General Chat

Does anybody have any strong views on proportional representation?

For my part I feel this is a huge decision to make with very little freely available information.

I am also worried that it is actually too fair and this was how the National Socialist Party came to power in Germany at a time of world instability.
Will it allow extremists to manipulate the system?P

Depends what you mean by "extremist". Some people use this to describe someone who has a different point of view, although I'm sure that's not you. Not quite sure what you mean by "too fair", not that I necessarily disagree. But seems to me that a lot of those opposed just don't like change. One of the problems is that there are various sorts of PR in use around the world so it gets confusing. However, we already use a form of it in the UK to elect the Scottish Parliament, which seems to be fairly stable so far (elections next month!). It's an interesting system which use both the existing system and PR. Take a look at this:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/education/resources/learningresources/propRep.htm

Are we talking about the proposed 'Alternative Voting' system? or 'proportional representation' ? there are differences.

One only has to look at how AV worked when the Labour Party selected Ed Milliband as leader by this method.

In the first round David Milliband secured about 37% of the total vote, his brother Ed Milliband secured 32%. 3 other candidates secured lower percentages of the vote.

In accordance with AV rules, the lowest scoring candidate was eliminated and the votes re-allocated according to this candidates second choice. This went on for 2 more rounds until 3 candidates had been eliminated and their second choices reallocated.

When only 2 candidates remained, Ed Milliband had scraped home with a shade over 50% of the votes and was duly elected.

But originally he had only been chosen by 32% of the original votes!

HOW CAN THIS BE FAIR?

The BNP support a NO vote.

This quote from a debate elsewhere

"Actually, it will make it more difficult for extremist parties to get elected, because they would require 50% support in the constituency. At the moment, there are some three way marginals where BNP could slip through with about 30% of the vote. "

Actually my take on it would be that though I hope no-one would be dumb enough to vote in an extremist MP in any area...it might be as well that they are 'out there in plain sight' where everyone can see exactly what they are up to! Harder to mislead those who are gullible enough to fall for their whitewash tactics?

I don't think from what i have read so far that it will favour the extremists....but I do think everyone should weigh it up very carefully and read as much as possible, not just the short and not terriblly enlightening booklet sent out!

This is,I think,what makes me feel uneasy about it. The current system is not perfect but we know how it works, we are used to it.

I don't know that I have the intellectual and more especially the mathamatical,ability to properly understand the two systems.

Probably I was designed to live in a dictatorship!

We have proportional respresentation in Australia. I downloaded this info from the net.

Proportional Representation in Australia

Proportional representation electoral systems are used in Australia to elect candidates to the Senate, the upper houses of NSW, Victoria, South Australia, and Western Australia, the Lower House of Tasmania, the ACT Legislative Assembly and many Local Government Councils.

What does ‘proportional representation’ mean?
Proportional Representation (PR) is the term that describes a group of electoral systems used to elect candidates in multi-member electorates. Under PR, parties, groups and independent candidates are elected to the Parliament in proportion to their support in the electorate.

The composition of a Legislature where members are elected using PR usually better reflects the proportions of votes received by candidates on a State or Territory-wide basis than houses where members are elected to single seat electorates.

There are three main types of PR electoral systems:

•list systems;
•mixed-member proportional systems; and
•single transferable vote (STV) systems.
All Australian PR electoral systems are STV systems

Single transferable vote (STV)
Under STV electoral systems, each elector’s vote can be transferred between candidates in the order of the elector’s preferences.

If you would like to read more it is available on this link.

http://www.eca.gov.au/systems/proportional/proportion_rep.htm

Just as there are those who know how to work the system in other ways I am sure there is some whizz kid who knows exactly how to fiddle this one and he could well be the first step toward things we could not wish for.

Couldn't he?

One thing it MIGHT do,...( certainly would for me at least if I thought there was any possibility of extremists having a chance of getting a seat)...would be to get people off their behinds and into a voting booth!

After all if the choice is between LibDem/ Conservatives and Labour, you could argue they aren't all that different, throw BNP into the mix and you would have me and I suspect a large number who don't bother to vote normally down to vote as soon as they open!

Sharron asks if we have strong views, on this. Well, I do have views, but that's all they are, and I do not want to argue.
No, I do not fancy the idea of proportional representation. I like having my right to vote, whether I use it or not. I remember the first election after my 21st birthday, and how proud I was to be able to do so, though it may have only been a local election.
In Germany, the National Socialist Party, rose to power, by playing on the sympathies of the people, at that time.
Heavy reparations,exacted by the winning powers of WW1, led to instability for the people of Germany. Rationing, the use of ground acorns for coffee, amongst other things, led to a very depressed nation, looking for a way out, any way. Yes, they had fought in a war, but they were still suffering. The NSP, came along at the right time, for them,as eventually did that funny little man, with the odd shaped haircut. About the only good thing to come out of him, was the building of ther Autobahn. I have a modern 'A' level in this subject.
No, I do not want to see proportional representation in this country, as I do not in my life-time want to see the rise of anymore quasi-political groups. I want to the right to be able to speak for myself.
Just think, we too could live in a policed state,(more than we do now) and would not be allowed the freedom to make the comments on a public forum, as we are doing here.
As I said at the onset, just my view, not an arguement.
Julia in Derbyshire

I had a google around and picked up on this for Stole on Trent...interesting because it has a made the news with EDL marches and has an active BNP ( I know this also because I rec' an email yesterday about a proposed rally there by 'hope not hate')

http://pitsnpots.co.uk/news/2011/02/alternative-vote

It shows how the AV system might have worked with the results of the last election

It wories me that there has been so little news coverage too. This is an extremely important issue but Mr Oik will be voting on it,if he can be bothered, and nobody will have explained it to him,

This is not in any way an Oikist comment. I am an Oik myself and would like to have the bones explained to me.

I know that Jordan has lost some hair and that Kate Middleton was bullied at school because these things have been prioritised in the red tops but nothing has been shouted at me about this,

How odd too,that I will vote on this but not the powers of the Law Lords in Ordinary being removed from the House of Lords to a seperate department,the Supreme Court.

Nor was I consulted about devolution.

Surely,if I am expected to make a considered decision on one vital issue I should be assumed to be able to make decisions on other things.

N.Ireland had PR certainly in the late seventies - assume they still have it and NO when I was living there I did not like it.

For Me, My vote is My Vote,it goes to the person I think is worthy of it.I do not and will not be told or encouraged to make other choices in case the person I voted for did,nt get enough votes to get elected.Its something the Lib/Dems want because that is the only way they will ever get any power.They want to get their noses in the trough just like the other parties.**M**.

We are not voting on Proportional Representation, as has already been stated.

The Electoral Commission have issued a leaflet on how the AV proposal will work for electing MP's. A copy should be delivered to every household over the next few days.

Incidentally you are not obliged to rank for more than one candidate if you don't wish to, so you can still continue to vote just for the one person you wish to be elected, as happens now.

You have to wonder why, before the General election and the coalition talks.....Nick Clegg, amongst others who are now urging everyone to vote yes described it as “miserable little compromise"..they don't even believe it in themselves FGS !! lol x

To vote "yes" in my opinion is to vote for compromise. If you are a Conservative at the moment you will no doubt be disappointed that Mr Clegg is holding them back from what they would like to do. The same will probably be the case if Labour win the next election, although it is more likely that smaller parties will also be holding things back as well, and their will be grubby little deals made, albeit that some people would like compromise over strong government.

On a jocular note, should you wish to vote "yes" in this AV election, can you put "no" as an alternative.

Pardon my bias.

Happy days

Your vote won't just go to anyone Edward! It will only ever go to who you select ...whether that is your first and only choice or whether you make a second/ third choice also...

Put it this way as an example

if I voted Labour but could at a pinch put up with Lib Dems considering their policies to be closer to my politics than the Conservatives, then I would put Lib dems as my second choice...

How can it be democratic when a candidate is elected but was not the choice of a majority of those who voted in a constituency? How can he/she represent their views if they do not share them? I don't have strong views on this but I would like to know why some do not see such a situation as undemocratic. I realise that there are umpteen systems in operation around the world which attempt to address this issue but the first step is to debate whether people can see the flaw in the present arrangements. It seems that many cannot. Is it can't or just won't?

The reason it is seen to be fairer is that the winning candidate has received support from more voters, albeit by some voters as their second or third choice. Whereas under FPTP, those voters who selected loosing candidates, had no choice at all.

So take a three party example,

Party one gets 40%
Party two gets 35%
Party three gets 30%

Under FPTP party one gets in with a minority vote of 45%
.
Under AV, only Party three is eliminated and their votes are re-allocated based on the voters second cholce, say 16% to party two, 4% to party one

So the new situation is

Party one 44%
Party two 51%

So party two is duly elected with total votes cast by the majority.