FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > With the state of policies who would back PR
With the state of policies who would back PR
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"Is it time to make ever vote count with a change to the 2 horse race. " I lived in a country with proportional representation. Worked okay. The more extreme elements had to temper their approach to join one of the coalition governments. Some good came of it. Some bad. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"One of the reasons I support Reform is because they advocate proportional representation. That would break the monopoly of the LabCon, and give people the opportunity to make a meaningful vote for the smaller parties. Our current system is old fashioned and unfair." The Lib Dem’s have been advocating for PR since time immemorial… it has always been a fundamental principle of the party Do you remember the PR referendum of 2011… we have been here before! Only 40% of people could be bothered to vote! | |||
"One of the reasons I support Reform is because they advocate proportional representation. That would break the monopoly of the LabCon, and give people the opportunity to make a meaningful vote for the smaller parties. Our current system is old fashioned and unfair. The Lib Dem’s have been advocating for PR since time immemorial… it has always been a fundamental principle of the party Do you remember the PR referendum of 2011… we have been here before! Only 40% of people could be bothered to vote!" It wasn’t a PR referendum though. It was the highly confusing AV which nobody understood. | |||
"I see pros and cons. On the one hand it can be seen as representative and fair, on the other it gives a credible voice to fringe parties, some campaigning on a single issue. Let's take GE'24. Under PR, Reform would get say 80 to 100 seats. But hang on, this is a party only created in 2018, and largely the project of a single individual. It's candidates are a motley crew with no experience in politics, and dubious pasts. Is that what we want?" If people vote for it then yes it's what they want. | |||
"One of the reasons I support Reform is because they advocate proportional representation. That would break the monopoly of the LabCon, and give people the opportunity to make a meaningful vote for the smaller parties. Our current system is old fashioned and unfair. The Lib Dem’s have been advocating for PR since time immemorial… it has always been a fundamental principle of the party Do you remember the PR referendum of 2011… we have been here before! Only 40% of people could be bothered to vote! It wasn’t a PR referendum though. It was the highly confusing AV which nobody understood." So confusing that they use some sort of AV for elections to the Scottish parliament, the Northern Ireland and Welsh Assembly, the European Parliament (when we were a member) , the London Assembly and for the mayoral elections……… 
If you are after the purest sense of PR, no country in the world does…. If you want an example of why pure PR doesn’t work, looks how many governments Italy has had since WW2….. it gives overinflated power to small parties and is super volatile…. (Look how much power the DUP had over the conservatives during the last hung parliament) | |||
"One of the reasons I support Reform is because they advocate proportional representation. That would break the monopoly of the LabCon, and give people the opportunity to make a meaningful vote for the smaller parties. Our current system is old fashioned and unfair. The Lib Dem’s have been advocating for PR since time immemorial… it has always been a fundamental principle of the party Do you remember the PR referendum of 2011… we have been here before! Only 40% of people could be bothered to vote! It wasn’t a PR referendum though. It was the highly confusing AV which nobody understood." And just to add… the only reason there was the referendum on AV was because the Lib Dems forced the issue as part of the agreement to be in coalition with the Conservatives (through FPTP - which NOBODY voted for in the GE). The Tories agreed to the referendum but not to having full PR on there, compromising on AV which nobody wanted or understood. So yeah but no we have not had a referendum on PR. | |||
"One of the reasons I support Reform is because they advocate proportional representation. That would break the monopoly of the LabCon, and give people the opportunity to make a meaningful vote for the smaller parties. Our current system is old fashioned and unfair. The Lib Dem’s have been advocating for PR since time immemorial… it has always been a fundamental principle of the party Do you remember the PR referendum of 2011… we have been here before! Only 40% of people could be bothered to vote! It wasn’t a PR referendum though. It was the highly confusing AV which nobody understood. So confusing that they use some sort of AV for elections to the Scottish parliament, the Northern Ireland and Welsh Assembly, the European Parliament (when we were a member) , the London Assembly and for the mayoral elections………
If you are after the purest sense of PR, no country in the world does…. If you want an example of why pure PR doesn’t work, looks how many governments Italy has had since WW2….. it gives overinflated power to small parties and is super volatile…. (Look how much power the DUP had over the conservatives during the last hung parliament) "It doesn’t matter. People didn’t want AV and the comms around it turned them off even further. | |||
| |||
"I support PR to break monopoly of the big parties. But it's not a perfect system as governments would waste a lot of time squabbling over issues " Point 1 I agree Point 2 what unlike now you mean? How can it be right that Govt’s policy agenda can be driven by shady “backbench” closed door deals. Anyone thinking minority groups aren’t already driving the agenda is naive. | |||
| |||
"One of the reasons I support Reform is because they advocate proportional representation. That would break the monopoly of the LabCon, and give people the opportunity to make a meaningful vote for the smaller parties. Our current system is old fashioned and unfair. The Lib Dem’s have been advocating for PR since time immemorial… it has always been a fundamental principle of the party Do you remember the PR referendum of 2011… we have been here before! Only 40% of people could be bothered to vote! It wasn’t a PR referendum though. It was the highly confusing AV which nobody understood. So confusing that they use some sort of AV for elections to the Scottish parliament, the Northern Ireland and Welsh Assembly, the European Parliament (when we were a member) , the London Assembly and for the mayoral elections………
If you are after the purest sense of PR, no country in the world does…. If you want an example of why pure PR doesn’t work, looks how many governments Italy has had since WW2….. it gives overinflated power to small parties and is super volatile…. (Look how much power the DUP had over the conservatives during the last hung parliament) "This, and we know we would come to a standstill under PR because of the above evidence. | |||
"So under PR consider this hypothetical scenario. A religious sect takes root in our land, with say 5 mil. devotees scattered across the country. They fervently wish to convert us all to their beliefs and laws. So they resolve to grab power. Under PR they might get 60 seats - enough to paralyse the workings of government. Fair as it might seem, I'm not sure that's in our best interests." If they are representative of what sufficient people want then they should be listened to. That is representative democracy at work. What would happen in your scenario though is the more moderate parties that have closer shared values and policy priorities would work together. With FPTP we look set to have a huge Labour majority. That is not good for democracy because there will be few checks and balances on what legislation they can push through. It means a year from now (making this up) Labour can say “we know we said no tax rises but having studied the books they are unavoidable so we are going to increase 40% to 45% and 45% to 50%, sorry!” and it can’t be stopped barring a significant rebellion by Labour MPs refusing to obey the whip! | |||
"One of the reasons I support Reform is because they advocate proportional representation. That would break the monopoly of the LabCon, and give people the opportunity to make a meaningful vote for the smaller parties. Our current system is old fashioned and unfair. The Lib Dem’s have been advocating for PR since time immemorial… it has always been a fundamental principle of the party Do you remember the PR referendum of 2011… we have been here before! Only 40% of people could be bothered to vote! It wasn’t a PR referendum though. It was the highly confusing AV which nobody understood. So confusing that they use some sort of AV for elections to the Scottish parliament, the Northern Ireland and Welsh Assembly, the European Parliament (when we were a member) , the London Assembly and for the mayoral elections………
If you are after the purest sense of PR, no country in the world does…. If you want an example of why pure PR doesn’t work, looks how many governments Italy has had since WW2….. it gives overinflated power to small parties and is super volatile…. (Look how much power the DUP had over the conservatives during the last hung parliament)
This, and we know we would come to a standstill under PR because of the above evidence.
"The DUP under FPTP is not the best example for why PR wouldn’t work  | |||
"One of the reasons I support Reform is because they advocate proportional representation. That would break the monopoly of the LabCon, and give people the opportunity to make a meaningful vote for the smaller parties. Our current system is old fashioned and unfair. The Lib Dem’s have been advocating for PR since time immemorial… it has always been a fundamental principle of the party Do you remember the PR referendum of 2011… we have been here before! Only 40% of people could be bothered to vote! It wasn’t a PR referendum though. It was the highly confusing AV which nobody understood. So confusing that they use some sort of AV for elections to the Scottish parliament, the Northern Ireland and Welsh Assembly, the European Parliament (when we were a member) , the London Assembly and for the mayoral elections………
If you are after the purest sense of PR, no country in the world does…. If you want an example of why pure PR doesn’t work, looks how many governments Italy has had since WW2….. it gives overinflated power to small parties and is super volatile…. (Look how much power the DUP had over the conservatives during the last hung parliament)
This, and we know we would come to a standstill under PR because of the above evidence.
The DUP under FPTP is not the best example for why PR wouldn’t work "You’ve come out fighting today, and wearing your, I heart liberal t-shirt  | |||
"So under PR consider this hypothetical scenario. A religious sect takes root in our land, with say 5 mil. devotees scattered across the country. They fervently wish to convert us all to their beliefs and laws. So they resolve to grab power. Under PR they might get 60 seats - enough to paralyse the workings of government. Fair as it might seem, I'm not sure that's in our best interests. If they are representative of what sufficient people want then they should be listened to. That is representative democracy at work. What would happen in your scenario though is the more moderate parties that have closer shared values and policy priorities would work together. With FPTP we look set to have a huge Labour majority. That is not good for democracy because there will be few checks and balances on what legislation they can push through. It means a year from now (making this up) Labour can say “we know we said no tax rises but having studied the books they are unavoidable so we are going to increase 40% to 45% and 45% to 50%, sorry!” and it can’t be stopped barring a significant rebellion by Labour MPs refusing to obey the whip!" Fair enough, but I fear once in power, the minority groups might have to be 'listened to' disproportionally to their numbers and following. Anyway, I accept you can see this two ways. | |||
"One of the reasons I support Reform is because they advocate proportional representation. That would break the monopoly of the LabCon, and give people the opportunity to make a meaningful vote for the smaller parties. Our current system is old fashioned and unfair. The Lib Dem’s have been advocating for PR since time immemorial… it has always been a fundamental principle of the party Do you remember the PR referendum of 2011… we have been here before! Only 40% of people could be bothered to vote! It wasn’t a PR referendum though. It was the highly confusing AV which nobody understood. So confusing that they use some sort of AV for elections to the Scottish parliament, the Northern Ireland and Welsh Assembly, the European Parliament (when we were a member) , the London Assembly and for the mayoral elections………
If you are after the purest sense of PR, no country in the world does…. If you want an example of why pure PR doesn’t work, looks how many governments Italy has had since WW2….. it gives overinflated power to small parties and is super volatile…. (Look how much power the DUP had over the conservatives during the last hung parliament)
This, and we know we would come to a standstill under PR because of the above evidence.
The DUP under FPTP is not the best example for why PR wouldn’t work
You’ve come out fighting today, and wearing your, I heart liberal t-shirt "Damn skippy! But thanks to FPTP my vote is irrelevant thanks to all the champagne socialists where I live (though there may be a drop in Labour support due to VAT on Pvt Sch) | |||
| |||
"So under PR consider this hypothetical scenario. A religious sect takes root in our land, with say 5 mil. devotees scattered across the country. They fervently wish to convert us all to their beliefs and laws. So they resolve to grab power. Under PR they might get 60 seats - enough to paralyse the workings of government. Fair as it might seem, I'm not sure that's in our best interests. If they are representative of what sufficient people want then they should be listened to. That is representative democracy at work. What would happen in your scenario though is the more moderate parties that have closer shared values and policy priorities would work together. With FPTP we look set to have a huge Labour majority. That is not good for democracy because there will be few checks and balances on what legislation they can push through. It means a year from now (making this up) Labour can say “we know we said no tax rises but having studied the books they are unavoidable so we are going to increase 40% to 45% and 45% to 50%, sorry!” and it can’t be stopped barring a significant rebellion by Labour MPs refusing to obey the whip! Fair enough, but I fear once in power, the minority groups might have to be 'listened to' disproportionally to their numbers and following. Anyway, I accept you can see this two ways." Where I lived, it was the opposite. There was lots of competition to get into a coalition with one of the bigger parties. So the more extreme elements had to temper some of their demands. | |||
| |||
| |||
"DONT TOUCH IT WITH A BARGE POLE... Its the equivalent of "political dysentery" I hate the 2 party political dictatorship we have in the country.. BUT having lived in many countries with PR nightmare ..if you want a new vote/goverment(very far right, very far left, religious nutters.. all the bad ..without the good) ever 2 months then it's for you.. !!!! ... genuinely and honestly i can't come up with a better idea, to help sort this crap problem, since 1936 we have had blue/red/blue/red..etc which has damaged this country TOTALLY ..because no choice..BUT NO WAY HAVE PR... ... but I would like "none of the above" added to ballots papers.. " Which countries? What happened? Are you trying to tell me that Switzerland, New Zealand, Estonia, Denmark, Ireland, Sweden, Iceland, Finland, Netherlands and Luxembourg are unstable? People (not you) point to Italy “look how bad PR can be” but that is sort of the same as arguing over the NHS and only looking at the USA healthcare model. | |||
Enguuuurland!!! | |||
"Hell no. and It will never ever happen in this country. and It's not even good as a thought exercise. Better to imagine England winning the Euros this year. Enguuuurland!!!"I agree it will never happen as it would break the duopoly. Why is it not a good thought exercise? Seems to work pretty well in many countries! Not well in all admittedly | |||
| |||
"Hell no. and It will never ever happen in this country. and It's not even good as a thought exercise. Better to imagine England winning the Euros this year. Enguuuurland!!!
I agree it will never happen as it would break the duopoly.
Why is it not a good thought exercise? Seems to work pretty well in many countries! Not well in all admittedly "Errrr let's see . . . Increased Number of Parties: PR systems often lead to a larger number of political parties gaining seats in government. Resulting in fragmented parliaments where no single party has a majority, making it difficult to form stable governments. The need to form coalitions can lead to unstable governments that are prone to collapse, resulting in frequent elections and political instability. Complex Ballots: PR systems can be more complex than plurality or majority systems, requiring voters to understand more about the parties, their platforms, and sometimes ranking candidates. Indirect Accountability: Voters will find it harder to hold individual representatives accountable, as they often vote for a party list rather than specific candidates. Empowerment of Small or Extreme Parties: Minority Parties' Influence: Small parties can gain disproportionate influence in coalition negotiations, sometimes demanding concessions that are not reflective of their overall electoral support. PR systems can facilitate the rise of extremist parties by allowing them to gain seats with a relatively small percentage of the vote, potentially leading to more polarized politics. Coalition governments can be slow to make decisions due to the need to negotiate and compromise among various parties. Different parties in coalitions may have conflicting priorities, leading to inconsistent policies and difficulties in implementing long-term plans. Lack of Local Representation Potential for Gerrymandering and Manipulation and Backroom Deals. Parties have significant control over their candidate lists, which can lead to manipulation and internal party power struggles. The methods used to allocate seats and any thresholds for representation can be manipulated to benefit larger parties or marginalize smaller ones. To name but a few. | |||
| |||
"I have been very fortunate to have lived for 15yrs doing a job that moved me around different countries for up to and beyond a year in each more in others.. I'll only mention these 3 as it was less than a year.. Brussels (that was illuminating!!! And why I voted leave) But only for 6 months.. ALSO Paris for 9 months only..shithole, Lyon STUNNING but only had 3 months sadly.. If you want I can list where I lived.. but what's the point?.. you've decided I know nothing!.. BUT i would add..interestingly you cherry picked the "stable" ones" spain (lived there)..learned its lesson with the catalonia debarkal.. there more on unstable list than stable. Its amazing how many cracks you can see in pavement when you live amongst a people, in their native land. IF you want FAR FAR Right..Or FAR far left ..or worse NUTTY RELIGIOUS PARTIES.. THEN GO PR.. voting apathy is far less dangerous in our system (though you get same shit and we do need something different)..than in PR countries.. Where if you don't vote (due to voter apathy and or exhaustion), you get some right nutters winning. NO SYSTEM is perfect I'll bow to that... so maybe its now time for someone to invent a better system? " I absolutely did not assume you knew nothing! I simply challenged your point asking for more information. As for cherry picking, erm they are examples of where PR appears to work pretty well. Would we not be amongst them? Doesn’t say much for the UK or the voting public. Are you (and others against PR) saying the British people can’t be trusted to vote sensibly (who decides what is sensible anyway?) Does France or Belgium have PR? If not then what is the relevance? | |||
"Hell no. and It will never ever happen in this country. and It's not even good as a thought exercise. Better to imagine England winning the Euros this year. Enguuuurland!!!
I agree it will never happen as it would break the duopoly.
Why is it not a good thought exercise? Seems to work pretty well in many countries! Not well in all admittedly
Errrr let's see . . .
Increased Number of Parties: PR systems often lead to a larger number of political parties gaining seats in government. Resulting in fragmented parliaments where no single party has a majority, making it difficult to form stable governments.
The need to form coalitions can lead to unstable governments that are prone to collapse, resulting in frequent elections and political instability.
Complex Ballots: PR systems can be more complex than plurality or majority systems, requiring voters to understand more about the parties, their platforms, and sometimes ranking candidates.
Indirect Accountability: Voters will find it harder to hold individual representatives accountable, as they often vote for a party list rather than specific candidates.
Empowerment of Small or Extreme Parties: Minority Parties' Influence: Small parties can gain disproportionate influence in coalition negotiations, sometimes demanding concessions that are not reflective of their overall electoral support.
PR systems can facilitate the rise of extremist parties by allowing them to gain seats with a relatively small percentage of the vote, potentially leading to more polarized politics.
Coalition governments can be slow to make decisions due to the need to negotiate and compromise among various parties.
Different parties in coalitions may have conflicting priorities, leading to inconsistent policies and difficulties in implementing long-term plans.
Lack of Local Representation
Potential for Gerrymandering and Manipulation and Backroom Deals.
Parties have significant control over their candidate lists, which can lead to manipulation and internal party power struggles.
The methods used to allocate seats and any thresholds for representation can be manipulated to benefit larger parties or marginalize smaller ones.
To name but a few. "I’d say everything you listed could also work out the opposite way too. Plenty of examples of countries with stable governments (see some in posts above). And I will keep reminding everyone that both Labour and Conservative are coalitions in all but name with backroom deals being cut all the time. I see people on here warning about the Far Left elements in Labour and how they will unseat Starmer and make the party more extreme! What’s the difference? On the whole local representation and constituency MPs stuff, I would accept that but for the uncomfortable fact that the vast majority of MPs are forced to vote with the whip regardless of personal or local priorities. | |||
"I think the one issue I have with the introduction of PR is that politically we are too immature. We seemed to have regressed from times when we could have national governments, for the benefit of the country, to the populist nonsense we have today. When you have someone like Farage, who can behave as he likes because he is the majority shareholder of Reform and there is no way he can be forced to step down as party leader, what incentive is there for him to compromise in any way? This Americanised polarised and presidential model with its attendant culture wars and populist rhetoric would not make for effective governance. Much as I’d like PR I think we need to grow the fuck up before we could make a success of it." That’s a fair argument actually! | |||
"Hell no. and It will never ever happen in this country. and It's not even good as a thought exercise. Better to imagine England winning the Euros this year. Enguuuurland!!!
I agree it will never happen as it would break the duopoly.
Why is it not a good thought exercise? Seems to work pretty well in many countries! Not well in all admittedly
Errrr let's see . . .
Increased Number of Parties: PR systems often lead to a larger number of political parties gaining seats in government. Resulting in fragmented parliaments where no single party has a majority, making it difficult to form stable governments.
The need to form coalitions can lead to unstable governments that are prone to collapse, resulting in frequent elections and political instability.
Complex Ballots: PR systems can be more complex than plurality or majority systems, requiring voters to understand more about the parties, their platforms, and sometimes ranking candidates.
Indirect Accountability: Voters will find it harder to hold individual representatives accountable, as they often vote for a party list rather than specific candidates.
Empowerment of Small or Extreme Parties: Minority Parties' Influence: Small parties can gain disproportionate influence in coalition negotiations, sometimes demanding concessions that are not reflective of their overall electoral support.
PR systems can facilitate the rise of extremist parties by allowing them to gain seats with a relatively small percentage of the vote, potentially leading to more polarized politics.
Coalition governments can be slow to make decisions due to the need to negotiate and compromise among various parties.
Different parties in coalitions may have conflicting priorities, leading to inconsistent policies and difficulties in implementing long-term plans.
Lack of Local Representation
Potential for Gerrymandering and Manipulation and Backroom Deals.
Parties have significant control over their candidate lists, which can lead to manipulation and internal party power struggles.
The methods used to allocate seats and any thresholds for representation can be manipulated to benefit larger parties or marginalize smaller ones.
To name but a few.
I’d say everything you listed could also work out the opposite way too. Plenty of examples of countries with stable governments (see some in posts above).
And I will keep reminding everyone that both Labour and Conservative are coalitions in all but name with backroom deals being cut all the time.
I see people on here warning about the Far Left elements in Labour and how they will unseat Starmer and make the party more extreme! What’s the difference?
On the whole local representation and constituency MPs stuff, I would accept that but for the uncomfortable fact that the vast majority of MPs are forced to vote with the whip regardless of personal or local priorities."Actually most countrieas that use pr use a mix of electoral systems that sopund like pr but adopt things like: (Below are quotes from electoral reform) The remaining five countries (Andorra, Italy, Lithuania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and the Ukraine) combine a number of voting systems – mainly First Past the Post and List PR. These tend to be less proportional as the distribution of the List PR seats doesn’t take the first past the post seats into account. In Italy, for example, 37% of the seats in the Chamber of Deputies (the Italian House of Commons) are allocated with First Past the Post, while 63% are chosen through List PR. Mixed Member Proportional Representation Of the seven countries that use a mixed system, two – Germany and Hungary – elect their representatives with Mixed Member Proportional Representation (MMP), which is also known as the Additional Member System (AMS) in the UK. Single Transferable Vote Ireland and Malta use the Single Transferable Vote (STV) to elect their representatives. As with Party Lists, voters elect a small group of representatives in bigger areas, like a small city or county, as opposed to a single MP in small constituencies as we do in Westminster. STV gives voters maximum choice on who to vote for. Each elector has one vote. Voters number candidates in order of preference, with a number 1 for their favourite – they can rank all candidates or just vote for their preferred candidate. To get elected, a candidate needs to reach a set amount of votes. This quota based on the number of seats to be filled and the number of votes cast (read our explanation to find out more about how votes are counted). If your favourite candidate already has enough votes to win or stands no chance of winning, your vote is transferred to your next choice based on how you ranked candidates. Under STV, voters can choose between candidates from the same or different parties, which incentivises parties to stand candidates who reflect the diversity of society. Electors can also vote for independent candidates, without worrying about ‘wasting’ their vote. Party List PR Party List proportional representation is the most widely used form of PR in Europe – 31 countries use it to elect their MPs. In Party List systems, constituencies are bigger than under First Past the Post and voters elect a group of MPs, rather than a single person. In this system, voters get MPs roughly in proportion to how many people voted for each party. Party List systems differ in the extent to which citizens can choose which individuals get elected. In ‘closed’ list systems, parties decide who their candidates are and voters can only mark their support for a party (some point out that first past the post is a closed party list of one) Parties decide which candidates fill the seats they have won in the election. In ‘open’ list systems, each party presents a list of candidates, and citizens can choose which candidate to vote for (or – in some systems – they can choose to vote just for the party if they want). A vote for a candidate is counted as a vote for that candidate’s party. Semi-open list systems are a mix of the above: voters have more choice in who they can vote for, but – generally – parties can decide the order in which candidates are elected. (End of quote.) | |||
| |||
| |||
"I'll put it another way. For me anyway. There are a 100 people, children and adults, at a raging river that is 400 metres across. All are starving and wet and cold and need help soon. There are three ways over: 1. Walk 50 miles to a place where you can wade across. 2. Walk 50 miles to a place where there is a bridge. 3. Swim. 34 vote: Let's go find the bridge, 54 vote: Let's walk go to the place where we can wade across. 12 vote: Let's swim. . . . What are you going to do? Negotiate who will swim and who will walk? Or lead from the front because 88 people know that there are only two common sense answers. "Can they split into 3 groups? | |||
"I'll put it another way. For me anyway. There are a 100 people, children and adults, at a raging river that is 400 metres across. All are starving and wet and cold and need help soon. There are three ways over: 1. Walk 50 miles to a place where you can wade across. 2. Walk 50 miles to a place where there is a bridge. 3. Swim. 34 vote: Let's go find the bridge, 54 vote: Let's walk go to the place where we can wade across. 12 vote: Let's swim. . . . What are you going to do? Negotiate who will swim and who will walk? Or lead from the front because 88 people know that there are only two common sense answers.
Can they split into 3 groups?
"That's the point. Under PR they can do what they want. But most likely drown and take others, less able to make and educated or experienced decision, with them. Under a two party system, most likely the majority will be saved, even if left feeling grumpy that they wanted to swim.  | |||
"I'll put it another way. For me anyway. There are a 100 people, children and adults, at a raging river that is 400 metres across. All are starving and wet and cold and need help soon. There are three ways over: 1. Walk 50 miles to a place where you can wade across. 2. Walk 50 miles to a place where there is a bridge. 3. Swim. 34 vote: Let's go find the bridge, 54 vote: Let's walk go to the place where we can wade across. 12 vote: Let's swim. . . . What are you going to do? Negotiate who will swim and who will walk? Or lead from the front because 88 people know that there are only two common sense answers. "I suppose it's how you act on the votes. In your example if 33% voted bridge and 33% voted wade and 34% voted swim, the choices might be:- 1) Do nothing, no clear winner (they starve) 2) Swim (most popular choice, and they drown). | |||
"One of the reasons I support Reform is because they advocate proportional representation. That would break the monopoly of the LabCon, and give people the opportunity to make a meaningful vote for the smaller parties. Our current system is old fashioned and unfair. The Lib Dem’s have been advocating for PR since time immemorial… it has always been a fundamental principle of the party Do you remember the PR referendum of 2011… we have been here before! Only 40% of people could be bothered to vote! It wasn’t a PR referendum though. It was the highly confusing AV which nobody understood. So confusing that they use some sort of AV for elections to the Scottish parliament, the Northern Ireland and Welsh Assembly, the European Parliament (when we were a member) , the London Assembly and for the mayoral elections………
If you are after the purest sense of PR, no country in the world does…. If you want an example of why pure PR doesn’t work, looks how many governments Italy has had since WW2….. it gives overinflated power to small parties and is super volatile…. (Look how much power the DUP had over the conservatives during the last hung parliament) "but would ppl respect the result of a referendum? | |||
"I think the one issue I have with the introduction of PR is that politically we are too immature. We seemed to have regressed from times when we could have national governments, for the benefit of the country, to the populist nonsense we have today. When you have someone like Farage, who can behave as he likes because he is the majority shareholder of Reform and there is no way he can be forced to step down as party leader, what incentive is there for him to compromise in any way? This Americanised polarised and presidential model with its attendant culture wars and populist rhetoric would not make for effective governance. Much as I’d like PR I think we need to grow the fuck up before we could make a success of it. That’s a fair argument actually! "Farage’s grift is rabble rousing, that’s how he earns his coin. There is no benefit to him to become part of the elite that he pretends he wasn’t born into. He needs to keep his ‘man of the people, tells it like it is’ facade up to keep all that juicy cash rolling in. If he had actual responsibility and was subjected to scrutiny he couldn’t cope and the jovial mask would slip, we’ve seen that in the current campaign when he’s been asked pretty basic questions. That sort of figure poisons the PR well for everyone. | |||
"I think the one issue I have with the introduction of PR is that politically we are too immature. We seemed to have regressed from times when we could have national governments, for the benefit of the country, to the populist nonsense we have today. When you have someone like Farage, who can behave as he likes because he is the majority shareholder of Reform and there is no way he can be forced to step down as party leader, what incentive is there for him to compromise in any way? This Americanised polarised and presidential model with its attendant culture wars and populist rhetoric would not make for effective governance. Much as I’d like PR I think we need to grow the fuck up before we could make a success of it. That’s a fair argument actually!
Farage’s grift is rabble rousing, that’s how he earns his coin. There is no benefit to him to become part of the elite that he pretends he wasn’t born into. He needs to keep his ‘man of the people, tells it like it is’ facade up to keep all that juicy cash rolling in. If he had actual responsibility and was subjected to scrutiny he couldn’t cope and the jovial mask would slip, we’ve seen that in the current campaign when he’s been asked pretty basic questions.
That sort of figure poisons the PR well for everyone."so pr without reform how democratic of you lol | |||
"I'll put it another way. For me anyway. There are a 100 people, children and adults, at a raging river that is 400 metres across. All are starving and wet and cold and need help soon. There are three ways over: 1. Walk 50 miles to a place where you can wade across. 2. Walk 50 miles to a place where there is a bridge. 3. Swim. 34 vote: Let's go find the bridge, 54 vote: Let's walk go to the place where we can wade across. 12 vote: Let's swim. . . . What are you going to do? Negotiate who will swim and who will walk? Or lead from the front because 88 people know that there are only two common sense answers. "Go with the 54 because it is the majority? | |||
"One of the reasons I support Reform is because they advocate proportional representation. That would break the monopoly of the LabCon, and give people the opportunity to make a meaningful vote for the smaller parties. Our current system is old fashioned and unfair. The Lib Dem’s have been advocating for PR since time immemorial… it has always been a fundamental principle of the party Do you remember the PR referendum of 2011… we have been here before! Only 40% of people could be bothered to vote! It wasn’t a PR referendum though. It was the highly confusing AV which nobody understood. So confusing that they use some sort of AV for elections to the Scottish parliament, the Northern Ireland and Welsh Assembly, the European Parliament (when we were a member) , the London Assembly and for the mayoral elections………
If you are after the purest sense of PR, no country in the world does…. If you want an example of why pure PR doesn’t work, looks how many governments Italy has had since WW2….. it gives overinflated power to small parties and is super volatile…. (Look how much power the DUP had over the conservatives during the last hung parliament) but would ppl respect the result of a referendum?"If we insisted the result needed to be a super majority, say 60/40 then yeah. None of this 52/48 too close to call rubbish | |||
"Ah yes, the panacea that is Proportional Representation, where you end up with a government that nobody actually voted for " I would say you end up with a government thats representative of how the people voted. I'm a fan of PR. | |||
"One of the reasons I support Reform is because they advocate proportional representation. That would break the monopoly of the LabCon, and give people the opportunity to make a meaningful vote for the smaller parties. Our current system is old fashioned and unfair. The Lib Dem’s have been advocating for PR since time immemorial… it has always been a fundamental principle of the party Do you remember the PR referendum of 2011… we have been here before! Only 40% of people could be bothered to vote! It wasn’t a PR referendum though. It was the highly confusing AV which nobody understood. So confusing that they use some sort of AV for elections to the Scottish parliament, the Northern Ireland and Welsh Assembly, the European Parliament (when we were a member) , the London Assembly and for the mayoral elections………
If you are after the purest sense of PR, no country in the world does…. If you want an example of why pure PR doesn’t work, looks how many governments Italy has had since WW2….. it gives overinflated power to small parties and is super volatile…. (Look how much power the DUP had over the conservatives during the last hung parliament) but would ppl respect the result of a referendum?
If we insisted the result needed to be a super majority, say 60/40 then yeah. None of this 52/48 too close to call rubbish "the thing is 51/49 is a majority you don’t have to like it but can still respect it | |||
"One of the reasons I support Reform is because they advocate proportional representation. That would break the monopoly of the LabCon, and give people the opportunity to make a meaningful vote for the smaller parties. Our current system is old fashioned and unfair. The Lib Dem’s have been advocating for PR since time immemorial… it has always been a fundamental principle of the party Do you remember the PR referendum of 2011… we have been here before! Only 40% of people could be bothered to vote! It wasn’t a PR referendum though. It was the highly confusing AV which nobody understood. So confusing that they use some sort of AV for elections to the Scottish parliament, the Northern Ireland and Welsh Assembly, the European Parliament (when we were a member) , the London Assembly and for the mayoral elections………
If you are after the purest sense of PR, no country in the world does…. If you want an example of why pure PR doesn’t work, looks how many governments Italy has had since WW2….. it gives overinflated power to small parties and is super volatile…. (Look how much power the DUP had over the conservatives during the last hung parliament) but would ppl respect the result of a referendum?
If we insisted the result needed to be a super majority, say 60/40 then yeah. None of this 52/48 too close to call rubbish the thing is 51/49 is a majority you don’t have to like it but can still respect it "But there’s too much room for error and changing demographics quickly change the outcome. It also leaves almost half the country unhappy. Far better to require a super majority in referendums to ensure decisions are clear (although as I type that I am starting to see a bit of irony re my support of PR lol) | |||
"One of the reasons I support Reform is because they advocate proportional representation. That would break the monopoly of the LabCon, and give people the opportunity to make a meaningful vote for the smaller parties. Our current system is old fashioned and unfair." Of course they back PR, same as the turkeys won't vote for Christmas saying... Any other bs reasoning is lies, and you're stupid if you believe otherwise. Vote whoever you feel like represents you best, changing to PR does nothing different and there will always be a lack of representation somewhere or people feeling forgotten about whichever way you try to dress it up Also, UKIP would argue that they got plenty of support in 2015 for their agenda. | |||
"I'll put it another way. For me anyway. There are a 100 people, children and adults, at a raging river that is 400 metres across. All are starving and wet and cold and need help soon. There are three ways over: 1. Walk 50 miles to a place where you can wade across. 2. Walk 50 miles to a place where there is a bridge. 3. Swim. 34 vote: Let's go find the bridge, 54 vote: Let's walk go to the place where we can wade across. 12 vote: Let's swim. . . . What are you going to do? Negotiate who will swim and who will walk? Or lead from the front because 88 people know that there are only two common sense answers.
Go with the 54 because it is the majority?"Which proves that PR is slow to work if you choose anything less than. You could of course hold a second vote of the 88 and to see if it's the bridge or wading across. But there's time and sluggishness in the mix again, in a real life legislature that could take weeks or even months. | |||
"One of the reasons I support Reform is because they advocate proportional representation. That would break the monopoly of the LabCon, and give people the opportunity to make a meaningful vote for the smaller parties. Our current system is old fashioned and unfair. Of course they back PR, same as the turkeys won't vote for Christmas saying... Any other bs reasoning is lies, and you're stupid if you believe otherwise. Vote whoever you feel like represents you best, changing to PR does nothing different and there will always be a lack of representation somewhere or people feeling forgotten about whichever way you try to dress it up Also, UKIP would argue that they got plenty of support in 2015 for their agenda." Erm proportional representation is the epitome of REPRESENTATION | |||
"I'll put it another way. For me anyway. There are a 100 people, children and adults, at a raging river that is 400 metres across. All are starving and wet and cold and need help soon. There are three ways over: 1. Walk 50 miles to a place where you can wade across. 2. Walk 50 miles to a place where there is a bridge. 3. Swim. 34 vote: Let's go find the bridge, 54 vote: Let's walk go to the place where we can wade across. 12 vote: Let's swim. . . . What are you going to do? Negotiate who will swim and who will walk? Or lead from the front because 88 people know that there are only two common sense answers.
Go with the 54 because it is the majority?
Which proves that PR is slow to work if you choose anything less than. You could of course hold a second vote of the 88 and to see if it's the bridge or wading across. But there's time and sluggishness in the mix again, in a real life legislature that could take weeks or even months.
"And it doesn’t already? | |||
"I'll put it another way. For me anyway. There are a 100 people, children and adults, at a raging river that is 400 metres across. All are starving and wet and cold and need help soon. There are three ways over: 1. Walk 50 miles to a place where you can wade across. 2. Walk 50 miles to a place where there is a bridge. 3. Swim. 34 vote: Let's go find the bridge, 54 vote: Let's walk go to the place where we can wade across. 12 vote: Let's swim. . . . What are you going to do? Negotiate who will swim and who will walk? Or lead from the front because 88 people know that there are only two common sense answers.
Go with the 54 because it is the majority?
Which proves that PR is slow to work if you choose anything less than. You could of course hold a second vote of the 88 and to see if it's the bridge or wading across. But there's time and sluggishness in the mix again, in a real life legislature that could take weeks or even months.
And it doesn’t already? "Indeed. But exponentially with pr. | |||
"One of the reasons I support Reform is because they advocate proportional representation. That would break the monopoly of the LabCon, and give people the opportunity to make a meaningful vote for the smaller parties. Our current system is old fashioned and unfair. The Lib Dem’s have been advocating for PR since time immemorial… it has always been a fundamental principle of the party Do you remember the PR referendum of 2011… we have been here before! Only 40% of people could be bothered to vote! It wasn’t a PR referendum though. It was the highly confusing AV which nobody understood. So confusing that they use some sort of AV for elections to the Scottish parliament, the Northern Ireland and Welsh Assembly, the European Parliament (when we were a member) , the London Assembly and for the mayoral elections………
If you are after the purest sense of PR, no country in the world does…. If you want an example of why pure PR doesn’t work, looks how many governments Italy has had since WW2….. it gives overinflated power to small parties and is super volatile…. (Look how much power the DUP had over the conservatives during the last hung parliament) but would ppl respect the result of a referendum?
If we insisted the result needed to be a super majority, say 60/40 then yeah. None of this 52/48 too close to call rubbish the thing is 51/49 is a majority you don’t have to like it but can still respect it
But there’s too much room for error and changing demographics quickly change the outcome. It also leaves almost half the country unhappy. Far better to require a super majority in referendums to ensure decisions are clear (although as I type that I am starting to see a bit of irony re my support of PR lol) "but what if it’s 59/41 then you will always have arguments about referendums no matter what if yr in a pub and had to hold yr hands up on a vote and it was 51/49 and you lost you’d say ok and be done with it but a loss on a referendum no chance always be moaners lol | |||
"One of the reasons I support Reform is because they advocate proportional representation. That would break the monopoly of the LabCon, and give people the opportunity to make a meaningful vote for the smaller parties. Our current system is old fashioned and unfair. The Lib Dem’s have been advocating for PR since time immemorial… it has always been a fundamental principle of the party Do you remember the PR referendum of 2011… we have been here before! Only 40% of people could be bothered to vote! It wasn’t a PR referendum though. It was the highly confusing AV which nobody understood. So confusing that they use some sort of AV for elections to the Scottish parliament, the Northern Ireland and Welsh Assembly, the European Parliament (when we were a member) , the London Assembly and for the mayoral elections………
If you are after the purest sense of PR, no country in the world does…. If you want an example of why pure PR doesn’t work, looks how many governments Italy has had since WW2….. it gives overinflated power to small parties and is super volatile…. (Look how much power the DUP had over the conservatives during the last hung parliament) but would ppl respect the result of a referendum?
If we insisted the result needed to be a super majority, say 60/40 then yeah. None of this 52/48 too close to call rubbish the thing is 51/49 is a majority you don’t have to like it but can still respect it
But there’s too much room for error and changing demographics quickly change the outcome. It also leaves almost half the country unhappy. Far better to require a super majority in referendums to ensure decisions are clear (although as I type that I am starting to see a bit of irony re my support of PR lol) "I can see the merit in this, somewhere in the region of 1.5 million people who voted for Brexit are now dead, so if all votes were cast exactly the same way by those who voted in 2016 and are still alive, the result would be reversed. It’s only 8 years later and the country is locked into a destructive policy by 1.5 million people who aren’t around to sufffer the consequences. | |||
"One of the reasons I support Reform is because they advocate proportional representation. That would break the monopoly of the LabCon, and give people the opportunity to make a meaningful vote for the smaller parties. Our current system is old fashioned and unfair. The Lib Dem’s have been advocating for PR since time immemorial… it has always been a fundamental principle of the party Do you remember the PR referendum of 2011… we have been here before! Only 40% of people could be bothered to vote! It wasn’t a PR referendum though. It was the highly confusing AV which nobody understood. So confusing that they use some sort of AV for elections to the Scottish parliament, the Northern Ireland and Welsh Assembly, the European Parliament (when we were a member) , the London Assembly and for the mayoral elections………
If you are after the purest sense of PR, no country in the world does…. If you want an example of why pure PR doesn’t work, looks how many governments Italy has had since WW2….. it gives overinflated power to small parties and is super volatile…. (Look how much power the DUP had over the conservatives during the last hung parliament) but would ppl respect the result of a referendum?
If we insisted the result needed to be a super majority, say 60/40 then yeah. None of this 52/48 too close to call rubbish the thing is 51/49 is a majority you don’t have to like it but can still respect it
But there’s too much room for error and changing demographics quickly change the outcome. It also leaves almost half the country unhappy. Far better to require a super majority in referendums to ensure decisions are clear (although as I type that I am starting to see a bit of irony re my support of PR lol)
I can see the merit in this, somewhere in the region of 1.5 million people who voted for Brexit are now dead, so if all votes were cast exactly the same way by those who voted in 2016 and are still alive, the result would be reversed.
It’s only 8 years later and the country is locked into a destructive policy by 1.5 million people who aren’t around to sufffer the consequences."there yo go the poster proves my point lol | |||
"I'll put it another way. For me anyway. There are a 100 people, children and adults, at a raging river that is 400 metres across. All are starving and wet and cold and need help soon. There are three ways over: 1. Walk 50 miles to a place where you can wade across. 2. Walk 50 miles to a place where there is a bridge. 3. Swim. 34 vote: Let's go find the bridge, 54 vote: Let's walk go to the place where we can wade across. 12 vote: Let's swim. . . . What are you going to do? Negotiate who will swim and who will walk? Or lead from the front because 88 people know that there are only two common sense answers.
Go with the 54 because it is the majority?
Which proves that PR is slow to work if you choose anything less than. You could of course hold a second vote of the 88 and to see if it's the bridge or wading across. But there's time and sluggishness in the mix again, in a real life legislature that could take weeks or even months.
And it doesn’t already?
Indeed. But exponentially with pr. "Are you certain about that. In all countries that use a form of PR? | |||
| |||
| |||
"I'll put it another way. For me anyway. There are a 100 people, children and adults, at a raging river that is 400 metres across. All are starving and wet and cold and need help soon. There are three ways over: 1. Walk 50 miles to a place where you can wade across. 2. Walk 50 miles to a place where there is a bridge. 3. Swim. 34 vote: Let's go find the bridge, 54 vote: Let's walk go to the place where we can wade across. 12 vote: Let's swim. . . . What are you going to do? Negotiate who will swim and who will walk? Or lead from the front because 88 people know that there are only two common sense answers.
Go with the 54 because it is the majority?
Which proves that PR is slow to work if you choose anything less than. You could of course hold a second vote of the 88 and to see if it's the bridge or wading across. But there's time and sluggishness in the mix again, in a real life legislature that could take weeks or even months.
And it doesn’t already?
Indeed. But exponentially with pr.
Are you certain about that. In all countries that use a form of PR?"I couldn't imagine a system of pr where it didn't take longer to wheel and deal and consult and argue and demand and whip with more parties under the brolly, could you? | |||
| |||
 | |||
"I'll put it another way. For me anyway. There are a 100 people, children and adults, at a raging river that is 400 metres across. All are starving and wet and cold and need help soon. There are three ways over: 1. Walk 50 miles to a place where you can wade across. 2. Walk 50 miles to a place where there is a bridge. 3. Swim. 34 vote: Let's go find the bridge, 54 vote: Let's walk go to the place where we can wade across. 12 vote: Let's swim. . . . What are you going to do? Negotiate who will swim and who will walk? Or lead from the front because 88 people know that there are only two common sense answers.
Go with the 54 because it is the majority?
Which proves that PR is slow to work if you choose anything less than. You could of course hold a second vote of the 88 and to see if it's the bridge or wading across. But there's time and sluggishness in the mix again, in a real life legislature that could take weeks or even months.
And it doesn’t already?
Indeed. But exponentially with pr.
Are you certain about that. In all countries that use a form of PR?
I couldn't imagine a system of pr where it didn't take longer to wheel and deal and consult and argue and demand and whip with more parties under the brolly, could you?"Well Switzerland seems pretty efficient and well organised | |||
| |||
"Switzerland is a Consociationalism system. Dealing with the elites of religious, ethnic, or linguistic lines. And what does elite usually mean, it means that the poor are not properly represented. Which is actually akin to class corporatism. @ May 14, 2024 Switzerland is also most expense economies in which to live . . . List of 8 Most Expensive Countries Worldwide Switzerland Norway Iceland Japan Denmark Bahamas Luxembourg Israel " But you think FPTP better represents the poor in the UK? | |||
"Switzerland is a Consociationalism system. Dealing with the elites of religious, ethnic, or linguistic lines. And what does elite usually mean, it means that the poor are not properly represented. Which is actually akin to class corporatism. @ May 14, 2024 Switzerland is also most expense economies in which to live . . . List of 8 Most Expensive Countries Worldwide Switzerland Norway Iceland Japan Denmark Bahamas Luxembourg Israel But you think FPTP better represents the poor in the UK?" Also not sure how much poverty there actually is in Switzerland either… “According to the 2023 Global Wealth Report by Credit Suisse, Switzerland once again came out on top when it comes to the mean average wealth per adult at a whopping $685,230. Furthermore, roughly one adult in six owns assets worth more than one million U.S.” | |||
"Switzerland is a Consociationalism system. Dealing with the elites of religious, ethnic, or linguistic lines. And what does elite usually mean, it means that the poor are not properly represented. Which is actually akin to class corporatism. @ May 14, 2024 Switzerland is also most expense economies in which to live . . . List of 8 Most Expensive Countries Worldwide Switzerland Norway Iceland Japan Denmark Bahamas Luxembourg Israel But you think FPTP better represents the poor in the UK? Also not sure how much poverty there actually is in Switzerland either… “According to the 2023 Global Wealth Report by Credit Suisse, Switzerland once again came out on top when it comes to the mean average wealth per adult at a whopping $685,230. Furthermore, roughly one adult in six owns assets worth more than one million U.S.”" Was interested so I will answer my own question… “The latest available statistics (2021) indicate that 8.7 percent of the Swiss population live in poverty. As a comparison, in Germany that number is 14.7 percent, in France it is 15.6 percent, and in Italy just over 20 percent.” So not sure what that has to do with PR but as I said, Switzerland look well run and well organised despite (or because) of PR | |||
| |||
"Switzerland is a Consociationalism system. Dealing with the elites of religious, ethnic, or linguistic lines. And what does elite usually mean, it means that the poor are not properly represented. Which is actually akin to class corporatism. @ May 14, 2024 Switzerland is also most expense economies in which to live . . . List of 8 Most Expensive Countries Worldwide Switzerland Norway Iceland Japan Denmark Bahamas Luxembourg Israel But you think FPTP better represents the poor in the UK? Also not sure how much poverty there actually is in Switzerland either… “According to the 2023 Global Wealth Report by Credit Suisse, Switzerland once again came out on top when it comes to the mean average wealth per adult at a whopping $685,230. Furthermore, roughly one adult in six owns assets worth more than one million U.S.” ''In 2022 (income 2021), 8.2% of the Swiss population i.e. approx. 702'000 people were affected by income poverty.'''" Posted before reading my next post? | |||
"Switzerland is a Consociationalism system. Dealing with the elites of religious, ethnic, or linguistic lines. And what does elite usually mean, it means that the poor are not properly represented. Which is actually akin to class corporatism. @ May 14, 2024 Switzerland is also most expense economies in which to live . . . List of 8 Most Expensive Countries Worldwide Switzerland Norway Iceland Japan Denmark Bahamas Luxembourg Israel But you think FPTP better represents the poor in the UK? Also not sure how much poverty there actually is in Switzerland either… “According to the 2023 Global Wealth Report by Credit Suisse, Switzerland once again came out on top when it comes to the mean average wealth per adult at a whopping $685,230. Furthermore, roughly one adult in six owns assets worth more than one million U.S.” Was interested so I will answer my own question… “The latest available statistics (2021) indicate that 8.7 percent of the Swiss population live in poverty. As a comparison, in Germany that number is 14.7 percent, in France it is 15.6 percent, and in Italy just over 20 percent.” So not sure what that has to do with PR but as I said, Switzerland look well run and well organised despite (or because) of PR "May 8, 2023 (more recent data) The rate of poverty in Switzerland increased in 2021 to 8.7% of the population, compared with 8.5% the previous year, according to official statistics. This means around 745,000 people were living on an income below the poverty line – defined as an average of CHF2,289 ($2,546) per month for a single person and CHF3,989 per month for two adults and two children. Quite the income divide: ($2,546) per month for a single person and CHF3,989 per month for two adults and two children. | |||
| |||
"I'll put it another way. For me anyway. There are a 100 people, children and adults, at a raging river that is 400 metres across. All are starving and wet and cold and need help soon. There are three ways over: 1. Walk 50 miles to a place where you can wade across. 2. Walk 50 miles to a place where there is a bridge. 3. Swim. 34 vote: Let's go find the bridge, 54 vote: Let's walk go to the place where we can wade across. 12 vote: Let's swim. . . . What are you going to do? Negotiate who will swim and who will walk? Or lead from the front because 88 people know that there are only two common sense answers.
Go with the 54 because it is the majority?
Which proves that PR is slow to work if you choose anything less than. You could of course hold a second vote of the 88 and to see if it's the bridge or wading across. But there's time and sluggishness in the mix again, in a real life legislature that could take weeks or even months.
And it doesn’t already?
Indeed. But exponentially with pr.
Are you certain about that. In all countries that use a form of PR?
I couldn't imagine a system of pr where it didn't take longer to wheel and deal and consult and argue and demand and whip with more parties under the brolly, could you?"I'd agree that on average it takes longer. I wonder if on average the legislation is better, or if it's a camel (horse designed by committee)? Although camels are a very successful species. | |||
"I'll put it another way. For me anyway. There are a 100 people, children and adults, at a raging river that is 400 metres across. All are starving and wet and cold and need help soon. There are three ways over: 1. Walk 50 miles to a place where you can wade across. 2. Walk 50 miles to a place where there is a bridge. 3. Swim. 34 vote: Let's go find the bridge, 54 vote: Let's walk go to the place where we can wade across. 12 vote: Let's swim. . . . What are you going to do? Negotiate who will swim and who will walk? Or lead from the front because 88 people know that there are only two common sense answers.
Go with the 54 because it is the majority?
Which proves that PR is slow to work if you choose anything less than. You could of course hold a second vote of the 88 and to see if it's the bridge or wading across. But there's time and sluggishness in the mix again, in a real life legislature that could take weeks or even months.
And it doesn’t already?
Indeed. But exponentially with pr.
Are you certain about that. In all countries that use a form of PR?
I couldn't imagine a system of pr where it didn't take longer to wheel and deal and consult and argue and demand and whip with more parties under the brolly, could you?
I'd agree that on average it takes longer. I wonder if on average the legislation is better, or if it's a camel (horse designed by committee)?
Although camels are a very successful species. "But won't put food on your table. Unless you eat one. | |||
"I'll put it another way. For me anyway. There are a 100 people, children and adults, at a raging river that is 400 metres across. All are starving and wet and cold and need help soon. There are three ways over: 1. Walk 50 miles to a place where you can wade across. 2. Walk 50 miles to a place where there is a bridge. 3. Swim. 34 vote: Let's go find the bridge, 54 vote: Let's walk go to the place where we can wade across. 12 vote: Let's swim. . . . What are you going to do? Negotiate who will swim and who will walk? Or lead from the front because 88 people know that there are only two common sense answers.
Go with the 54 because it is the majority?
Which proves that PR is slow to work if you choose anything less than. You could of course hold a second vote of the 88 and to see if it's the bridge or wading across. But there's time and sluggishness in the mix again, in a real life legislature that could take weeks or even months.
And it doesn’t already?
Indeed. But exponentially with pr.
Are you certain about that. In all countries that use a form of PR?
I couldn't imagine a system of pr where it didn't take longer to wheel and deal and consult and argue and demand and whip with more parties under the brolly, could you?
I'd agree that on average it takes longer. I wonder if on average the legislation is better, or if it's a camel (horse designed by committee)?
Although camels are a very successful species.
But won't put food on your table. Unless you eat one."Camel milk in your tea? | |||
"Switzerland is a Consociationalism system. Dealing with the elites of religious, ethnic, or linguistic lines. And what does elite usually mean, it means that the poor are not properly represented. Which is actually akin to class corporatism. @ May 14, 2024 Switzerland is also most expense economies in which to live . . . List of 8 Most Expensive Countries Worldwide Switzerland Norway Iceland Japan Denmark Bahamas Luxembourg Israel But you think FPTP better represents the poor in the UK? Also not sure how much poverty there actually is in Switzerland either… “According to the 2023 Global Wealth Report by Credit Suisse, Switzerland once again came out on top when it comes to the mean average wealth per adult at a whopping $685,230. Furthermore, roughly one adult in six owns assets worth more than one million U.S.” Was interested so I will answer my own question… “The latest available statistics (2021) indicate that 8.7 percent of the Swiss population live in poverty. As a comparison, in Germany that number is 14.7 percent, in France it is 15.6 percent, and in Italy just over 20 percent.” So not sure what that has to do with PR but as I said, Switzerland look well run and well organised despite (or because) of PR
May 8, 2023 (more recent data)
The rate of poverty in Switzerland increased in 2021 to 8.7% of the population, compared with 8.5% the previous year, according to official statistics.
This means around 745,000 people were living on an income below the poverty line – defined as an average of CHF2,289 ($2,546) per month for a single person and CHF3,989 per month for two adults and two children.
Quite the income divide:
($2,546) per month for a single person and CHF3,989 per month for two adults and two children."Still better than most countries (UK at 22% according to JRF) but regardless what has that got to do with PR? You said PR led to unstable govt and slow legislation. I’d say just one example that disproves that is Switzerland, sure there are others. | |||
"PS: Nothing 'Looks' well run. It demonstrably is or it isn't. "Well unless you have intimate inside knowledge how can you be certain anyway | |||
| |||
"I'd agree that on average it takes longer. I wonder if on average the legislation is better" Do we know that for a fact? Is that demonstrably true with all legislation in all countries with PR in comparison to FPTP? Do we have like-for-like legislation comparison sp that they have the same level of complexity or controversy? Or is that just an assumption based on something intangible (or looking at places like Italy)? | |||
"Start you own PropRes movement . . . why not . . ? It already has a momentum in Labour . . . 'Birldn PR Movement'. But would you proportionally ask people if they wanted it? And live with the result? (TIC)" Could you retype/re-ask in English please  | |||
"Start you own PropRes movement . . . why not . . ? It already has a momentum in Labour . . . 'Birldn PR Movement'. But would you proportionally ask people if they wanted it? And live with the result? (TIC) Could you retype/re-ask in English please "Nej. Klart nog. | |||
"@Johnny I'd agree that on average it takes longer. I wonder if on average the legislation is better Do we know that for a fact? Is that demonstrably true with all legislation in all countries with PR in comparison to FPTP? Do we have like-for-like legislation comparison sp that they have the same level of complexity or controversy? Or is that just an assumption based on something intangible (or looking at places like Italy)?" I don't know for a fact. Just based on observation, so could be 100% wrong, as most of the legislation that gets put through is relatively mundane and not newsworthy, I don't follow closely enough. So only when a more contentious issue comes up do we get to see the differences between coalition elements. Just the same as my assumption that the end result is "better" could be completely wrong. I'm 50/50 on proportional representation. | |||
"@Johnny I'd agree that on average it takes longer. I wonder if on average the legislation is better Do we know that for a fact? Is that demonstrably true with all legislation in all countries with PR in comparison to FPTP? Do we have like-for-like legislation comparison sp that they have the same level of complexity or controversy? Or is that just an assumption based on something intangible (or looking at places like Italy)? I don't know for a fact. Just based on observation, so could be 100% wrong, as most of the legislation that gets put through is relatively mundane and not newsworthy, I don't follow closely enough. So only when a more contentious issue comes up do we get to see the differences between coalition elements. Just the same as my assumption that the end result is "better" could be completely wrong. I'm 50/50 on proportional representation. " 50/50 well that won’t pass then
I think that people believe PR can’t work as they look at where it doesn’t work (obv). But there are countries where it seems it does work so why not look at them? | |||
"One of the reasons I support Reform is because they advocate proportional representation. That would break the monopoly of the LabCon, and give people the opportunity to make a meaningful vote for the smaller parties. Our current system is old fashioned and unfair. The Lib Dem’s have been advocating for PR since time immemorial… it has always been a fundamental principle of the party Do you remember the PR referendum of 2011… we have been here before! Only 40% of people could be bothered to vote! It wasn’t a PR referendum though. It was the highly confusing AV which nobody understood. So confusing that they use some sort of AV for elections to the Scottish parliament, the Northern Ireland and Welsh Assembly, the European Parliament (when we were a member) , the London Assembly and for the mayoral elections………
If you are after the purest sense of PR, no country in the world does…. If you want an example of why pure PR doesn’t work, looks how many governments Italy has had since WW2….. it gives overinflated power to small parties and is super volatile…. (Look how much power the DUP had over the conservatives during the last hung parliament) but would ppl respect the result of a referendum?
If we insisted the result needed to be a super majority, say 60/40 then yeah. None of this 52/48 too close to call rubbish the thing is 51/49 is a majority you don’t have to like it but can still respect it
But there’s too much room for error and changing demographics quickly change the outcome. It also leaves almost half the country unhappy. Far better to require a super majority in referendums to ensure decisions are clear (although as I type that I am starting to see a bit of irony re my support of PR lol)
I can see the merit in this, somewhere in the region of 1.5 million people who voted for Brexit are now dead, so if all votes were cast exactly the same way by those who voted in 2016 and are still alive, the result would be reversed.
It’s only 8 years later and the country is locked into a destructive policy by 1.5 million people who aren’t around to sufffer the consequences."Do you know how many people who voted remain have since passed? | |||
"Hey @NotMe may have this wrong but always been under the impression you are a contractor? Did you know that the Lib Dems are the only party (AFAIK) who want to get rid of IR35 and establish three distinct employment classes: Employed, Self-Employed, Contractor (they call it something else but can’t remember). IR35 is a travesty. How can someone simultaneously be treated as employed for tax purposes but not employed for rights & benefits?" Consultant outside of IR35, but agree it is a joke and I have often thought that there will be some kind of recourse for contractors who are going through the umbrella smoke and mirrors! | |||
"@Johnny I'd agree that on average it takes longer. I wonder if on average the legislation is better Do we know that for a fact? Is that demonstrably true with all legislation in all countries with PR in comparison to FPTP? Do we have like-for-like legislation comparison sp that they have the same level of complexity or controversy? Or is that just an assumption based on something intangible (or looking at places like Italy)? I don't know for a fact. Just based on observation, so could be 100% wrong, as most of the legislation that gets put through is relatively mundane and not newsworthy, I don't follow closely enough. So only when a more contentious issue comes up do we get to see the differences between coalition elements. Just the same as my assumption that the end result is "better" could be completely wrong. I'm 50/50 on proportional representation. 50/50 well that won’t pass then
I think that people believe PR can’t work as they look at where it doesn’t work (obv). But there are countries where it seems it does work so why not look at them?"Kinda like the health argument | |||
"Hey @NotMe may have this wrong but always been under the impression you are a contractor? Did you know that the Lib Dems are the only party (AFAIK) who want to get rid of IR35 and establish three distinct employment classes: Employed, Self-Employed, Contractor (they call it something else but can’t remember). IR35 is a travesty. How can someone simultaneously be treated as employed for tax purposes but not employed for rights & benefits? Consultant outside of IR35, but agree it is a joke and I have often thought that there will be some kind of recourse for contractors who are going through the umbrella smoke and mirrors!" VOTE LIB DEM VOTE LIB DEM*
*please ignore Ed Davey being a bit of a berk!  | |||
"@Johnny I'd agree that on average it takes longer. I wonder if on average the legislation is better Do we know that for a fact? Is that demonstrably true with all legislation in all countries with PR in comparison to FPTP? Do we have like-for-like legislation comparison sp that they have the same level of complexity or controversy? Or is that just an assumption based on something intangible (or looking at places like Italy)? I don't know for a fact. Just based on observation, so could be 100% wrong, as most of the legislation that gets put through is relatively mundane and not newsworthy, I don't follow closely enough. So only when a more contentious issue comes up do we get to see the differences between coalition elements. Just the same as my assumption that the end result is "better" could be completely wrong. I'm 50/50 on proportional representation. 50/50 well that won’t pass then
I think that people believe PR can’t work as they look at where it doesn’t work (obv). But there are countries where it seems it does work so why not look at them?
Kinda like the health argument "100%. I keep asking for those who I assume are better informed than me to explain the merits of other healthcare set ups (ie we know USA model is shit but what about Scandinavian countries or Getmany, or Switzerland etc) but nobody does. We just hear “NHS is broken, need change, too much waste, insurance needed, etc” | |||
"Hey @NotMe may have this wrong but always been under the impression you are a contractor? Did you know that the Lib Dems are the only party (AFAIK) who want to get rid of IR35 and establish three distinct employment classes: Employed, Self-Employed, Contractor (they call it something else but can’t remember). IR35 is a travesty. How can someone simultaneously be treated as employed for tax purposes but not employed for rights & benefits? Consultant outside of IR35, but agree it is a joke and I have often thought that there will be some kind of recourse for contractors who are going through the umbrella smoke and mirrors! VOTE LIB DEM VOTE LIB DEM*
*please ignore Ed Davey being a bit of a berk! " | |||
| |||
"Should have given Ed Davy a striped jumper and changde the puzzle to 'Where's Ed?'." | |||
| |||
"Democracy is an illusion & what people are not seeing is that the ultra rich control our political system. They fund the party of choice & individual MP's, they own the media and push particular narratives or to dam and ridicule anyone who threatens the current system of making the ultra rich, richer and that is a clear fact if you open your eyes. " What makes you think people can’t see it? Just read this forum for a few weeks and it is obvious | |||
"I support PR to break monopoly of the big parties. But it's not a perfect system as governments would waste a lot of time squabbling over issues Point 1 I agree Point 2 what unlike now you mean? How can it be right that Govt’s policy agenda can be driven by shady “backbench” closed door deals. Anyone thinking minority groups aren’t already driving the agenda is naive." I agree with the sentiment. I guess it's a choice between moving policies faster at the cost of politicians doing backdoor dealing vs moving slow but them having to do it in public. | |||
"@Johnny I'd agree average it takes longer. I wonder if on average the legislation is better Do we know that for a fact? Is that demonstrably true with all legislation in all countries with PR in comparison to FPTP? Do we have like-for-like legislation comparison sp that they have the same level of complexity or controversy? Or is that just an assumption based on something intangible (or looking at places like Italy)? I don't know for a fact. Just based on observation, so could be 100% wrong, as most of the legislation that gets put through is relatively mundane and not newsworthy, I don't follow closely enough. So only when a more contentious issue comes up do we get to see the differences between coalition elements. Just the same as my assumption that the end result is "better" could be completely wrong. I'm 50/50 on proportional representation. 50/50 well that won’t pass then
I think that people believe PR can’t work as they look at where it doesn’t work (obv). But there are countries where it seems it does work so why not look at them?
Kinda like the health argument
100%. I keep asking for those who I assume are better informed than me to explain the merits of other healthcare set ups (ie we know USA model is shit but what about Scandinavian countries or Getmany, or Switzerland etc) but nobody does. We just hear “NHS is broken, need change, too much waste, insurance needed, etc”"Tbf no one is gonna know the ins and outs of another countries health care system unless they've lived in those countries for a fair few years. Just like we really don't know the ins and outs of the USA system, I'd imagine a many people in the US find that system just right for them. Anyway, I was getting at 'people say PR doesn't work because they look at bad countries' is similar to 'people say different healthcare doesn't work because they look at the US' Maybe we all need to open our minds a little. | |||
| |||
"Overnight I have changed my position on PR vs FPTP. What a wonderous amazing system we have that gifts the Lib Dems the third most seats with 71 from a 13% popular vote while simultaneously keeping those nasty Reform folks down to 4 seats despite getting 14% popular vote. Excellent. Democracy in action! Love FPTP long live the triopoly! Oh and Labour must be dreaming? Huge majority on c.37% vote! Lovely stuff." That's why it's never changed... a bit like ffp in the premier league. Top boys make the rules so they won't be budged, actually reminds me of social clubs as well ???? | |||
| |||
"Overnight I have changed my position on PR vs FPTP. What a wonderous amazing system we have that gifts the Lib Dems the third most seats with 71 from a 13% popular vote while simultaneously keeping those nasty Reform folks down to 4 seats despite getting 14% popular vote. Excellent. Democracy in action! Love FPTP long live the triopoly! Oh and Labour must be dreaming? Huge majority on c.37% vote! Lovely stuff." There is a hint of sarcasm in there I think somewhere, lol.. | |||
"This election is proof that we need electoral reform, and the sooner the better. The whole FPTP system is rotten to the core. PR wouldn’t have stopped Labour winning last night, but it might have stopped the LibDems getting third. It is no secret that I support Reform (yes really lol). They finished above the Tories and LibDems in many wards that Labour won. I believe they should have had a lot more to show for that." 2 things…. 1) you were not complaining when the very same FPTP system got Boris Johnson a not quite as extreme but still extreme results last time round…. 2) reform supporters keep on throwing shade at the Lib Dem’s and saying it’s unfair… even under pure PR (which no one uses) 12% of 632 contested seats, 650-northern Ireland, is about 75 seats…. The Lib Dem’s got 72! Maybe reforms education policy should extend to maths lessons for their followers | |||
"This election is proof that we need electoral reform, and the sooner the better. The whole FPTP system is rotten to the core. PR wouldn’t have stopped Labour winning last night, but it might have stopped the LibDems getting third. It is no secret that I support Reform (yes really lol). They finished above the Tories and LibDems in many wards that Labour won. I believe they should have had a lot more to show for that. 2 things…. 1) you were not complaining when the very same FPTP system got Boris Johnson a not quite as extreme but still extreme results last time round…. 2) reform supporters keep on throwing shade at the Lib Dem’s and saying it’s unfair… even under pure PR (which no one uses) 12% of 632 contested seats, 650-northern Ireland, is about 75 seats…. The Lib Dem’s got 72! Maybe reforms education policy should extend to maths lessons for their followers "I don't think anyone is throwing shade at the Lib Dems personally, it's the system. Reform supporters know their maths it seems, hence them knowing its unfair. Reform campaigned offering PR. Maybe because they knew they'd get big numbers but little seats. | |||
"This election is proof that we need electoral reform, and the sooner the better. The whole FPTP system is rotten to the core. PR wouldn’t have stopped Labour winning last night, but it might have stopped the LibDems getting third. It is no secret that I support Reform (yes really lol). They finished above the Tories and LibDems in many wards that Labour won. I believe they should have had a lot more to show for that. 2 things…. 1) you were not complaining when the very same FPTP system got Boris Johnson a not quite as extreme but still extreme results last time round…. 2) reform supporters keep on throwing shade at the Lib Dem’s and saying it’s unfair… even under pure PR (which no one uses) 12% of 632 contested seats, 650-northern Ireland, is about 75 seats…. The Lib Dem’s got 72! Maybe reforms education policy should extend to maths lessons for their followers "The chart on the bbc shows that very well. Lib dems were only just out on the share of vote to seats comparison. However groups like the greens suffered big time with the current system. At the same time the winning party got nearly double the amount of seats compared to their vote share. People did complain about the system before the Boris election and long before that to. It's making the news more this time because this election produced the biggest disparity ever | |||
" This, and we know we would come to a standstill under PR because of the above evidence." The way our politics works now this is true… its all point scoring, petty party v party and desperately wanting to cling to whatever power they have. You would have at least 1 term of getting nothing done, maybe 2. But it creates a different type of politics with a fundamental change to the entire aim being to work together, cross party. And the electorate are not stupid and would then move their votes away from MPs who have proven they cant work together, and with their moved vote suddenly being worth something you would think the politicians would sit up and listen. Ironically its exactly what Kier keeps saying … country first party second. But given his majority i dont see him pushing through a system that would have given him way less seats | |||
"But it creates a different type of politics with a fundamental change to the entire aim being to work together, cross party. And the electorate are not stupid and would then move their votes away from MPs who have proven they cant work together, and with their moved vote suddenly being worth something you would think the politicians would sit up and listen." How would that work? In a PR system, you don't vote for the person, you vote for the party, and the party chooses who will be representing them. If I saw a particular member was being obstructive, how would I be able to vote against that person? | |||
"But it creates a different type of politics with a fundamental change to the entire aim being to work together, cross party. And the electorate are not stupid and would then move their votes away from MPs who have proven they cant work together, and with their moved vote suddenly being worth something you would think the politicians would sit up and listen. How would that work? In a PR system, you don't vote for the person, you vote for the party, and the party chooses who will be representing them. If I saw a particular member was being obstructive, how would I be able to vote against that person?" There is not only one proportional representation system. There are systems where you still vote for candidates. Hell you could design a new system from scratch if you really wanted. But there is also no reason why you couldnt remove your vote from a party if you think that party are playing party politics rather than working with other parties for the good of the country (which is more likely to be the problem than individual contributors ) | |||
| |||
"The reason that Labour only got 36% of the vote was mainly down to tactical voting. Many labour supporters voted Lib Dem/Green to un seat the Tory candidate." They got 34%. But anyway, how many percentage points do you think went to Lib Dems/ Green, given that they inky got 19% between them. | |||
"Is it time to make ever vote count with a change to the 2 horse race. " We went through this around ten years ago. Nobody cared, nobody was interested. Why the sudden elevation of interest now? Is it because Herr Farage thinks it’s unfair do all his obedient followers also have to shout about how unfair it is? Where were all these people in 2013? | |||
"One of the reasons I support Reform is because they advocate proportional representation. That would break the monopoly of the LabCon, and give people the opportunity to make a meaningful vote for the smaller parties. Our current system is old fashioned and unfair. The Lib Dem’s have been advocating for PR since time immemorial… it has always been a fundamental principle of the party Do you remember the PR referendum of 2011… we have been here before! Only 40% of people could be bothered to vote! It wasn’t a PR referendum though. It was the highly confusing AV which nobody understood. So confusing that they use some sort of AV for elections to the Scottish parliament, the Northern Ireland and Welsh Assembly, the European Parliament (when we were a member) , the London Assembly and for the mayoral elections………
If you are after the purest sense of PR, no country in the world does…. If you want an example of why pure PR doesn’t work, looks how many governments Italy has had since WW2….. it gives overinflated power to small parties and is super volatile…. (Look how much power the DUP had over the conservatives during the last hung parliament) but would ppl respect the result of a referendum?
If we insisted the result needed to be a super majority, say 60/40 then yeah. None of this 52/48 too close to call rubbish "52/48 = small percentage but large numbers | |||
| |||
| |||
"I think PR would allow the extreme parties an influence but I also think it would lead to a lot of compromise which hopefully would in turn lead to more long term policies. The ending of policy swings every five years has to be good for the stability of the country. I would however dramatically clean up both funding options and expenses, gifts, trips etc of the MPs . No gifts no housing allowance only moving expenses. Free digs in London for business for any mp outside the M25. Constituency offices manned by civil servants for clarity and trust. No nepotism. Intentionally lie and you’re out. No parliamentary privilege . Etc etc etc. If you employ a high risk PR then you must eliminate the possible abuses in advance. It should be done now with FPTP but if we are going to change then make it a condition. " Premier inn | |||
"I think PR would allow the extreme parties an influence but I also think it would lead to a lot of compromise which hopefully would in turn lead to more long term policies. The ending of policy swings every five years has to be good for the stability of the country. I would however dramatically clean up both funding options and expenses, gifts, trips etc of the MPs . No gifts no housing allowance only moving expenses. Free digs in London for business for any mp outside the M25. Constituency offices manned by civil servants for clarity and trust. No nepotism. Intentionally lie and you’re out. No parliamentary privilege . Etc etc etc. If you employ a high risk PR then you must eliminate the possible abuses in advance. It should be done now with FPTP but if we are going to change then make it a condition. " All very good points. I agree. | |||
