's possible for the majority to be ignored. However, I agree with your point about PR having an impact on local representation, althought I'm dubious about the extent to which an MP actually benefits their geographical constituency.
Personally, I think that local Councillors tend to do far more, and when Councils come together and work at a regional level then they can coordinate and promote things important to the wider area, which I think has far greater benefit than an MP. This probably isn't the case nationally, but the North East has a very strong tradition of regional coordination, as it's the only way it has any chance of competing nationally. In fact, the main thing I'm aware of MPs doing is looking into issues when a disgruntled constituent writes to them about a given issue.
I'm not saying that MPs don't do anything important, but I just see local and national issues as being not quite mutually exclusive, but with little overlap. Obviously, things decided nationally will manifest themselves at a local level, but I've never been aware of what my MP has done for me directly, as opposed to (claiming to) represent my views in parliament.
So, by means of a brain-fart in reply, PR would choose MPs to sit in parliament and debate the bigger strategic choices, with the local issues given over a bit more to local Councils and regional-level organisations. In fact, another thing that some places have done is to introduce an elector Mayor, which seems to be a perfect way to address local issues, and would tie-in well with a reduction in MPs' local duties. No system is ever going to be perfect, but one where a party with 23% of the vote gets 9% of the seats is clearly very broken.
I'm not claiming to know these things for fact, but they're just based on my experiences and general impressions, and without any reflection on the ideas at all, it seems logical enough at first reading to me.
The election bitches!
Moderator: Forum Moderators
-
FatherJack
- Site Owner
- Posts: 9597
- Joined: May 16th, 2005, 15:31
- Location: Coventry, UK
- Contact:
While Proportional Representation (PR) would be fairer to the electorate, it does have a number of problems, so I'd be keen to learn of other methods that are sort of half-way.
With straight PR, as I understand it, each Party gets X amount of seats, based on their share of the vote. The Party then chooses, or has a list ready of which actual MPs get to sit in the commons.
The problems I can see with that are:
- you don't get to pick your own MP at all, indeed the notion of local MPs is all but done away with. Parties may select an area comprising several seats which an MP has to "cover".
- any local issues which many MPs campaign and work hard on - like hospital closures are diluted at best. Most MPs claim to live in and fight for their constituencies.
- while the BNP getting in would be unpalatable, it would be undemocratic to deny them if that's what the public really want. The problem is if they, or another small Party, make it their specific aim merely to disrupt parliament. It would open the door to other Parties based around thinly-disguised racial or religious lines, which is heading towards third-world politics.
- you can't get rid of an MP you really hate, such as an expenses fraudster. If the Party thinks s/he's great, they stay high on the list - eg. Portillo, Mandelson.
- no single-issue candidate would be able to stand, let alone win a seat. Many lose their deposits now, but do it to make a point or raise awareness, despite knowing they have no chance.
- no pirate Parties, nutters in cowboy hats, Christ costumes or holding up fists standing behind the winners. Only Parties with enough members to campaign across the country could be represented.
- how big would the voting form have to be to give all Parties this "fair" chance of election, nationwide? What about the Welsh/Scottish/N.Irish-only Parties? Why no Cornish/Northern/etc Parties?
Clearly it won't work as I've described, there would have to be some form of local representation, and local campaigning - but how do they include that, when every step away from every vote counting equally makes it more unfair? People want their votes to count, even in safe seats.
The constituency sizes Cameron talks about equalising are only a tiny step towards fairness. While currently a vote in the Western Isles is "worth" five times one on the Isle of Wight, that's the most extreme example, the ratio is more like 5/7 in most other places.
All I can come up with are convoluted mish-mashes:
1. Halve the number of constituencies (doubling their sizes). Vote for a local MP who gets to go to the commons. The share of the vote nationwide then decides who make up the other half of the house.
2. Same deal with the local MPs, maybe not half, but few enough that it's possible that Parties getting a higher share of the vote than is represented in their sitting MPs can "top up" their numbers from their spare Party members.
3. Have a separate Presidential-style election just for choosing who is the government, then vote in local MPs with elections (possibly over many weeks), with Parties not being allowed to stand if they have reached their MP "quota".
4. Put all candidates in the hat, then systematically "vote them off", evicting them from the House of Commons, Big Brother-style.
5. Have extra time, and then a penalty shootout.
Most of these suffer from one or more of the problems I outlined above though, and none of them would fully fix the situation we have now.
We have a winning team who can't lift the cup because they aren't hard enough to wrestle it from the opposing teams combined. PR wouldn't fix that, indeed it would give a Lab-Lib Loser-Loser pact more legitimacy.
An amalgamated Lab-eral Party could rightly claim to have more than 50% support, but they are unlikely to meld to that level, or win any friends doing it. A Con-Lib alliance looks even more unconvincing in terms of a coherent team, just a marriage of convenience which will do ill in restoring the public faith.
Ensuring a decisive outcome of an election where even the people can't decide requires a lot more thought, and probably, a lot more "unfairness".
With straight PR, as I understand it, each Party gets X amount of seats, based on their share of the vote. The Party then chooses, or has a list ready of which actual MPs get to sit in the commons.
The problems I can see with that are:
- you don't get to pick your own MP at all, indeed the notion of local MPs is all but done away with. Parties may select an area comprising several seats which an MP has to "cover".
- any local issues which many MPs campaign and work hard on - like hospital closures are diluted at best. Most MPs claim to live in and fight for their constituencies.
- while the BNP getting in would be unpalatable, it would be undemocratic to deny them if that's what the public really want. The problem is if they, or another small Party, make it their specific aim merely to disrupt parliament. It would open the door to other Parties based around thinly-disguised racial or religious lines, which is heading towards third-world politics.
- you can't get rid of an MP you really hate, such as an expenses fraudster. If the Party thinks s/he's great, they stay high on the list - eg. Portillo, Mandelson.
- no single-issue candidate would be able to stand, let alone win a seat. Many lose their deposits now, but do it to make a point or raise awareness, despite knowing they have no chance.
- no pirate Parties, nutters in cowboy hats, Christ costumes or holding up fists standing behind the winners. Only Parties with enough members to campaign across the country could be represented.
- how big would the voting form have to be to give all Parties this "fair" chance of election, nationwide? What about the Welsh/Scottish/N.Irish-only Parties? Why no Cornish/Northern/etc Parties?
Clearly it won't work as I've described, there would have to be some form of local representation, and local campaigning - but how do they include that, when every step away from every vote counting equally makes it more unfair? People want their votes to count, even in safe seats.
The constituency sizes Cameron talks about equalising are only a tiny step towards fairness. While currently a vote in the Western Isles is "worth" five times one on the Isle of Wight, that's the most extreme example, the ratio is more like 5/7 in most other places.
All I can come up with are convoluted mish-mashes:
1. Halve the number of constituencies (doubling their sizes). Vote for a local MP who gets to go to the commons. The share of the vote nationwide then decides who make up the other half of the house.
2. Same deal with the local MPs, maybe not half, but few enough that it's possible that Parties getting a higher share of the vote than is represented in their sitting MPs can "top up" their numbers from their spare Party members.
3. Have a separate Presidential-style election just for choosing who is the government, then vote in local MPs with elections (possibly over many weeks), with Parties not being allowed to stand if they have reached their MP "quota".
4. Put all candidates in the hat, then systematically "vote them off", evicting them from the House of Commons, Big Brother-style.
5. Have extra time, and then a penalty shootout.
Most of these suffer from one or more of the problems I outlined above though, and none of them would fully fix the situation we have now.
We have a winning team who can't lift the cup because they aren't hard enough to wrestle it from the opposing teams combined. PR wouldn't fix that, indeed it would give a Lab-Lib Loser-Loser pact more legitimacy.
An amalgamated Lab-eral Party could rightly claim to have more than 50% support, but they are unlikely to meld to that level, or win any friends doing it. A Con-Lib alliance looks even more unconvincing in terms of a coherent team, just a marriage of convenience which will do ill in restoring the public faith.
Ensuring a decisive outcome of an election where even the people can't decide requires a lot more thought, and probably, a lot more "unfairness".
Acouple of very interesting points have been made today.
The irony is that PR would lead to the sort of coalition wrangling we're witnessing now almost every time. FPTP was designed to prevent exactly this situation as much as possible.
Much as I struggle to admit it, the French actually have a pretty good PR based electoral system (so-called 'run off' voting), which ensures absolute majorities whilst allowing representative voting.
Cons are more able to stand by any compromises they make to Lib Dems in a coalition because they have a higher proportion of new MPs who can be persuaded/bullied/intimidated into line. Labour otoh have their same old core of hardliners who will refuse to budge, however much Gordon tries to pretend otherwise.
The irony is that PR would lead to the sort of coalition wrangling we're witnessing now almost every time. FPTP was designed to prevent exactly this situation as much as possible.
Much as I struggle to admit it, the French actually have a pretty good PR based electoral system (so-called 'run off' voting), which ensures absolute majorities whilst allowing representative voting.
Cons are more able to stand by any compromises they make to Lib Dems in a coalition because they have a higher proportion of new MPs who can be persuaded/bullied/intimidated into line. Labour otoh have their same old core of hardliners who will refuse to budge, however much Gordon tries to pretend otherwise.
That doesn't matter though, we've solved the whole local representation issue already!amblin wrote:I heard someone (just a random) mention on five live about the Single Transferrable Vote system.
It sounds like a reasonable method of accommodating PR - which I like because it's a fair representation of the country's views and FPTP - which I like because we get to kick Labour out of power every now and again so the Tories can fix the economy for a while.
But I haven't seen anywhere a demonstration of how it would apply in this country and how it would have affected this particular election, nor really how it can allow for local representation at a national level without significant watering down. That would be of interest.
A fair few interviewees on the radio these last few days have said that we need to start again from scratch with a whole new system, rather than just tinker around the edges. Indeed, the Electoral Commission has said the current way of doing things is based on the Victorian system, and so is clearly outdated.
As for the political wrangling, its only such an issue because we don't usually have it. If it happened every time then it would just be normal, and as I said before such coalitions are now the common way of organising Governments in Europe. I don't see the wrangling as being inherently bad, and I actually like the idea that a single party can't push legislation through without requiring proper debate and support from other groups. However, I do agree about it being the biggest loser who decides who is PM next week, although given the fact that the number of MPs for each party bears little relationship to the number of votes they won, it's just one more thing to add to the list of why we need electoral reform. For that reason, I'm very glad that the Lib Dems are in this position as I really hope it's a deal-maker or breaker for them.
Well, it's all happening now. Gordon's announced his intention to resign - good ridance to him. But Cleggles has asked for a formal negotiations with the Labour party because he was unable to sell the Cons compromise to his party. Seems like we may be ruled by a coalition of losers after all. Ed Balls or No Balls.
-
FatherJack
- Site Owner
- Posts: 9597
- Joined: May 16th, 2005, 15:31
- Location: Coventry, UK
- Contact:
I've for a while suspected Clegg of almost relying on his party to scupper the negotiations, letting him keep his perhaps rash promise to deal first with the 'winners' then get into bed with the entirely more comfortable red team "for the good of the country in this troubling time".
It'll be a pretty hard sell to the electorate though, just because Brown's gone it doesn't initiate a reset and suddenly make Labour all fluffy and nice again.
Or maybe it does. Maybe everyone would have voted Labour in again if their leader "didn't do that thing with his mouth." X-Factor politics.
It'll be a pretty hard sell to the electorate though, just because Brown's gone it doesn't initiate a reset and suddenly make Labour all fluffy and nice again.
Or maybe it does. Maybe everyone would have voted Labour in again if their leader "didn't do that thing with his mouth." X-Factor politics.
-
Roman Totale
- Robotic Bumlord
- Posts: 8475
- Joined: October 24th, 2004, 0:27
- Location: Manchester, UK