Does anyone here think our plurality 'first past the post' voting system is fundamentally unfair? For example in a Tory stronghold constituency, voting for any other party would essentially be a wasted vote. I do not include tactical voting in this, as this still wouldn't give your preferred party any real benefit.

Proportional representation is surely a much fairer and more genuinely democratic system, because a far greater amount of our individual votes would make an overall difference to the polling outcome?

Thoughts welcome...

Originally posted by Manx Hoop
This is how i would have it Stan.

Grass roots up, no party politics, but everyone working for a slice of the financial pot, only way to keep their position is to feed those who elect them with a fair allocation of Government funds.

Cut the country up into blocks by residence [post code], say 10,000 per block, they vote their 20 local councilors in.
The local councilors vote 2 representatives of theirs into another council made up of 20 representatives from the lower local level covering 10 blocks of connected post codes [100,000].

They in turn vote2 representatives of theirs into another council made up of 20 representatives from the lower district level council covering 100 blocks of connected post codes [1 million people].

They in turn vote 2 representatives of theirs into a parliament of 120 MP's for 60 million people.

Representatives have 3yr tenures, at all levels.

3yrs for MP's to achieve what they promised the 18 members of the council that elected them, who in turn have to fight for the 18 who elected them, who in turn have to fight for the 18 who elected them, who in turn have to fight for local joe public, who just wants the ####in roads fixed, and who also elected them to get them fixed as promised.

Everything out to private tender, every aspect of council or government work, let the representatives at all levels make the decisions about finance and planning etc, and market fores take care of the mechanics of running public services, and the country.

Except the NHS, no one goes near the NHS.
Interesting Manx. Thanks for the contribution.

Originally posted by Kirill
Not keen on multi-tiered elections. People should be able to vote directly for MPs, President, etc. Otherwise it is all a sham IMHO.
Proportional representation isn't multi-tiered though. And surely it's a better gauge of overall public consensus to vote for a party based on their policies and manifesto, as opposed to an individual politician who you may or may not have a personal liking for?

Originally posted by Kirill
Parties are not uniform, you can like a party but dislike someone in it. You vote for a party, they do an internal reshuffle after the vote and send someone else to the parliament, you never know until after the result. Rather vote for particular persons that you are sure about. Generally more interested in independent candidates but not a lot of people can be bothered.
But that's a fault with the present system. You would get round that by having much stricter rules in place on adherence to all their pre-election pledges, irrespective of which individual MPs get shuffled in and out.

Originally posted by Kirill
Oh I'm all for stricter rules. In all spheres of life
Originally posted by Shania
I have never quite understod how commonsense can have been taken into consideration as far as your voting system is concerned. How often has it been reviewed? .I guess it has long historical roots of class-struggle and therefore accordingly it must have been grounded solidly in your past. But Surely, it has to be changed to a more democratic one? Not sure it will happen now, but it will gradually change when younger generations take charge?
I agree Shania. You have proportional representation in Norway - a much fairer system IMO.

Originally posted by easthertsr
The current system is antiquated and totally undemocratic. Where I live, it is a certainty the sitting Tory will be re-elected with a huge majority, there are hundreds of seats around the country where the result is a foregone conclusion. The election is decided by the voters who happen to live in the marginal seats. Moreover, the majority of voters in these marginals are rock solid Tory/ Labour voters, so the tiny percentage of 'floating' voters who live in the marginal constituencies effectively decide who wins the election. Minority parties are hugely under represented if at all, and apathy ensues as a large number of people don't vote as they know it will make no difference to the outcome in their constituency.
Thanks Easts, you have perfectly summed up all that's wrong with our system there.

Originally posted by loneranger
I would revoke the vote for anyone on income support. Why should these leeches have a say in how this country is run.
Originally posted by easthertsr
Oh yes the old 'scrougers' argument! How about the the large numbers of tax avoiders who cost the British tax payer twenty times the total of benefit fraud but never make the front page of the tabloids! Never hear a word about them Lines?! Should they still get a vote?
Originally posted by loneranger
I would revoke the vote for anyone on income support. Why should these leeches have a say in how this country is run.
Originally posted by MattyRangers
Would screw labour's vote numbers right up.
Originally posted by easthertsr
Oh yes the old 'scrougers' argument! How about the the large numbers of tax avoiders who cost the British tax payer twenty times the total of benefit fraud but never make the front page of the tabloids! Never hear a word about them Lines?! Should they still get a vote?
Originally posted by loneranger
They should get 50 votes.
Originally posted by MattyRangers
Brilliant
Originally posted by easthertsr
Ironically funny but just plain pathetic, why should someone defrauding me and you get off scot free whilst hammering those defrauding us of a much smaller amount?
Originally posted by QprQpr
I'd also revoke the vote for the camel toes
Originally posted by dsqpr
I posted my thoughts on this a while back in another thread.

It is a fundamental consequence of democracy that a vote for the loser is a wasted vote! I think it makes sense to have one person representing a particular area (constituency). If most of the people in that area are Conservative then the fundamental principle of democracy dictates that you will get a Conservative representative.

Proportional representation does not work in practice. There are a number of reasons:
1. It does not allow for independent candidates, who are often the best.
2. You would not be able to vote out a bad politician who is "in favour" with his party. If the party gets, say, 100 seats, then the "favoured" politician that a majority of people dislike would get one of them.
3. Even if your constituency voted Conservative, you might get a Labour MP! What if Labour were to be given 100 MPs based on proportional representation but only came first in 99 ridings? One riding that voted Conservative would get a Labour MP! That is definitely not right!
4. I could go on but I'll leave it there. In my previous post I challenged somebody to describe a system of proportional representation that would actually work in practice but of course I did not get any reply.
Originally posted by QprQpr
I'd also revoke the vote for the camel toes
Originally posted by loneranger
The goose neck all scratch on.
Originally posted by easthertsr
Ironically funny but just plain pathetic, why should someone defrauding me and you get off scot free whilst hammering those defrauding us of a much smaller amount?
Originally posted by loneranger
Because that's how it works.
Originally posted by MattyRangers
Would screw labour's vote numbers right up.
Originally posted by Hubble
That's actually probably not true. A more definitive issue in voting habits is the North/South divide. You might find this article interesting Matty: https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/10/21...ont-vote-tory/
Originally posted by loneranger
Because that's how it works.
Originally posted by easthertsr
Only if you want it to!
Originally posted by dsqpr
It is a fundamental consequence of democracy that a vote for the loser is a wasted vote! I think it makes sense to have one person representing a particular area (constituency). If most of the people in that area are Conservative then the fundamental principle of democracy dictates that you will get a Conservative representative.
You could still achieve that in a fair PR system (of which there are several) in the vast majority of scenarios.

Originally posted by dsqpr
Proportional representation does not work in practice. There are a number of reasons:
1. It does not allow for independent candidates, who are often the best.
Of all your reasons this is the only one I would concede to. However I think the pros of PR still outweigh the cons in that it is overall a more democratic system.

Originally posted by dsqpr
2. You would not be able to vote out a bad politician who is "in favour" with his party. If the party gets, say, 100 seats, then the "favoured" politician that a majority of people dislike would get one of them.
Problems like that could be got around through legislative reform.

Originally posted by dsqpr
3. Even if your constituency voted Conservative, you might get a Labour MP! What if Labour were to be given 100 MPs based on proportional representation but only came first in 99 ridings? One riding that voted Conservative would get a Labour MP! That is definitely not right!
I don't think it's wrong because, more importantly, it would be more democratic from an overall national perspective. The riding that drew the shortest straw would get the Labour MP in that example.

Originally posted by dsqpr
4. I could go on but I'll leave it there. In my previous post I challenged somebody to describe a system of proportional representation that would actually work in practice but of course I did not get any reply.
Well it "actually works in practice" in the following 80 countries (over one third of the world's nations), in one form or another, so they would all disagree with you for starters:

Albania
Algeria
Angola
Australia
Austria
Argentina
Aruba
Belgium
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Brazil
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cambodia
Cape Verde
Colombia
Costa Rica
Croatia
Curaçao
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Estonia
Finland
Germany
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Latvia
Lesotho
Liberia
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Malta
Mexico
Moldova
Montenegro
Republic of Mozambique
Morocco
Namibia
Nepal
Netherlands
New Caledonia
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Northern Ireland
Norway
Paraguay
Peru
Poland
Portugal
Romania
San Marino
Sao Tome and Principe
Serbia
Sint Maarten
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sri Lanka
Suriname
Sweden
Switzerland
Tunisia
Turkey
Uruguay
Wallis and Futuna[/QUOTE]

Originally posted by dsqpr
^ Well, I must concede that it is possible to use proportional representation. When I say it doesn't work what I mean is that the drawbacks are so significant (in my opinion!) that it is not a reasonable solution.

I certainly don't agree that if my riding voted Conservative and I end up with a Labour MP, that is democracy!! That drawback alone is ten times worse than any drawback of the existing system (IMHO)! Never mind that you can't run as an independent, free to vote your conscience on all issues and not toe any party line.

I think in the world of proportional representation, you are electing a party. In the current system in the UK you are electing a person who may or may not have a party affiliation. I think that is a much better system than any form of proportional representation that I have ever seen described.
Originally posted by vanhoop
So in laymans terms if ukip arnt represented in my borough would I be able to vote for them in a neighbouring borough?
Originally posted by dsqpr
I certainly don't agree that if my riding voted Conservative and I end up with a Labour MP, that is democracy!! That drawback alone is ten times worse than any drawback of the existing system (IMHO)!
Yes, less democratic on a local level, in those occasional instances it would arise; but more democratic on a national level. So in the grand scheme of things, which is more important?

End of the day, no system is perfect and they all have compromises, but you have to ask yourself which compromise is in the greater national interest?

Originally posted by dsqpr
Never mind that you can't run as an independent, free to vote your conscience on all issues and not toe any party line.
There would still be a place for Independents under a PR system - they would of course be free to 'start up' their own political parties; they could also canvass support on a national level, given enough backing.

Originally posted by dsqpr
I think in the world of proportional representation, you are electing a party. In the current system in the UK you are electing a person who may or may not have a party affiliation.
That's a good description of it DS. But it does raise the issue of what one's priorities are - individuals...or parties with clear, established policies covering all the major issues in detail.

Anyway, good debate DS

Originally posted by vanhoop
So in laymans terms if ukip arnt represented in my borough would I be able to vote for them in a neighbouring borough?
Van, under Proportional Representation you wouldn't need to vote for them in a neighbouring borough. You could vote UKIP no matter where you live. Furthermore, your vote would carry more influence because it would be counted towards a nationwide ballot (not just a local one). So for example, if 20% of the country voted UKIP then Parliament would hold 20% of their seats in the house.

Originally posted by Stanley
Anyway, good debate DS
Originally posted by dsqpr
Agreed!