Consider how different the world would be today and how many British lives would have been saved if the American election system were democratic. More people voted for Gore than Bush but Gore lost.

I remember during the aftermath of that election a British journalist was interviewing and American politician about the elctoral college system and asking why they persever with it. The American said 'it is how the constitution says we have to do it.'
The journalist replied 'the constitution also says you have to be a white male landowner in order to vote?'

So you know your MP personally, and he/she was elected solely because he/she does such a good job for the constituents rather than because of what party they stood for? Also see my point above about legislators vs social workers.

Well I've written to him and had a reply that gave me the impression that he was at least interested in what I was saying.

I doubt very much that he was elected solely because he does such a good job and I didn't vote for him because I didn't want to vote tory, but that's not the point, he's not a crap MP, he hasn't been implicated in any scandals, I don't want a crap MP, and I suspect that for a lot of people that matters and will help protect his majority even if some of the people might consider voting against him on party political issues.

I had a look at the number of voters per seat recently and the splits aren't that bad (with the odd exception in a couple of remote locations). The north of the border re-allocation of boundaries occurred as at one point there were ~10000 less voters for some Scottish seats compared to the rest of the UK.

I've always thought 5 year fixed term for every government (no picking the time to vote as you are popular) constituency based system for a lower house with a 50% proportional representation upper house on a 6 year term, the rest being perminant life peers. The life peerage I haven't sorted yet as I'd want a mix of common sense people from a wide range of backgrounds who would work for the best interests of the country.

Any other suggestions for electral reform?

A party could win 100% of seats with 30,000,630 votes to 29,999,370 if they won each seat by the minimum necessary amount.

No – that assumes there are only two parties running in each seat, it's worse than that. Imagining, for a moment, that three parties stood in each constituency, then the "winner" could get 34% of the vote in each constituency and 100% of the seats.

andrewh – Member
By the way, PR is a really bad idea.
The advantage is that it does give party a 'fair' share of the seats, but the down side is that the parties will choose who your MP is to be, you will vote for a party and not for a person. I'm not saying FPTP is perfect, it's just less bad.

Not nessasarily – there ared many different variations on PR systems and not all work like that. Open List, closed list, single tranferabnle vote, multimember constituencies

Someone mentioed independents In Scotland under the PR systems there have been a few – last election altered the system slightly which had the effect of raising the thresholds so reduced the number of smaller parties and independents.

It all depends on the system of PR chosen and what you want it to do.

To go back to the OP – the main reason is the distribution of votors – the tories tend to win their seats by huge majorities so thats a lot of wasted votes – labour by much smaller majorities.

the down side is that the parties will choose who your MP is to be, you will vote for a party and not for a person.

Technically we still vote for the individual and not their party, but in reality they stand on the platform of their party, they are the representatives of their party, they are chosen by the party to stand as their candidate at the selection stage (no selection = no money) and most people aren't really familiar with their individual candidate's policies in contrast with the party's.

There's a very good chance of getting rid of our awful system this time though, as long as we get what most people want which is a hung parliament.

I certainly don't. We'd have weeks (months?) of uncertainty, and the economy would go even further down the toilet.

Tron – not necessarily – many if not most countries are run by coalitions. There is no reason that a hung parliament will lead to instability – but thats what the two biggest parties want you to believe

Coalition governments have an excellent record in the UK. Churchill led one and Lloyd George another.

many if not most countries are run by coalitions

Indeed, in fact if you think about things, most political parties are themselves coalitions, with widely varied interests and politics.
I would like to see the prime minister voted for directly though, outside of party politics.

The American said 'it is how the constitution says we have to do it.'
The journalist replied 'the constitution also says you have to be a white male landowner in order to vote?'

The US Constitution does not say that. See for example the 12th, 14th, 19th, 26th Amendments…

then the "winner" could get 34% of the vote in each constituency and 100% of the seats.

or even worse, if there are three parties, and party A wins just over half the seats, party B the rest, and party C comes second in all of them, party A will have an absolute majority and be able to do as they please while party C, with 66% if the vote, has no say at all.

Which is just a slightly more extreme version of the current situation, and could only be described as even vaguely fair by someone with a vested interest.

Check this out:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8609989.stm

You can give each party a share of the vote and see how many seats they get. If each of the main 3 get 33.3% then Labour would get more seats than both Tories and LD together!

The American system is somewhat more democratic I think insofar as you vote for various representatives and then an overall leader separately. So you could vote for a local rep based on how good he/she was at representing your views, but differently on ideological grounds for a president.

That goes some way towards solving what I shall call the Leominster problem.

Someone mentioned the upper house, this is one of the few times when something someone has said has made me change my mind about something.

Obviously, 100% elected is a bad idea. It just duplicates the lower house, and will want more powers if it is 'more democratic' so why not do away with it altogether? Because we need an overseeing, revising chamber.
100% appointed (life-peers) is a bad idea (see cash for peerages scandal)
Hereditory has the advantage that the members can do what they think is best for the country, rather than what is popular and will get them re-elected, but you run the risk of getting all sorts of undesirables in there just because their grandfather was a mate of Prince Albert in 1846.

Heard a really good suggestion from someone being interviewed on the today program ages ago. Pick, say 100 organisations who actually run the country. For example, Association of cheif police officers, National Union of teachers, British Medical Council, RSPCA, NSPCA, RAC/AA, etc, etc. Each of these can send one person of their choosing to the upper house. Hey presto, an upper chamber full of experts but devoid of politicans. Why have we heard no more of this idea? And can anyone remember who suggested it?

PS Not suggesting this for the lower house, I think elected works fine. Just got to agree a system now…

My own idea for reforming the upper house is better.

We need representatives of the people, not necessarily those skilled at climbing greasy poles.
So, have an optional secondary prize in the national lottery of 5 years as a Senator (or whatever). SO there would be a rolling membership of 260 or so, all provided with a salary and appropriate accommodation in London. It would be self-financing, as many people who don't go in for the lottery now would take part if that was a prize.

That's even more of a lottery than the heriditery system…

Given that most lottery tickets are sold to idiots, I can't see it working.

As for independent MPs, stuff them. I wouldn't want an independent MP. Does any individual MP have the time or knowledge to read, absorb and comprehend every piece of legislation that comes through the house? I doubt it.

No, but that's because we pass too many laws.
Foolish ones, for the most part.

I wouldn't want an independent MP. Does any individual MP have the time or knowledge to read, absorb and comprehend every piece of legislation that comes through the house? I doubt it.

Why would someone who just votes for what his party tells him to vote for be any better? Are the party hirarchy always right?

what's the point in a West Ox constituent voting under FPTP regardless of their political persuasion, but especially if they're not Tory??

The split of the national vote affects political parties' access to things like funding and party political broadcast slots, I believe. It's not much but it's something! Also as someone said on another thread, the more people who vote in a constituency, the greater the number of votes a candidate needs to retain their deposit. Therefore the more non-BNP voters there are the more likely BNP candidates are to lose their deposits. 🙂

Coalition governments have an excellent record in the UK. Churchill led one

Was that because Hitler won his election using PR?

Pick, say 100 organisations who actually run the country. For example, Association of cheif police officers, National Union of teachers, British Medical Council, RSPCA, NSPCA, RAC/AA, etc, etc.

The RSPCA runs the country?

Police officers (part of the executive) should be given seats in the legislature?

Government employees (doctors and teachers) should be allowed to vote on their own terms and conditions?