Well not really, PR wouldn't give third parties less of a say. If we had PR (I'm not necc for it mind) Conservative and Labour would have less seats, and the Lib Dems would have more. I don't follow how you're saying PR would weaken lesser parties :? Because as you said before, votes should reflect a party's popularity, not constituency votes, which a PR system would do more probably than the likes of FPTP that we have now.
Well not really, PR wouldn't give third parties less of a say. If we had PR (I'm not necc for it mind) Conservative and Labour would have less seats, and the Lib Dems would have more. I don't follow how you're saying PR would weaken lesser parties :? Because as you said before, votes should reflect a party's popularity, not constituency votes, which a PR system would do more probably than the likes of FPTP that we have now.
Point/Counterpoint
Member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2007
- Messages
- 602
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
R
rosenrot
Guest
Actually Scotland and Ireland have some form of proportional representation...not sure about Wales we use First past the post which is biased towards the two main parties - Labour and Conservative.
Proportional Representation is seen as giving smaller parties fairer presentation and fewer votes are wasted as there is more of a chance your party could have a seat in parliament. It doesn't weaker smaller parties but if we introduced this at Westminster Labour and Conservative would lose alot of seats...hence why Westminster don't want to introduce this kind of voting.
Also it might produce a Hung parliament.
Proportional Representation is seen as giving smaller parties fairer presentation and fewer votes are wasted as there is more of a chance your party could have a seat in parliament. It doesn't weaker smaller parties but if we introduced this at Westminster Labour and Conservative would lose alot of seats...hence why Westminster don't want to introduce this kind of voting.
Also it might produce a Hung parliament.samleggott
Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2005
- Messages
- 1,622
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
yeah we have plurality voting system , aka first past the post. its pretty harsh on parties such as lib dems, green parties as they dont really get the fair representation they probably should.
it is good though sometimes as retards such as the BNP might get in in some constiencies due to them getting a few votes off some ****** off yokels
there have been some governments that have got in power without even 50% share of the vote due to this system , theres a democracy for you
it is good though sometimes as retards such as the BNP might get in in some constiencies due to them getting a few votes off some ****** off yokels
there have been some governments that have got in power without even 50% share of the vote due to this system , theres a democracy for you
The Welsh Assembly uses a weird form of voting...it uses FPTP to begin with I think, but then there's a type of second vote list system thing to even things up a bit...I've forgotten most A-level stuff but the system it uses is a mix.
We don't...First Past the Post is a disproporttional form of representation which as Becky/Rosenrot said gives an (unfair?) advantage to the Cons and Labour, but as Sam said leaves some idiots unrepresented which is good for some but not representative as a democracy.
Point/Counterpoint
Member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2007
- Messages
- 602
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Then don't post in it 
The way MP's are elected in their constituencies is proportional in the sense that the guy with the most votes wins.
But without sounding arrogant, if whoever teaches you has told you that FPTP is a proportional system, they are ******* stupid, and a total idiot. The way it is disproportional is that share of the vote does not represent the share of the seats.
On average, the party elected will in general get between 38-45% of the popular vote, and at least 55% of the seats in Parliament, probably 60% alot of the time. In 1950 or 1951, either Labour on the Cons got a bigger share of the popular vote and didn't win the election, and it happened in the 70s as well, just like the American Presidential election. Bit of History there for ya
The way MP's are elected in their constituencies is proportional in the sense that the guy with the most votes wins.
But without sounding arrogant, if whoever teaches you has told you that FPTP is a proportional system, they are ******* stupid, and a total idiot. The way it is disproportional is that share of the vote does not represent the share of the seats.
On average, the party elected will in general get between 38-45% of the popular vote, and at least 55% of the seats in Parliament, probably 60% alot of the time. In 1950 or 1951, either Labour on the Cons got a bigger share of the popular vote and didn't win the election, and it happened in the 70s as well, just like the American Presidential election. Bit of History there for ya
Didn't realise this thread has become a discussion on our electoral systems, which i have just wrote an essay about.
Actually no party post world war 2 has ever won a majority of the votes.
Then you have been taught wrong. General Elections use a plurality system, as Ajw says the person with the most votes in a constituency wins the seats.
if we used a PR system we would not use constituencies, as it would only be proportional if seats won were an equal reflection of what the voters have voted, eg 19% of the vote, 19% of the seats.
Wales and Scotland use the Additional Member System plus, where so many AM's/SMP's are elected by First Past the Post, and a smaller proportion in regional top up areas, which are worked out proportionally.
There has been a trend in recent years particularly since the 1970s where votes for parties other than Labour and Conservatives has increased, but the First Past The Post system punished these parties as their voters are often not concentrated enough in constituencies to win seats, if we used a proportional system then there would be 180 (approx) Mps (had AMS been used at the last General Election) from these parties whereas in reality there are only around 75.
and it was 1951 when the Labour party won more votes than the Conservatives but the Conservatives won a narrow majority of seats.
Actually no party post world war 2 has ever won a majority of the votes.
Then you have been taught wrong. General Elections use a plurality system, as Ajw says the person with the most votes in a constituency wins the seats.
if we used a PR system we would not use constituencies, as it would only be proportional if seats won were an equal reflection of what the voters have voted, eg 19% of the vote, 19% of the seats.
Wales and Scotland use the Additional Member System plus, where so many AM's/SMP's are elected by First Past the Post, and a smaller proportion in regional top up areas, which are worked out proportionally.
There has been a trend in recent years particularly since the 1970s where votes for parties other than Labour and Conservatives has increased, but the First Past The Post system punished these parties as their voters are often not concentrated enough in constituencies to win seats, if we used a proportional system then there would be 180 (approx) Mps (had AMS been used at the last General Election) from these parties whereas in reality there are only around 75.
and it was 1951 when the Labour party won more votes than the Conservatives but the Conservatives won a narrow majority of seats.