Having just had a chat with a tory who suggested the lib dems were 'dwindling' because they have lost seats despite an increased share of the vote, I'm curious what convincing arguments there are against proportional representation?

As far as I can see:

1) Lose the connection between local MP and constituency – was there ever a real connection anyway? Pretty sure my local council runs Bristol, not the MP.

2) Extremist parties will get into power – shouldn't we blame the voters, not a system that accurately reflects the way people cast their ballots?

3) umm..the torys/labour will lose seats…

Guessing 3) is the main reason.

Lets be realistic. Politics aint a bed of roses…

a) You get a period of uncertainty while parties negotiate policy alliances to organise a government

try harder. there is no way extremist parties would gain power Under PR (unless you voted for them of course!)

1) does not need to happen depending on the type of PR. Ditto 2) aas you can set high threasholds.

The main disadvantage is continuous coalition government and the risk of extremists hold the balance of power – like in Israel. Mostly however the coalitions act as a moderating force

The voting form is more complex for the electorate

Proportionality achieved by selecting "spare" members from lists, and you have no choice of who appears on the list and in what order.

I don't think people care who their 'local' MP is any more, they tend to vote based upon party lines, which makes PR even more necessary. When there is a safe seat high-profile non-locals are usually parachuted in.

All I know is some fat munter (conservative) is now my MP. Never had anyone tapping on my door to talk to me about their policies – we're expected to take them all from the letters Lord Ashcroft David Cameron sent to me.

To be even-handed though I have no idea who my labour candidate was. Don't think she was as smug and ugly though as the Tory one. Why is it that all Tory women want to be like Margaret Thatcher? Don't you have to be bitten by a Transylvanian to get that look?

George Osbourne looks very pale with ruddy lips. I wonder if he's from the blood line as Michael Howard, or maybe Peter Mandleson.

there is no way extremist parties would gain power Under PR

Surely under 'true' PR (i.e. not the form the libs want) there would be 12 BNP MPs in parliament, as they have 1.9% of the vote.

The main disadvantage is continuous coalition government and the risk of extremists hold the balance of power

This seems the most convincing argument to me, but if the system can't cope with a parliament that reflects the will of the people then is the whole setup broken? Are there any good examples of countries that have PR, and manage to run a parliament without a prime minister/coalitions etc – i.e. just vote on a motion and see what happens?

Although you might not have a connection with your MP the statsitics suggest the public at large do because incumbent Labour candidates generally had smaller swings against them than new candidates. Likewise the Tory "A" listers did not perform particularly well which suggests people don't like having candidates foisted on them.

Perhaps you should ask those within the Liberal Democrats which came from the SDP, why they were so vehemently opposed to PR whilst they were in the Labour Party. Because until recently at least, support for PR within the Labour Party had always come from it's left-wing, the right-wing had always strongly opposed it.

Personally I don't think opposing PR because it is disadvantageous to you, is any less valid than supporting it because it advantageous to you. The Liberal Party never introduced it when they were power, despite the fact that the idea already existed and had been introduced in several countries.

Today quite a few in the Labour Party support PR, even though there are no obvious advantages for Labour. I have always strongly supported PR (or at least second round elections) because it is clearly more representative.

roblerner – Member

Are there any good examples of countries that have PR, and manage to run a parliament without a prime minister/coalitions etc – i.e. just vote on a motion and see what happens?

Holyrood – although of course it is not that simple but there is a minority SNP administration that needs others to vote for its policies. Lots of back room deals done to get a budget voted thru – and Salmond is twice the politician of anyone else in Holyrood. He has had support from digffernet parties at different times to get stuff passed and has had to be realistic and flexible to get this far. 3 yrs now

Well for a start the system they're talking about is AV, which isn't really PR

Our local mayoral election was by Supplementary Vote. It's a similar system to the AV system talked about today.

first round voting based on peoples 1st choice on the paper:
Peter Davies (English Democrats) 16961
Stuart Exelby (Community Group) 2152
Michael Felse (Independent) 2051
Sandra Holland (Labour) 16549
Mick Maye (Independent) 17150
Dave Owen (BNP) 8175
Jonathan Wood (Conservative) 12198

the rules say the top 2 go through to a run off, because no candidate got 50%, then all the second choice votes are looked at. This sent Mick Maye and Peter Davies through. All the second choice votes from the votes for the eliminated candidates are looked at. if they are for one of the two remaining, they are added to the original count.

Second (final result) round:
Peter Davies 25,344
Mick Maye 24,990

So the guy who didn't get the biggest number of first preferences wins.

In the proposed AV system for UK elections, after the first round, if the highest placed has less than 50%, then the second choice from those votes for the least popular are redistributed among the others, if this results in someone getting 50%, they win. then the next least popular's votes second choices are redistributed etc etc until someone hits 50%. In some cases this time around there were lots of places with votes split between lots of smaller parties and independents.

It seems to me that with votes split between growing numbers of candidates, the result is likely to be perverse in many cases. I can't see it being fairer than FPTP if the result is to elect one individual. I can see it being more suitable for a list system, but I'd hate the idea of a list system.

I don't think people care who their 'local' MP is any more

In case you missed it, I cared enough about who I didn't want to be my local MP to have a major influence on my vote. Comments in the local paper would suggest I was far from alone. Also see MPs being personally unpopular due to expenses scandals amongst other things (eg Jacqui Smith 😆 )

Today quite a few in the Labour Party support PR, even though there are no obvious advantages for Labour.

There's actually a really obvious advantage for Labour – at least looking at it from a very simplistic perspective. Given the current parties and their natural alliances, it would virtually guarantee them a continuous hold on power as the largest party in a coalition government. Which is precisely what I see as one of the biggest problems – no obvious easy way of kicking out unpopular government (just how long would Gordon have hung on if he hadn't been forced?)

Interesting that you only suggest "quite a few" though, given you were suggesting a definite majority of MPs in support, ernie. As I suggested previously, some would be turkeys voting for Christmas – the whipping would be interesting to say the least.

There's actually a really obvious advantage for Labour

No there isn't. Just because the Tories haven't proved popular enough this time round to form a majority government to replace Labour, doesn't mean that Labour will never be able to win a FPTP election in the future.

And I see no reason why Labour would be attracted to the idea of "coalition governments" in the future.

I think what has happened is that many in the Labour Party now accept that some form of PR in British elections is now inevitable, they simply can't keep ignoring it/brushing it under the carpet forever – just a reality check. Something which the Tories have yet to accept. And yes I know that the Tories have agreed with the LibDems to a referendum. But only because they know that Labour will have one anyway – so better they do it under their terms. They will campaign against PR and with the help of their friends in the press they will hope to have it defeated. It can then be forgotten for a couple of more decades.

.

" "quite a few" though, given you were suggesting a definite majority of MPs in support"

Absolutely not. I am not suggesting a "definite majority of MPs in support", in fact I would suggest the opposite. I am simply pointing out that the case for PR has never had more support within the Labour Party than it has today. There was a time when the Labour leadership refused to even consider talking about PR, that has now changed – and not since last Thursday.

PR will eventually come to Britain. By far the most likely way it will happen is under a Labour government which is itself under intense pressure from it's own members and the trade unions. That after all, is how all the great reforms of the last 100 years in Britain have occurred.

doesn't mean that Labour will never be able to win a FPTP election in the future.

Yes, but what's better, having complete power some of the time, or most power all of the time?

am not suggesting a "definite majority of MPs in support", in fact I would suggest the opposite.

I thought you'd said something similar previously, but checking back you simply said MPs of parties who'd support it, which is rather different (and I think means you agree with me about this).

or most power all of the time?

Get real aracer. PR won't mean that Labour will in power "all of the time". Despite possibly being the senior partner in any coalition.

So they'd be the senior partner in a coalition all the time, yet not in power?

PR can lead to very unstable governments. Witness the number of Italian governments since WW2.

BillMC – Member
PR can lead to very unstable governments…

Oz doesn't strike me as an unstable country.

It's democracy in action.

We've had first past the post for centuries, and now because the yellow party hold the balance of power a few Teds think we're going to change it? No chance.

FPTP is simple, draws parties towards the centre and produces strong + decisive government – a good thing IMO. It also denies a parliamentary voice to every margin-walking dickhead with an axe to grind, also a good thing IMO.

We've had a glimpse of another big problem with PR in the past couple of days – no one really knows what's happening. The horse-trading, behind closed doors meetings are opaque to the public and would be an endless feature of any PR set-up.

Ironically, if we did introduce PR it could spell the end of the Lib-dems as a third party. They're a bucket to spit in for left wing voters down south, and right wing voters up north. If you removed the principal plank of their policy where would that leave them? Dreaming about abolishing tuition fees and no nuclear power stations? It is to laugh.

Parliamentary reform in terms of constituency size, Scottish parliament issues etc is very much on the cards. Voting reform is a different story.

strong + decisive government – a good thing IMO

What about all the whinging about that extra few thousand laws that have been brought in over the last few years by a "strong and decisive government"? "Strong and decisive" governments tend to stop listening to the people after a while…tend to nanny ever so slightly and do things like take us into wars we're not really too keen on. "strong and decisive" governments do things like setting up unpopular poll tax type affairs, large scale privatisations so their mates in the square mile can make a shitload of money. In the last thirty years or so, I haven't seen anything really that good come from a strong and decisive government.

Personally, I prefer slow and well thought out legislation rather than quick "keep the press quiet" legislation.

It also denies a parliamentary voice to every margin-walking dickhead with an axe to grind, also a good thing IMO.

Just as well it's in your own staggeringly arrogant opinion. A quarter of the electorate turnout voted for the Liberal Democrats and they end up with fifty something seats. And you still think voting reform would be well served by a bit of gerrymandering of the urban constituencies by the tories? From the STW exit poll, it seems a lot of STWers voted for the LDs…but we only get fifty somethng MPs…but I suppose it's ok if sizeable minorities don't get a say if it's all in the name of a "strong and decisive government."

If margin-walking dickheads gets votes from a margin walking dickhead-electorate, then that margin walking dickhead-electorate deserves a say in parliament. What normally happens is that the margin walking dickheads as you so sensibly call them, get their few years in the sun, then the margin walking dickheads that supported them realise they're margin walking dickheads and vote for someone more sensible next time round.

Strong and decisive government….my big hairy arse!!

Italian politics is historically a basket-case, whatever system is being used.

AV is an improved majority voting system; it does not give PR.

FPTP is simple, draws parties towards the centre and produces strong + decisive government – a good thing IMO. It also denies a parliamentary voice to every margin-walking dickhead with an axe to grind, also a good thing IMO.

How wrong can you be in a couple of sentences?

1) First past the post skews elections towards right or left.
2) For strong decisive Government read dictatorship which is the natural conclusion of that being desirable.
3) The margin walking dickheads are in fact in the Labour/Tory parties, who by the token of their politics are the marginal parties.
4) The majority of people are middle of the road, and the only way to get them properly represented is to get rid of an electoral system which was aimed at satisfying the two warring parties in Cromwells time.
5) If the electorate choose to have a hung parliament or a coalition what is wrong with that choice? (Take care refer to 2 above)

We've had first past the post for centuries

There's the rub. It's a hangover from the days when the lord of the manor represented his serfs at the King's court. 🙂

The voting form is more complex for the electorate

Pfft – if Scots, Irish and Londoners can handle it, I think the rest of the English electorate can probably get their tiny little minds around it.

We've had a glimpse of another big problem with PR in the past couple of days – no one really knows what's happening. The horse-trading, behind closed doors meetings are opaque to the public and would be an endless feature of any PR set-up.

The existing political parties are already coalitions and there is already horsetrading and behind the scenes negotiation to keep the left, right and absurd wings of the parties voting in the same way.

PR can lead to very unstable governments. Witness the number of Italian governments since WW2.

Or look at Ireland, which has had Fianna Fail and Fine Gael alternate power in much the same way as the Tories and Labour have in the UK.

Italy's political disorganisation is a result of its social, political and economic structure, not its voting system.

Think with PR ie votes % = seats you can give too much power to the party machine as they can put all the loyal [to the leader /party machine] candidates at the top of the list.Could lead to a left /right split in both the labour and Tory party though to get representation.
this kind of system reduces the constituency MP though but I am not entorely sure how effective that is these days with the strong party machine- my MP has never voted against the labour leadership in 13 years for example.
Not a fan of transferring votes as that is just FPTP IMHO and would tend to lead to the bland middle of the road politics. Most labour and tory voters will vote for the third party surely than for the other side?

Funny story from the early days of Mixed Member Proportional in New Zealand.

In precis, two kinds of MPs, those directly elected and those chosen from a party list according to proportion of the overall vote. A list MP from the Maori party decided she didn't want to be with them any more and resigned from the party. However they forgot to write this situation into the rules, so she remained an MP on full wages etc until they could get a Act through Parliament to kick her off.

The chutzpah !! But this is Politicians we are talking about here…

We've had a glimpse of another big problem with PR in the past couple of days – no one really knows what's happening. The horse-trading, behind closed doors meetings are opaque to the public and would be an endless feature of any PR set-up.

Surely this is just a failure of expectations. These are important decisions that should be allowed to take some time. The 'horse trading behind closed doors' is horseshit – it's not like the party manifestos are created in the open (er, i could be wrong there). If out of this comes a Lib/Con alliance that curbs the excesses of both parties manifestos – eg
– brings in the Libdem's starting rate of tax
– tempers the worst Tory extremism on Europe
– leads to a reassessment of Trident
isn't that a good thing? There's talk that there would be a joint, published document (effectively a joint manifesto). I don't really care that it was thrashed out in private rather than public.

Re PR surely the principle should be to empower the voter – no matter where you are your vote should make a difference. Constituency issues can be sorted (a larger constituency with >1 MP would mean you were more likely to get representation, if slightly less local, from someone closer to your beliefs) and a top up central list (again i can't quite see the issue – very few people are actually involved in the selection of their local MP and these top up MPs wouldn't be representing local issues.). It might be a good idea to have some MPs who were not, as in my case, worrying about "continuity of Ice Rink provision in Streatham" or the "constituency office wall" as in Thick of It.

If the price for this is a few BNP MPs who get ignored by everyone (and based on the Council seats they gained, probably won't even bother to turn up) then so be it.

This is a good one pulled across from the Nick Clegg Thread:

"you certainly wouldn't get the opportunity to vote out your unpopular MP"

Unpopular MPs who are high up on the party "spares" list are impregnable. This bothers me as I voted LibDem to boot out Heathcote-Amory over his expenses.

it's not like the party manifestos are created in the open (er, i could be wrong there)

IIRC, Blair changed it so that the National Executive Committee was the ultimate arbiter of Labour policy rather than conference.

Isn't that the problem though – how could you actually give out your parties manifesto? You could promise to, say, raise income tax threshold to £10,000, but by the time you negotiate the policies with your other coalition members that might never be acted on.

Surely you could never promise anything again (not that I believe everything in manifestos of course).

I'm not naive enough to believe the horsetrading doesn't go on in the FPTP system now, but surely it becomes almost a requirement in PR coalitions. Could that make the public think they are even further away from the 'system'.

Constituency issues can be sorted (a larger constituency with >1 MP would mean you were more likely to get representation, if slightly less local, from someone closer to your beliefs) and a top up central list (again i can't quite see the issue – very few people are actually involved in the selection of their local MP and these top up MPs wouldn't be representing local issues.)

If you're going to enlarge constituencies & have them represented by >1 MP, then is there any need to have a supplemental list, as STV (I would suggest with a constituency size of around 6 – linky) would give true PR?

Andy

A clear explanation of PR from John Cleese 23 years ago

You could promise to, say, raise income tax threshold to £10,000, but by the time you negotiate the policies with your other coalition members that might never be acted on.

But that happens anyway in FPTP – how much of the manifesto gets implemented depends on how large the majority is. If you have a strong absolute majority, then practically anything will get passed even if a few dissident MPs vote against it; but if you have a weak majority or a minority, then you'll end up having to negotiate the policies with a small group of MPs. You could be in an even more bizarre situation where the negotiations take place with a few MPs pushing an agenda that wasn't in anyone's manifesto.