Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login

proportional representation

last reply
10 replies
895 views
0 watchers
0 likes
tmann
Sex God
So now the government is going to consider proportional representation. I think this just makes everyone candidate a slave to the party. Yes men go to the top of the list, no men get dropped. As for independents, there will be none.
So proportional representation; a good idea or bad.
Unknown User
I dont understand this T Mann can you enlighten me?
Unknown User
Quote by
So now the government is going to consider proportional representation. I think this just makes everyone candidate a slave to the party. Yes men go to the top of the list, no men get dropped. As for independents, there will be none.
So proportional representation; a good idea or bad.

It ain't ever going to happen.
They can discuss it until the moon turns green but, it will not happen.
The two main parties will never agree on it and IF it was ever brought in then, the parties like the BNP could possibly gain more seats than they would do under the current ideals of voting.
Unknown User
They're guaranteed more seats. If they get 10% of the vote they get 10% of the seats. Using the present percentage of the vote that each party gets in the fpp system means that if pr is used then we get a "hung" parliament where minority parties hold the power.
tmann
Sex God
Quote by benrums0n
I dont understand this T Mann can you enlighten me?

In the simplest form. Each party puts up a list. The country votes for a party, not a candidate. Then the parties get a proportion of the seats in parliament equal to the proportion of votes they get. Those at the top of the list are guaranteed a seat...and who get to draw up the list, the leaders of the parties.
...and we get no one to represent us in Parliament.
Other versions cut the country up in to constituencies with a number of MPs, but they will only care about get closer to the top of the list for the next election. So constituency parties will become irrelevant.
Unknown User
Ah I see thank you.
Isnt that what happens anyway, except they appoint their faves to places they will probably win. But with PR we might get parties other than the big two in parliament?
Unknown User
Quote by benrums0n
Ah I see thank you.
Isnt that what happens anyway, except they appoint their faves to places they will probably win. But with PR we might get parties other than the big two in parliament?

A bit like the Respect party, and Georgie boy. cool
Unknown User
With PR we will get less stable government. Since there is unlikely to be an overall majority for one party, we will see alliances formed, usually on single issues.
Since neither of the two main parties would want that, we are highly unlikely to get true PR.
Unknown User
Yes i suppose stability is an issue but with two thirds of the electorate too disenchanted to vote something has to be done.
fabio
Sex God
Quote by benrums0n
Yes i suppose stability is an issue but with two thirds of the electorate too disenchanted to vote something has to be done.

I understand that, I actually would like a version of PR myself... but there is a reason why "pure PR" doesn't work and you can look at Italy as an example
45 different governments since WW2......
Regionalised PR may be more the way to go.....
Unknown User
No, a mish-mash is a recipe for disaster.
There is no problem for *US* with PR, the problem is for the various politicians.
The "Westminster club" would be that much more insecure. "They" may even have to do what WE want them to and not what they want to do for themselves.
Even better, we have PR with LIMITED POLITICAL LIFE. IE: They have a life of 4/8/ years then bye-bye, then a new bunch of free-loaders arrives to rip us off !
Or: