Proportional Representation
- Thread starter zzzzz
- Start date
bungydinsdale
Well-known member
We have MMP in NZ and since it's been introduced in 1995 the only time a party won a majority without having to go into coalition with another party was last year's election when Labour won a majority.
I like MMP as it gives a fairer representation.
Before it, under First Past The Post, National (the Tories here) and Labour just shared it between them by getting around 80 per cent of the vote between. Meaning those representing the other 20% never had any say, unless another party happened to win an electorate seat and one of the parties needed their vote.
Now as a well as Labour and National we have Green MPs Act (even more right than National) and the Maori Party in government.
And while Labour didn't need to his term, it gave 4 cabinet seats to the Green Party (including Climate Change, Conservation, Women and Transport portfolios) as it has a close relationship with them.
I like MMP as it gives a fairer representation.
Before it, under First Past The Post, National (the Tories here) and Labour just shared it between them by getting around 80 per cent of the vote between. Meaning those representing the other 20% never had any say, unless another party happened to win an electorate seat and one of the parties needed their vote.
Now as a well as Labour and National we have Green MPs Act (even more right than National) and the Maori Party in government.
And while Labour didn't need to his term, it gave 4 cabinet seats to the Green Party (including Climate Change, Conservation, Women and Transport portfolios) as it has a close relationship with them.
MolteniArcore
Well-known member
It would certainly be worth it. Boris Johnson and this current crop of Tories have shown that the whole system is broken and reform is really needed.
The parliamentary system including the horrendous HoL needs to go. A ridiculous, pompous, outdated system that was past its sell by date a hundred years ago.Our whole voting, parliamentary system needs a full overhaul. Get rid of all the pomp and bollix and get elected representatives in who a. Care b. Are competent and c. Are not in it as a career/job/expenses gravy train
For starters. PR is an absolute must for me
Start with PR then abolish the lot.
Ironops
Well-known member
It would likely cause the break up of both the Tory and Labour parties with their extreme wings separating off, probably a new centrist party gaining traction, something thats been tried before with the SDP and Change UK, failing largely due to the current voting system, it would encourage more people to vote for minority and single issue parties giving a big boost to the Greens and pushing climate change up the political agenda - what's not to like?
As much as I despise Nigel Farage, in 2015 UKIP got more than double the votes of the SNP. The SNP got 56 seats, UKIP got 1. How is that in any way democratic?
As much as I despise Nigel Farage, in 2015 UKIP got more than double the votes of the SNP. The SNP got 56 seats, UKIP got 1. How is that in any way democratic?
I just can't see Labour going for it, and the Tories definitely wouldn't. Labour know that if it isn't the Tories in power then it is them. You'd end up splintering both main parties. The two big parties have too much to lose so I just don't see it happening. We've seen before that they are too proud to accept any sort of compromise unless it is one-sided.
WoodallServices
Well-known member
We could have a sweepstake on here to see how many Tories would be ”stepping down“ at the next election for “family reasons”!
Andy_W
Well-known member
PR makes sense, anyone arguing against it would just be acting out of self interest.
Yes, it would make it a bit more difficult to allocate "seats" to areas, but having a labour seat in a majority Tory government is barely worth the paper it is written on.
There is no way a system which allows 44% (of voters, not population) to vote Tory, should allow then to have a massive majority in parliament.
Even if they do still do it, keeping the same seats, they could adjust the "worth" of each seat by a correction figure, which matches up with the popular vote share. i.e a 365/650 seat Tory, should only equate to 44% when it comes to major votes, so they would need help from another party (so not be F***ing them over), and not be able to do as they pleased.
Obviously the Tories are changing the boundaries again, to get/ keep more seats than they deserve, and it's already bad enough, luckily they probably won't be able to do this enough to win the next election.
Yes, it would make it a bit more difficult to allocate "seats" to areas, but having a labour seat in a majority Tory government is barely worth the paper it is written on.
There is no way a system which allows 44% (of voters, not population) to vote Tory, should allow then to have a massive majority in parliament.
Even if they do still do it, keeping the same seats, they could adjust the "worth" of each seat by a correction figure, which matches up with the popular vote share. i.e a 365/650 seat Tory, should only equate to 44% when it comes to major votes, so they would need help from another party (so not be F***ing them over), and not be able to do as they pleased.
Obviously the Tories are changing the boundaries again, to get/ keep more seats than they deserve, and it's already bad enough, luckily they probably won't be able to do this enough to win the next election.
Last edited:
changingman
Well-known member
I was at "A Conversation with Jeremy Corbyn" on Monday night and this very question came up.
He made an interesting point - that while he's broadly in favour, it's vital that we try to keep the relationship between MPs and the constituencies they serve. Obviously he's big on community action but I think it is a valid point, we've seen some useful victories even during this parliament where MPs have fought actions in Parliament on behalf of their constituents.
He mentioned that having spent time in countries in PR he would often get vague responses when asking MPs who they represented...."I'm regional representative No. 198" etc.
He made an interesting point - that while he's broadly in favour, it's vital that we try to keep the relationship between MPs and the constituencies they serve. Obviously he's big on community action but I think it is a valid point, we've seen some useful victories even during this parliament where MPs have fought actions in Parliament on behalf of their constituents.
He mentioned that having spent time in countries in PR he would often get vague responses when asking MPs who they represented...."I'm regional representative No. 198" etc.
Andy_W
Well-known member
His point is very secondary though, as the big point he misses, like always, is you need to win first.
If they keep losing, and we keep getting labour MP's in Boro, they can't really put up any fight, as they're not even in the room where the most important conversations are had.
I think the key national voting could be done a separate way (proportionally weighted), so that we can retain local MP's actually from the area. Or alternatively the local MP's could even effectively not even be allowed to be tied to a party, all they should care about is their area. Could whittle it down to 400 MP's dealing with local stuff, and 250 dealing with national stuff.
changingman
Well-known member
Agree, let's not beat about the bush, PR if pushed through by a centre-left coalition is effectively fixing the game (the very thing the Conservatives are trying to do at present with voter ID, constituency boundaries etc).
That said if it means they can't get back in I'm all for it
That said if it means they can't get back in I'm all for it
Chris_Boro
Well-known member
The Tories rely heavily on them being the only real right of centre party while the left of centre is split, often meaning peoples votes are effectively worthless in FPTP.
Any system that makes each vote equal everywhere is obviously the best option, the issue is the form that would take for each constituency.
They way I would do it is to have 2 votes, one to pick an MP and the other to pick the party (national vote) to determine the weighting that party has on a commons vote.
For example the Tories might enjoy an 80 seat majority of MP's but only 40% of the popular vote, meaning for a Bill to pass, they in theory need 10% worth of MP's from other parties (or at least a majority in favour).
In reality any PR system would decimate the Tories and probably spilt Labour in 2, but it would be worth it for a system that doesn't hand 100% of the power for a minority of votes.
Any system that makes each vote equal everywhere is obviously the best option, the issue is the form that would take for each constituency.
They way I would do it is to have 2 votes, one to pick an MP and the other to pick the party (national vote) to determine the weighting that party has on a commons vote.
For example the Tories might enjoy an 80 seat majority of MP's but only 40% of the popular vote, meaning for a Bill to pass, they in theory need 10% worth of MP's from other parties (or at least a majority in favour).
In reality any PR system would decimate the Tories and probably spilt Labour in 2, but it would be worth it for a system that doesn't hand 100% of the power for a minority of votes.
NZBoro1
Well-known member
Which is, roughly, the same system we have here.
Agree, let's not beat about the bush, PR if pushed through by a centre-left coalition is effectively fixing the game (the very thing the Conservatives are trying to do at present with voter ID, constituency boundaries etc).
That said if it means they can't get back in I'm all for it
After a split the Labour right would probably go in to a coalition with the tories!
