Should we switch to a different political voting system?

Watch
acd55
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
I feel that proportional voting would cause problems as no one would get a majority and there would be coalitions all the time, and it is difficult for parties to agree on their views for different matters.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
username1799249
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
Agreed - it can be problematic. But I can't help feeling that one of the problems our current political system is that each minister is hell bent on making a name for themselves by spending a huge amount of money changing logos and the way things are done with little or no significant benefit in the end service. So we have seen Hunt reorganise the NHS (again), abolishing clinical commissioning bodies in favour of GPs commissioning care. We have seen Gove and May systematically trying to send the state of education back to the 1960s with a grammar style education. None of it has worked. If Labour get in, they will spend huge amounts of money and resources undoing everything the Tories did and then reorganising everything again with no actual improvements in the services. Things just potter on.

However, a coalition would never be able to effect big change. The compromise is to incrementally improve services. So take free school meals for KS1 students. A superb policy which May wants to get rid of. Progress if ever there was something and born from coalition. The British cycling team employ someone whose job title is "Director of marginal gain" and whose job is to look at small changes which when added up make a big difference. If only government worked like that. But sadly, tweaking is not what the likes of Hunt and Gove want to do. They want to smash the thing down and start again.
0
reply
Farm_Ecology
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
(Original post by hpcp)
I feel that proportional voting would cause problems as no one would get a majority and there would be coalitions all the time, and it is difficult for parties to agree on their views for different matters.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Hung parliaments are a good thing. What isnt good is different parties using public services as barganing chips, throwing away tax payer money in messing around, cutting and then improving these services. Rather being able for different parties to agree would allow more continuity between groups.

What we also dont want is the 60% being held at the mercy of the 40% that voted for a winning party.

Having a proportional voting system would force parties to work together to better represent the whole population.
1
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
(Original post by hpcp)
I feel that proportional voting would cause problems as no one would get a majority and there would be coalitions all the time, and it is difficult for parties to agree on their views for different matters.
Why is this a bad thing?

Almost all European countries have coalition Governments, and they aren't all crumbling to pieces through political deadlock.
0
reply
Cerdic
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
(Original post by hpcp)
I feel that proportional voting would cause problems as no one would get a majority and there would be coalitions all the time, and it is difficult for parties to agree on their views for different matters.


Posted from TSR Mobile
This is not a bad thing. If you think countries like Germany, Denmark, France, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Australia and New Zealand are governed badly, then maybe I could see how you'd think that. I doubt you do think they're governed badly, and they're but a few countries which have coalition governments.

As to the question of true PR, I think most people who want serious reform advocate semi-PR systems that keep local representation like STV.
1
reply
acd55
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by Cerdic)
This is not a bad thing. If you think countries like Germany, Denmark, France, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Australia and New Zealand are governed badly, then maybe I could see how you'd think that. I doubt you do think they're governed badly, and they're but a few countries which have coalition governments.

As to the question of true PR, I think most people who want serious reform advocate semi-PR systems that keep local representation like STV.
That's true. Maybe it just feels like people wouldn't work together because of how much abuse seems to be thrown each direction.
Not against idea if parties can work together. I actually though conservative-lib dem coalition was good
0
reply
acd55
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Why is this a bad thing?

Almost all European countries have coalition Governments, and they aren't all crumbling to pieces through political deadlock.
Not against coalitions as in I though tory-lib dem was good, but what I mean is it seems parties can't really agree with each other?
There is abuse each direction and even the supporters throw abuse each direction...
0
reply
acd55
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#8
I think I would rather the political parties weren't so against each other, as in conservatives against everyone else.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
Every electoral system has its flaws, so I don't really have any great complaint about any of them. Ultimately you play the game within the rules that are dealt.

There is a narrower question of whether we really want majority governments. I think there is an issue of accountability here: if a majority government doesn't push through the policies it is mandated to by the electorate, then it is clear whose fault it is. If we have a piecemeal situation whereby a government can blame others for failings or policies being watered down, it becomes a challenge to identify who can be held responsible.

Our parliamentary elections are often decided on the record of a government or opposition. Remove majorities from that equation and we end up with a system where it becomes far more problematic that we do not directly choose who will be Prime Minister and how that Prime Minister will go about legislating.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by Cerdic)
This is not a bad thing. If you think countries like Germany, Denmark, France, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Australia and New Zealand are governed badly, then maybe I could see how you'd think that. I doubt you do think they're governed badly, and they're but a few countries which have coalition governments.
Well, we look at countries like the Netherlands and Belgium where there have been periods of complete political deadlock following elections and governments couldn't be formed for very lengthy periods.

Equally there then become issues with who is involved in government. Mark Rutte's first administration in the Netherlands had to make a deal with Geert Wilders' bunch of charlatans - and their government collapsed when he withdrew his support. I'm not sure I want governments held to ransom by minority parties that may have fairly unpalatable views. I would, for example, hate to see the Conservatives propped up by the DUP or some other bunch.
0
reply
Dez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by L i b)
There is a narrower question of whether we really want majority governments. I think there is an issue of accountability here: if a majority government doesn't push through the policies it is mandated to by the electorate, then it is clear whose fault it is. If we have a piecemeal situation whereby a government can blame others for failings or policies being watered down, it becomes a challenge to identify who can be held responsible.
If the Westminster system is supposed to promote accountability I think it's safe to say it's not doing a particularly good job right now. As it stands parties can just sling mud at each other with very little justification at all (see: Conservatives blaming Brown for the global financial crisis, Labour blaming Tories for the terrorist attacks). So going for PR wouldn't really lose us anything of value in this department, it seems to me.
0
reply
ScottishBrexitor
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
I'm a supporter of STV. Though I would be happy to see a small version of AMS with 373 seats, 300 FPTP and 73 PR with the same regional constituencies as the EU elections used, with that smaller parties get a few seats so to more Scottish Conservatives and Southern Labour.

With that reform the House of Lords to a second elected chamber with slightly more powers on blocking bills and such, each UK region (North East, West Midlands, Greater London, Scotland, NI etc) would elect 10 Lords under PR giving more support to the rural regions. If that's a no no, then just make it elected under full PR with political parties getting Lords seats according to their vote e.g if Labour gets 36% of the vote they get 72 seats in the Lords and appoint 72 people to the House of Lords.

Also with that reducement in the Commons you can set up an English Parliament with STV voting or English Regional Assemblies like for London and Wales who would have equals powers to the Scottish Parliament and NI Assembly.
0
reply
Beth_H
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by L i b)
I would, for example, hate to see the Conservatives propped up by the DUP or some other bunch.
Famous last words.
0
reply
_Ddraig_
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
Until our politicians and media change from always looking to jump on opportunism I can't see us changing to a different system anytime soon. A different political system (i.e. some form of PR) will likely lead to less majority governments and more situations where we end up with hung parliaments and coalitions, which require parties to work together and compromise.

Unfortunately however, any compromises and changes that parties make are currently automatically seen as weak, a sign of poor leadership, or a sign of no confidence. We've seen it several times over the past year and throughout the recent campaign. The constant need to want to attack other parties just makes the whole political system become very protectionist.

I would be happy to see a change to the way the Lord's operate to be more representative, as unlike the commons they're far more mature and grown up about the whole situation (and of course they have to be, given they aren't a truly elected body).

I can't see us changing from FPTP anytime soon though.
0
reply
jkls92
Badges: 20
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
Every system has it's advantages but I prefer proportional. Notice that with a proportional system applied to the recent election the composition on the commons would be this (it' actually a comparison between the two systems*):

Name:  IMG_6885.PNG
Views: 74
Size:  191.8 KB
As you see, conservatives would have lost some seats, as SNP (rightly so given that they represent the interests of a limited geographical area), while the libdems would have increased their seats (seems correct since they got near first or third in many constituencies, they are the actual "third force". Greens and ukip would have seats too. I think it's important for minorities to be present, they don't weigh much but they can still get their voice heard and influence policy. However, to prevent really small parties from blackmailing government, a barrier threshold can be introduced, to ensure that only parties which get at least 5% (but it could be 3 or 10 as well) get into parliament.

This Should be pure proportional. In theory, mixed systems might be better, so a proportional with majoriatarian corrective elements could ensure proper governability.
1
reply
username2769500
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
Probably not but it's based on the 250000 - 1/2 million who directly work for the government and the Royal family because they were the decision makers and the House of Lords was the one with all the say but now it's the house of commons. It's a bit outdated but there's 65 million others working for private people not having in life is then not a problem you can get what you want. I only applied to universities where people voted labour or somewhere at home. To get into the House of Lords you need a peerage which means you own a lot of stuff. Some people are still set like that and it won't really brush off in future because most people have less. It needs to be changed to a more modern one where the House of Lords has little input but not removed some people in their who get there from talent should still have a lot of control only very rare cases like Lord Sugar but both are rediculous and Stormont is a joke at the best of times.
0
reply
ThomH97
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
I liked the AV that was proposed a few years back. It keeps the direct accountability of MPs to their constituents, but also removes the 'need' to vote tactically and doesn't end up splitting voters between two similar parties.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
(Original post by Beth_H)
Famous last words.
Haha, quite: if only I'd gone and bet a few quid on that outcome.

I can't say I do like it now. But that is what hung parliaments create, and I suspect electoral reform will just make these unpalatable decisions more and more common.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Poll: What factors affect your mental health most right now? Post-lockdown edition

Anxiousness about restrictions easing (26)
5.69%
Uncertainty around my education (52)
11.38%
Uncertainty around my future career prospects (55)
12.04%
Lack of purpose or motivation (60)
13.13%
Lack of support system (eg. teachers, counsellors, delays in care) (24)
5.25%
Impact lockdown had on physical health (20)
4.38%
Social worries (incl. loneliness/making friends) (46)
10.07%
Financial worries (28)
6.13%
Concern about myself or my loves ones getting/having been ill (19)
4.16%
Exposure to negative news/social media (30)
6.56%
Difficulty accessing real life entertainment (14)
3.06%
Lack of confidence in making big life decisions (45)
9.85%
Worry about missed opportunities during the pandemic (38)
8.32%

Watched Threads

View All