Electoral Reform

[cyrusr]

31 minutes ago, Anthony said:

A second addition to the pro PR argument, which I'll admit is idealistic, is that everyone deserves a voice, and a democracy should provide that. If people don't have a voice, then the democracy loses some legitimacy, which opens a crack for authoritarians (Trump, Putin etc) to leverage. Now then, just before Brexit, where did Aaron Banks get a big wodge of cash from again?

Well exactly, I remember watching a video about a month ago with Caroline Lucas talking about the leave vote with James O’Brien and actually the vote was more about dissatisfaction and not having their voice heard. 

@Mr_Dogg, I’m not entirely sure (was far too tired yesterday to go through the report) but I believe that the evidence of votes for each party/region/candidate can be broken sufficiently to provide the where each of the PR system to be used. The more complex methodologies I suspect will have a higher margin of error but say if it was dealt with on a pure party share (Party PR I believe without going back) then that is simply done on % of votes so very easy to calculate. 

It also doesn’t account for possible tactical voting etc. and ultimately can be a definite guide; however it is clear the the way we went in 2017/2019 was not the way the majority of the country wanted which if we had some form of PR, it would very likely have been avoided. 

[colhint]

I think there are obvious problems with PR but the other side of that is the polar opinions of people who feel left out. 

My thought would to make some ministries almost independent. Maybe the NHS for example. Have a committee of 12. 6 to whoever wins the election 5 to the main opposition and one from the next party on the list. Then set a standard budget of minimum of x % of GDP to an average of y %. So over a 10 year period y is achieved. These people then manage the budget and operations.  This way it takes out all the stupid for for tat arguements.  I don't believe for a minute Labour think everything the Tories do with the NHS is wrong, but they will just argue with what they agree with to score points, and use it as a political tool. Similarly I believe the Tories in opposition would do exactly the same.

the same could apply to defence maybe.

[bickster]

I'm all for any politician making statements like this. If they really do believe in FPTP its possibly the worst thing they can do in the current circumstances 

 

[LondonLax]

26 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Just a quick question for PR supporters. 

Under FPTP I have an MP who is directly responsible for my home area. He has a vested interest in helping me and my neighbours because we voted for him and might do so again in the future. 

Under PR how do you maintain that local accountability?  How does PR ensue every community has a "go to" MP?

 

New Zealand, Germany and a few other countries do this by having a certain number of seats reserved for elected representatives from each electorate and then a bunch of extra seats that get assigned based on the proportion of the vote each party receive (in NZs case 72 of 120 seats are representative of a local constituency and the remainder are dished out to party members from a party list). It’s referred to as Mixed Member Proportional Representation (MMP)

I guess in practice that would mean the minority and more extreme parties would not have an electorate to represent (like under FPTP) but would possibly get represented in a few of the extra seats available. 

Edited June 12 by LondonLax

[cyrusr]

@Mandy Lifeboats I posted this link the other day in this thread: - 

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/latest-news-and-research/publications/lessons-not-learnt-the-2015-2017-2019-general-elections/

This sets out alternative methods of PR including the MMP/AMS (Additional Member System). There are ways in which you can still have a "go to MP". Alternatively, if you want to keep the MP selection "high level", you could potentially give more power to local councils in order to deal with more local issues and that is where your "go to politician" is. I also breakdown the potential outcomes under PR options of the last 3 elections which TLDR probably still have meant the Brexit vote but we probably wouldn't have endorsed the Tory way forward in both 2017/9. 

I was reading your posts in the general election thread, and whilst I get the concerns about PR, for there to be effective "strong government" also requires competent government. Since 2010 we have had Cameron/May/Johnston/Truss/Sunak as PM and Miliband/Corbyn/Starmer as opposition. I would suggest there are more incompetent leaders there than competent and without any real doubt since 20150 (where we've had non-coalition governments) the country has got worse. All it has done is maintained a government which the majority of people do not want. 

With PR it will lead to coalition, but do not forget both Labour and Tories are effectively "coalitions" already. I generally think part of the issue is the mindset of coalition is bad, where rather if politicians actually put country before party and worked together, does that not provide more stability for the country rather than swinging left/right every 10/20 years? 

[tonyh29]

I think the voting system needs changing so that people who vote for "whoever is most likely to stop the party I don't like " winning, are denied the vote  ...but , probably quite tricky to implement 

 

On one hand it would seem crazy that Reform will secure xxx thousand more votes than the Lib Dems and most likely receive zero seats  , to maybe 30 + for the Libs 

but on the other hand , PR would give us a parliament more like the European countries and we didn't vote leave to mirror their parliaments   

 

[PaulC]

On 04/06/2024 at 09:29, Mandy Lifeboats said:

I strongly oppose proportionate representation.   

We have some really nasty and dishonest people in politics who win 1 or 2% of the national vote. Presently they get no seats in Parliament.  

Under proportionate representation these smaller parties often become crucial to deciding who becomes the government.  So they often manage to get idiotic policies through as part of the bargain.  

I don't want to see extremists having any say in running this country. Whether that be National Front, English Defence League, Hamas UK,  Just Stop Oil etc.  

 

 

It couid still happen one day that an extreme party gets in through fptp if both Conservative and Labour keep screwing up. I'm for it because because the current  system is totally outdated and tactical voting is a joke. 

[Jareth]

Surely PR is never likely to happen for the simple fact that it would allow a party of the left to get a strong foothold. Corbyn was marmite but those ideas have an audience, even non lefties agree with nationalising water and rail. Suppose the only way it happens is if there's a hung parliament but that does not appear to be likely.

[ml1dch]

24 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Surely PR is never likely to happen for the simple fact that it would allow a party of the left to get a strong foothold. Corbyn was marmite but those ideas have an audience, even non lefties agree with nationalising water and rail. Suppose the only way it happens is if there's a hung parliament but that does not appear to be likely.

The ideas of Farage (and even further right) have an audience as well. Millions of voters want net-migration reduced to zero. So the argument against is that it allows fringe parties more legislative power, but as things stand currently it allows fringe ideas to gain popularity in mainstream parties (not that I'm suggesting your two examples are fringe ideas), so the overall result is broadly the same.  

The bit in italics is definitely the only way it happens - and it won't happen this time, but it's easy to see a scenario in the next couple of election cycles where it does. Just train-of-thoughting it, the 2028 election takes Starmer's majority from 200 to 50, with the remaining seats taken by a mish-mash of the Lib Dems (popularity now swelling in formerly Labour cities and among the young on their return to full-on Europhilia), the Tories (still a bin-fire and now on their seventh leader since 2015), Reform and the Greens. 

In 2031 Starmer resigns to give his successor a year to prepare for their own election, but new PM Streeting / Khan / Burnham / Reeves / TBA seeks their own mandate straight away. Labour take 250 seats and the others get 80 each. There are weeks of horse-trading over a coalition, but neither the Lib Dems or Greens are happy to support Labour in a FPTP parliament. Prime Minister Burnham tables legislation for a referendum on PR, which Labour are now happy to back as it's the thing that will now keep them in power.

The public, horrified at the chaos that FPTP has caused overwhelmingly backs PR which now has complete cross-party support and the next election is held under the new system. Which probably happens a year or so later as the minor partners fancy their chances under a PR election so feel there's no point propping up the Government anymore. 

Take it to the bookies now. 

[meregreen]

Parliament should represent the views of the whole electorate. FPTP doesn’t enable that. It’s been ditched by most democracies. We might not like some of the views of the characters who would enter the commons. But that is the very essence of a true democracy. It’s introduction is long overdue. And I speak as a member of the Labour Party, who under the present system could potentially be on the end of a landslide result. It’s a question of what is fair, not expedient.

[ender4]

On 04/06/2024 at 09:29, Mandy Lifeboats said:

I strongly oppose proportionate representation.   

We have some really nasty and dishonest people in politics who win 1 or 2% of the national vote. Presently they get no seats in Parliament.  

Under proportionate representation these smaller parties often become crucial to deciding who becomes the government.  So they often manage to get idiotic policies through as part of the bargain.  

I don't want to see extremists having any say in running this country. Whether that be National Front, English Defence League, Hamas UK,  Just Stop Oil etc.  

This. I wanted PR in 2011 and for many years beforehand. However, with the rise of the popular mainstream Far Right parties globally, i think PR is very dangerous for the UK now.  

[ml1dch]

 

[bickster]

#Tories4PR  

[Davkaus]

"Soviet-style", they're bringing out all the greatest hits.

[Mandy Lifeboats]

Based on current voting % a Conservative/Reform coalition could be holding power this morning. 

That frightens me.

[sharkyvilla]

1 hour ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Based on current voting % a Conservative/Reform coalition could be holding power this morning. 

That frightens me.

But on the other hand this must have been one of the biggest successes for tactical voting ever and you could equally lump the Labour and Lib Dems' votes together and get more by over 2 million.  

[cyrusr]

1 hour ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Based on current voting % a Conservative/Reform coalition could be holding power this morning. 

That frightens me.

I know that this was an hour ago so not sure what figures you are looking at but at 7.30am (ish) that would make about 37.9% which wouldn’t be enough for power.

A Labour/Lib Dem coalition would be 46.3% and therefore would be more than Tory/Reform. If they added the Greens it would get them over 50% so that would probably be the coalition. To be honest that seems to be where the country is right now.

This is also only 1 method of PR as with my previous posts in this thread. I mean, the data will eventually come out but I would be shocked if it came back to suggest Tory/Reform under PR in any form.

I think with the argument for/against PR you cannot use the fact that Reform are getting a lot of votes and you don’t like their policies (nor do I).

The best way to address populism is by actually dealing with the underlying factors as to why they want to vote for it. I think in this scenario, it’s because peoples living standards have gotten worse over the last 15 years or so. Rather than dealing with the actual issue, there has been basically blaming of the issue on Labour, then the EU, then illegal immigrants. The issue, probably, is more about a lack of investment in infrastructure and corruption/inefficiency by those in charge. 

Sort that out, and although Farage et al will blame something else instead, people won’t feel the need for quick fix solutions.

I know drifted away from PR with the last bit, but I think it addresses your main concern with PR  

I will also add thank you for your work yesterday. It’s people like you that ensures that we are able to have a functioning democracy.

[Mandy Lifeboats]

3 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said:

But on the other hand this must have been one of the biggest successes for tactical voting ever and you could equally lump the Labour and Lib Dems' votes together and get more by over 2 million.  

Absolutely. 

But in this scenario the government of the UK would be decided not by the electorate. It would be decided by the LD leader's willingness to enter an alliance with Labour. 

This is the reason I don't like PR.  It gives smaller parties a disproportionate level of power.  

Theoretically a party with 49% of the vote could see itself in opposition to a coalition of 5 parties who each got 10% of the votes. 

Is it right that a party with 49% of the vote could have no say in government whilst a party with 10% gets to introduce some of its policies? 

In my opinion, definitely not. 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

2 minutes ago, cyrusr said:

I know that this was an hour ago so not sure what figures you are looking at but at 7.30am (ish) that would make about 37.9% which wouldn’t be enough for power.

A Labour/Lib Dem coalition would be 46.3% and therefore would be more than Tory/Reform. If they added the Greens it would get them over 50% so that would probably be the coalition. To be honest that seems to be where the country is right now.

It's obvious that the other parties would form a coalition to stop a Tory/Reform coalition. 

I posted what COULD happen not what WOULD happen.  

Theoretically our government could be decided by Ed Davey's willingness to form a coalition with Labour. 

I don’t agree with a syatem where the Labour Party (with significantly more votes than any other party) could find itself with no ministers whilst Farage is PM and the Tories are the ministers. 

It gives the most popular party no power, which is clearly disproportionate. 

[cheltenham_villa]

i think when you have a referendum you are asking the masses what they think on a topic. I dont believe the majority really understood about the current system/the alternatives and any perceived flaws.

I still think thats the case. Ask the average person to explain how voting works today, im not convinced they could.