Proportional Representation (UK)

[TooNice]

23% of the voters voted for the Lib-Dem. But does it mean that only 23% of the population are backing the PR system? Or is it that people consider this a secondary issue (for instance, thinking that Lib-Dem policies do not stand up and therefore it's better to keep them out - knowing it's not 'fair')?

Someone mentioned an article by New Scientists about why Democracy is never completely fair (http://www.newscientist.com/article/...html?full=true). My question is, leaving all party policies out of the way, is PR the fairest form of democracy? Again, I am not asking if it is best for the country, merely judging it to the current and other voting systems.

I am particularly interested to hear from people who do not back the Lib-Dem overall.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Wrong part of the forum?

[TooNice]

Yes! [Wrong part of the forum]

Could a mod please move this thread?

[SiM]

Think this was covered in the other thread...

IMO PR will be worse
1) It will be too hard to form a majority
2) Small parties that only represent one or two constituencies will be under-represented
3) Small national parties will be over-represented (eg. BNP)
4) It is arguable that the highly concentrated areas, like london, that do more for the country (more output, pay more taxes etc) should be represented more than some area in the North which are full of unemployed chavs.

All systems will have pros and cons, IMO PR is worse, its just another ploy from the Lib Dems (that is one thing I have to give them credit for, selling bad ideas to the uneducated masses)

I personally think that everyone should have to earn their right to vote through either by paying taxes or completing 3 years of national service (of course there will be exceptions like disabled people and students). People who have been sponging off the public money all their lives don't deserve to have the vote.

[dave87]

Moved as requested to QT

[jim]

STV seems workable, I'm not against that.

Full-on PR though, I have no interest in that whatsoever.

[M0nkeyb0Y]

FPTP isn't working at the moment. IMHO PR is favourable as it would cause more governing coalitions rather than the two main, pretty similar parties we have at the moment.

[Terbinator]

4) It is arguable that the highly concentrated areas, like london, that do more for the country (more output, pay more taxes etc) should be represented more than some area in the North which are full of unemployed chavs.

[SiM]

Are you an unemployed chav?

[j1979]

it is certainly more fair than FPTP.

conservatives gained 11% more of the vote than the liberals but get 6 times (300%) more seats.

[McPhee]

I'd say no personally. But that's because the wrong question was asked.

Would I prefer Alternative Vote or Single Transferable Vote to First Past The Post? Yes. First Past The Post is broken. People who's political views aren't represented by Labour or the Conservatives aren't catered for and many feel that those are the only two choices in politics. There's a very strong mentality of "if you don't want a Labour government, vote Conservative." and vice versa, it belittles the other parties that exist. We need an electoral system that allows other parties and other points of view to get a seat at the table because at the moment Parliament is not an accurate representation of the true views of the public.

As a bit of trivia here, it took the following number of votes for each party to each single seat;

Conservative - 34,989

Labour - 33,350

Liberal Democrats - 119,788

Green - 285,616

1.78 Million people voted for parties that didn't secure a single seat between them.

[j1979]

all votes are not equal under FPTP.

[Terbinator]

Are you an unemployed chav?

No, just a bit of a sweeping statement though.

[j1979]

Are you an unemployed chav?

are you a city trader?

[McPhee]

all votes are not equal under FPTP.

It's barmy to think that my vote is worth a quarter of the votes of some of the idiots I know! We were discussing the election at work today and one girl said she voted for the Conservatives because everyone else is rubbish. She couldn't explain why and didn't know a single policy of any party. My vote counts for 0.28 of hers?!?!

4) It is arguable that the highly concentrated areas, like london, that do more for the country (more output, pay more taxes etc) should be represented more than some area in the North which are full of unemployed chavs.

Vote should be proportional to income or taxes paid? The Tories would never get our of power Hey, at least it'd keep the high tax rates for the rich in place

[YorkieBen]

4) It is arguable that the highly concentrated areas, like london, that do more for the country (more output, pay more taxes etc) should be represented more than some area in the North which are full of unemployed chavs.

Seriously, you are a complete moron. The highest level of unemployment at the moment is in Birmingham which isn't the North, and guess what unemployed does not equal lazy. And there are plenty of unemployed people in London.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7789784.stm

How about people who contribute sod all to society (a fair bunch of lawyers for example) shouldn't get to vote but those who contribute more as a whole but don't get paid as much should vote? Society will always have poor and rich people. Just because someone is rich doesn't necessarily they are more deserving and should have more say in the running of the country. They tried that a while back and we evolved into a democracy.