Given that the first past the post system is fairly rubbish & that proportional representation although fairer would create its own problems, why can’t we have a mixture of the two, ie we still vote for a local MP into parliament as we do now but once elected the value of their vote in parliament is weighted based on the overall national vote.

It would mean that minority parties would have to get at least one member of parliament into government before they got representation, but once there their vote would be worth more (assuming they got a good vote across the country), independent MP’s on the other hand would have a voice in parliament but their vote would probably be of little value.

You could end up with a government being formed by a minority of MP’s with higher value votes, but surely if the nation casts more votes for a party nationally isn’t that fairer?

Okay so it would be complicated counting votes in parliament but that is something that technology could easily cover & if no one of your favoured party is standing locally then you still can’t vote for a party you want but surely it would be a step in the right direction.

Biggest downfall I can foresee so far is that theoretically if a party were pipped to second all across the country apart from in one seat which they won, then the one elected MP would have a huge amount of voting power concentrated with just that one MP but that is fairly unlikely to happen.

Would be interesting to see what results of the last election would have thrown up? Tell me what blatant faultline I am missing?

Interesting idea.

Tell me what blatant faultline I am missing?

it’s not in the interests of the big 2 parties ?

Complicated
Penalises independents /small parties
If I want to vote socialist its still pointless as they still get no MP’s.
Its theoretically possible to get more votes ans have no MP – might happen with UKIP v Green where a party with 3 % nationally gets MPs and a party with 18% say gets none.
Big is beautiful in this system – you need MP’s to win and if you do you can win big.
Penalises regional parties like Plaid or SNP or Ulster ones – more Mps but fewer votes than say Green with only one MP.
It is not without strengths but you asked for the faults.

the big 2 parties

yes but times they are a changing & for one we currently have a coalition goverment

Junkyard – I don’t particularly see any of those points as faults really when you consider national parliament should represent national views, especially in respect of plaid & SNP who have their own sphere of influence

So, if I read this correctly, you’re advocating that the vote of some MP’s worth more than the vote of others? Hmm…

Mixed member proportional system would probably achieve the goal you’re hoping for.

when you consider national parliament should represent national views

If UKIP get say 4 million votes and no MP and the greens get 1 million votes and 1 MP then a vote for the green is worth millions more than the vote for UKIP
It fails in your goal UNLESS you get MP’s

Its also pretty clear that we have constituencies so they are not there to represent national views but to represent Local views

If you dont think these are problems then fair enough.

One argument against it would have to be that the primary role of an MP is to represent the wishes of his local electorate, not the national priorities of his party

So you get a perverse position whereby the wishes of one local electorate hold greater sway in national politics than another, why should the vote of someone in, for example, Brighton, have more importance on a national scale than someone in Durham?

Equally, it works the other way, at the moment an MP voting against their party on an issue of local importance, say a third runway at Heathrow, is answerable to his electorate, but under the proposal they suddenly become responsible for the impact on the wider party support that underlies the weighting attached to his vote, so is he ultimately answerable to them or his local electorate?

It also would put huge power in the hands of someone who the majority of people hadn’t directly elected. Lets say XYZ party is mostly made up of moderate well thinking people with a set of reasonably policies who get 15% of the votes in every constituency, but aren’t elected in any of them, except 1 which is represented by their most maveric member who doesn’t really stick to “the party line”. Now we have someone who was elected by maybe 50,000 people (<0.5% of the population) but has 15% of the power.

ninfan – Member
One argument against it would have to be that the primary role of an MP is to represent the wishes of his local electorate, not the national priorities of his party

I think this is one of the worst issues with our voting systems. It is that voting for the national government on national issues is represented by local issues, this is why local counsel level is ignored by most people.

Given that the first past the post system is fairly rubbish

That depends on how you define “rubbish”. One of the most important purposes of democracy is to periodically throw out the incumbents, without having to resort to riots and civil war. Our current system has been doing extremely well at this for generations.