Not if we used the German system. As in the German system, voters who don't vote tactically can waste their vote by getting the local constituency MP elected by a wider margin and have their second more important vote not counted. Then in the German system there is the issue of the Sainte-Laguë/Schepers method which does not give true proportionality. The German system is so bad most Germans don't understand it. Most German voters think their first vote is more important than the second or that it is an order of preference. It is not just a matter of sticking an X on a ballot if those who know how the system works can get their votes to matter more.
So we don't use the German system, then. Cool, plenty of alternatives available that are democratically superior to FPTP by a long way.
Not if we used the German system. As in the German system, voters who don't vote tactically can waste their vote by getting the local constituency MP elected by a wider margin and have their second more important vote not counted. Then in the German system there is the issue of the Sainte-Laguë/Schepers method which does not give true proportionality. The German system is so bad most Germans don't understand it. Most German voters think their first vote is more important than the second or that it is an order of preference. It is not just a matter of sticking an X on a ballot if those who know how the system works can get their votes to matter more.
I only said that we could temper our PR system with a lower % limit before a party can get seats, like the Germans do. Where from that do you get the idea I'm advocating adopting their entire version of democracy?
So we don't use the German system, then. Cool, plenty of alternatives available that are democratically superior to FPTP by a long way.
So what alternative do you want true PR or something different.
The government that had the closest to true PR I think was the weimar republic, it did not end well. That is probably why the current German system has the first vote going to local constituency seats using FPTP and for the second vote a threshold of 5%.
So what alternative do you want true PR or something different.
The government that had the closest to true PR I think was the weimar republic, it did not end well. That is probably why the current German system has the first vote going to local constituency seats using FPTP and for the second vote using a version of PR a threshold of 5%.
Two countries I've lived in, South Africa and Spain, have PR. Neither appears to be in danger of falling to the Nazis.
So what alternative do you want true PR or something different.
The government that had the closest to true PR I think was the weimar republic, it did not end well.
Oh, right. That's the electoral system litmus test, is it?
The government that had the closest to true PR I think was the weimar republic, it did not end well.
PR did not cause or solve the problems of the Weimar Republic, but it did prevent the Nazis ever getting an absolute majority in a democratic election. Under first past the post the Nazis would have had a majority in 1932 and begun massive rearmament earlier.
Your somewhat garbled grammar notwithstanding, you appear to be arguing against PR on the basis that the BNP might win a seat and that would result in other parties having to do deals with them.
On the basis that The Green Party have a single seat, I would like to use them as a real world example to test the veracity of your claim. Otherwise I might just have to conclude that your claim is nonsense.
Perhaps it might help if you explained the model whereby you reckon such things wouldn't happen. In hung parliaments (which I believe would become almost the norm under PR) majority stakeholder will do deals with whoever it takes to concede the less ground and secure the overall majority needed to pass legislation won't they?
That would mean looking to the fringes wouldn't it?
If not, pray tell what evidence you've got to back it up.
Perhaps it might help if you explained the model whereby you reckon such things wouldn't happen. In hung parliaments (which I believe would become almost the norm under PR) majority stakeholder will do deals with whoever it takes to concede the less ground and secure the overall majority needed to pass legislation won't they?
That would mean looking to the fringes wouldn't it?
Not necessarily, unless you count the Lib Dems as being on the fringe!
Can't see any party wanting to do deals with the BNP, so I wouldn't worry.
Not necessarily, unless you count the Lib Dems as being on the fringe!
Can't see any party wanting to do deals with the BNP, so I wouldn't worry.
Let's consider the Lib-Dems....
2010. Hung parliament.
They enter into a coalition. They get slaughtered for it.
So scared of being labelled turncoats by their core support do you think a biggish player would want to follow suit in the future? If they did I think it's fair to say they'd demand more of their policies (not supported by the majority of the electorate else they wouldn't be an also ran) are implemented to deflect similar criticism and potential kicking next time around.
Do we want policies only a minority voted for ?
Would this mean the biggest stakeholder might have to look to the fringes else operate as a minority government?
Do we want fringe parties acting as "kingmaker"?
It doesn't really matter if it's the BNP, the Greens or whoever. I don't think a system whereby minority views can be elevated to being potential bargaining chips in government is better simply because it's proportional. There's only so many ways you can slice the economic pie up afterall.
Perhaps it might help if you explained the model whereby you reckon such things wouldn't happen. In hung parliaments (which I believe would become almost the norm under PR) majority stakeholder will do deals with whoever it takes to concede the less ground and secure the overall majority needed to pass legislation won't they?
That would mean looking to the fringes wouldn't it?
If not, pray tell what evidence you've got to back it up.
A fringe party would need to be filling considerably more than one seat for it to be considered worthwhile to do a deal with them.
Extremist parties on the fringes would likely be ignored by all major parties regardless of how many seats they have, as the toxicity of their brand would far outweigh the benefit of getting their vote on board.
In the event of an extremist party gaining a share of the seats significant enough to mean they could hold the balance of power and deals would have to be struck with them, well tough luck - that is what the people mandated should happen and that is how it should be.
A reminder from wiki as to what democracy actually is (emphasis mine):-
Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally—either directly or indirectly through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws.
People do not become ineligible just because you don't like their views. That attitude is as offensive as anything you'll read on the BNP's website.
Fair enough, although you've just highlighted the problem in a nutshell. The current system benefits Labour and Conservative, but disadvantages the Lib Dems.
The Lib Dems are in power untder FPTP. That's not to their disadvantage. If you want permanent Coalitions like the compromised mess we have at the moment where the electorate haven't got what they voted for, then campaign for PR.
The Lib Dems are in power untder FPTP. That's not to their disadvantage. If you want permanent Coalitions like the compromised mess we have at the moment where the electorate haven't got what they voted for, then campaign for PR.
Under FPTP, the majority of the electorate never get what they voted for. And coalitions don't have to be a mess.
I'd stick with FPTP where at least someone wins.
With a minority of votes of course! Not really very satisfactory.
If you want permanent Coalitions like the compromised mess we have at the moment where the electorate haven't got what they voted for, then campaign for PR.
Setting aside your subjective view of 'mess', what exactly is wrong with us having compromise in our political system?
The majority of those who voted haven't got what they voted for at any Westminster election since WW2.
What I cant understand is, that if their is so much bad press about Farage and Ukip, then why are his polls going up? If this was Labour, Tories (not so much) or Lib Dem (again, not so much) their polls would be falling through the crust of the earth! >:(
Presumably the Tories wouldn't let them have a vote on PR. It's what they would have wanted though ... and should have insisted upon!
That's just it. Why DIDN'T they insist on a referendum on PR if it meant so much to them? If they'd made it one of their so-called red lines as a condition of a Tory-Lib Dem coalition government I'm sure the Tories would've caved in.
Oh, right. That's the electoral system litmus test, is it?
Grow up.
The line of conversation was about the BNP getting MPs and then someone mentioned that the German PR system would prevent that because it has a threshold. The current German system is not a true PR because after the second world war they changed from the weimar republic electoral system which was near true PR to a new electoral system that includes a large element of FPTP with the first vote being FPTP constituency seats and a threshold of 5% on the second vote which is using a system of PR that is not truly proportional.
PR did not cause or solve the problems of the Weimar Republic, but it did prevent the Nazis ever getting an absolute majority in a democratic election. Under first past the post the Nazis would have had a majority in 1932 and begun massive rearmament earlier.
Depends if you view their near true PR system as being responsible for leading to a sucession of weak coalition governments that were blamed by the electorate. With the electorate then turning to parties not part of those coalitions and promising strong leadership and clear direction, the communists and facists.
Labour and the Tories will have seen what happened in Scotland the moment PR was implemented (though in a typically British not-quite-as-good-as-it-could-be fashion), so are naturally terrified of it.
That's just it. Why DIDN'T they insist on a referendum on PR if it meant so much to them? If they'd made it one of their so-called red lines as a condition of a Tory-Lib Dem coalition government I'm sure the Tories would've caved in.
Because at that very moment when the coalition negotiations where going on, the economic problems in Greece were threatening to spread all over Europe (including the UK), and therefore there was strong time pressures to get a deal done quickly.
If the Lib Dems are in favour of PR why did they give us a vote on AV instead?
Because under AV any seat where the LibDems were second and Labour or Conservative first but with less than 50% of the vote, would have a good chance of going to the LibDems. As Labour voters second choice would most likely be LibDem, as they don't want the Conservatives to win, and Conservative voters second choice would most likely be LibDem, as they don't want Labour to win. And even voters for the Greens or other minor parties or independents might have LibDem before either of the two main parties.
Comments
The government that had the closest to true PR I think was the weimar republic, it did not end well. That is probably why the current German system has the first vote going to local constituency seats using FPTP and for the second vote a threshold of 5%.
Grow up.
Perhaps it might help if you explained the model whereby you reckon such things wouldn't happen. In hung parliaments (which I believe would become almost the norm under PR) majority stakeholder will do deals with whoever it takes to concede the less ground and secure the overall majority needed to pass legislation won't they?
That would mean looking to the fringes wouldn't it?
If not, pray tell what evidence you've got to back it up.
Can't see any party wanting to do deals with the BNP, so I wouldn't worry.
Let's consider the Lib-Dems....
2010. Hung parliament.
They enter into a coalition. They get slaughtered for it.
So scared of being labelled turncoats by their core support do you think a biggish player would want to follow suit in the future? If they did I think it's fair to say they'd demand more of their policies (not supported by the majority of the electorate else they wouldn't be an also ran) are implemented to deflect similar criticism and potential kicking next time around.
Do we want policies only a minority voted for ?
Would this mean the biggest stakeholder might have to look to the fringes else operate as a minority government?
Do we want fringe parties acting as "kingmaker"?
It doesn't really matter if it's the BNP, the Greens or whoever. I don't think a system whereby minority views can be elevated to being potential bargaining chips in government is better simply because it's proportional. There's only so many ways you can slice the economic pie up afterall.
Extremist parties on the fringes would likely be ignored by all major parties regardless of how many seats they have, as the toxicity of their brand would far outweigh the benefit of getting their vote on board.
In the event of an extremist party gaining a share of the seats significant enough to mean they could hold the balance of power and deals would have to be struck with them, well tough luck - that is what the people mandated should happen and that is how it should be.
A reminder from wiki as to what democracy actually is (emphasis mine):- People do not become ineligible just because you don't like their views. That attitude is as offensive as anything you'll read on the BNP's website.
The Lib Dems are in power untder FPTP. That's not to their disadvantage. If you want permanent Coalitions like the compromised mess we have at the moment where the electorate haven't got what they voted for, then campaign for PR.
I'd stick with FPTP where at least someone wins.
I have a great idea... why don't we ban all parties other than Labour and Tory, then we'd guarantee someone wins.
Expediency trumps principle, right?
With a minority of votes of course! Not really very satisfactory.
Setting aside your subjective view of 'mess', what exactly is wrong with us having compromise in our political system?
The majority of those who voted haven't got what they voted for at any Westminster election since WW2.
Presumably the Tories wouldn't let them have a vote on PR. It's what they would have wanted though ... and should have insisted upon!
This wouldn't go down well with the public!
Because at that very moment when the coalition negotiations where going on, the economic problems in Greece were threatening to spread all over Europe (including the UK), and therefore there was strong time pressures to get a deal done quickly.