First Past The Post or Proportional Representation?

Proportional representation means some constituencies have to have someone they did not vote for. It means the end of local representational democracy and a switch to pure national-level party politics. The constituency concept may as well be scrapped and just let the parties prioritise the MPs they want (which they do already) in a long list and when we allocate our votes to parties they put in whichever corrupt cronies they want. Much like they do now only worse.

And it will be almost impossible for us to get rid of a bent MP that the party wants to keep.

Dictatorships allow 'governments to govern' too.
All people being represented should trump a party winning 25% of the electorate's vote from having all control.

UKIP won 16% of the vote, they should have 16% of the seats.

And which constituencies would those 100 odd MPs represent? I, like most want a constituency based MP who represents my constituency needs and is held accountable by his/her constituents?

I want independent MPs who would never get voted in under your method.

Your local MP doesn't really have any real power over your local constituency, your council has far more.

You could have STV which would keep local MPs, as well as make sure the result is more proportional.

A local MP has an awful lot of influence in their constituency. They get to vote in the laws that impact on that constituency and represent that community's opinions in parliament.

A council isn't going to be able to discuss economic or foreign policy.

True, but other MPs do that aswell for your constituency. It's the council who determines local tax rates and resource allocation.

I'm fine with having a local MP, that's why STV works well, it combines having a local MP with having PR.

Best of both.

True, but other MPs do that aswell for your constituency. It's the council who determines local tax rates and resource allocation.

I'm fine with having a local MP, that's why STV works well, it combines having a local MP with having PR.

Best of both.

But just because it can't be perfect doesn't mean we shouldn't try. We should aim for a system that best represents people's wishes. I despise UKIP and the people who vote for them, but they should still be represented.

But still, we should have it. It would also stop the gerrymandering of borders to fix elections.

People want to spend less money on taxes and to spend more on public services. They don't want more immigration but generally think we need to take in more refugees etc ad infinitum. The truth is people don't know what they want and pandering to idiots of whatever political persuasion isn't going to make the system any better off, but could in fact create the kind of gridlock and fathing about like in Belgium.





Oh that will never end...

But there was a referendum on the issue and the electorate said no.

I don't think anyone will admit with a straight face that the majority of people actually understood AV when the referendum was proposed, I knew more than my parents did and i was only 15-16 at the time, bloody shambles.

have you even considered the possibility of open list PR voting, also? why have closed national lists when you can have open and regional lists for PR? you get both the relative constituency link *and* a choice in who individually is elected in a party list

The problem there is that it starts becoming too complicated to be transparent. That doesn't 'look like' or 'feel like' democracy.

The biggest benefit of FPTP is that if you want to let the great unwashed masses vote, it is a system they can comprehend.

Every form of PR proposed involves some fiddling with numbers that confuses the people who can't work out that a Wonga loan is a not a good idea.

Ok. I'll put it this way.

There is no wide scale desire for change other than those supporting fringe parties.

These are pretty much my thoughts on the issue, supporting real democracy. I think there needs to be some slight modification of pure direct democracy(at least in the beginning) though because it

Why would there be support for something people do not understand.

Ah, the much vaunted 'I understand something that is vaguely complicated so I won't ask anybody's opinion' brigade.

What are you talking about? Im saying that the support for av was low because they didnt understand it, rather than that they actually thought it was a bad idea.

Politics is linked to the economic system. Democracy would threaten the current economic system.

You're right about the beginning. It would have to be slowly introduced so everyone understands their roles and responsibilities.

How much self-determination should we be wlling to surrender to support the economic system?

I mean why should we be able to choose what we eat, when we sleep, what car we drive or who we **** when all that stuff affects all important economic system.