SGK

I take it you mean STV, which I think is a bad system for quite a few reasons. Yes, I do believe it would be good to be able to elect two representatives per constituency if a system can be found that minimises the negatives. I do, however, think there will be a lot of party tactics under such a system, for example: if two parties stand one candidate each and a third, the most popular party, stands two, the two less popular parties could be elected and the most popular party has no representative.

A simple answer is no, I don't. I simply do not believe PR is an automatic solution to this.

David Holland

Do you think that another party left or right can challenge Lab/Con under fptp ? In 1983 Labour got 0.5 % more of the vote than the Alliance but 10 times more mps.

__________________
More people + no new homes = housing shortage.

SGK

Yes. Under the way FPTP is handled and manipulated in the UK; probably not. But again, PR does not offer a solution to this unless you believe that a Labour/minor party coalition government is a victory against Labour, which I do not.

Paul Beck

All interesting remarks on voting systems.

There are often comments about votes in "safe seats" not counting, I think this can be a self-fulfulling prophecy. MPs of safe seats can have their large majorities overturned and "safe" MPs can be removed if enough people vote against them.

Neil Hamilton in 1997, who had a majority in Tatton of around 15,000 overutrned with a similar majority by Martin Bell. Wyre Forest and Blaenau-Gwent are more recent examples (albeit by independents rather than small party candidates). Not forgetting H'Angus the monkey in Hartlepool!

I'm not sure about PR still. I can't deny it's fairer mathematically... however some concerns. Firstly PR does seem to lead to hung parliaments a lot of the time, which often leads to political deadlock; this could mean a wasted four of five years in some respects, with politicians engaging in political tug-of-war and things not being resolved.

Also such situations lead to co-alition groups forming. I can see this can be beneficial in the sense that minor parties get a voice. However I can see this leading to a lot of internally bickering; imagine (for argument's sake) the English Democrats and UKIP forming a co-alition :? ?

Co-alition groups can also raise the question the point of having minor parties, if they are going to get absorbed by larger parties anyway?

Some thoughts here rather than die-hard opinions-- I'm open to persuasion folks 8)

SGK

A quick note to tammy_cat; I am very disappointed that you have been completely unable to debate this issue at all. Your last post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy and representative government, although it is a valid argument for PR, but there's no point trying to debate with you.
Your very first post suggested that you had looked into the issue, but if you looked into it with the same stopped-ear, shut-eyed attitude that you've approaced this debate, then it was a pointless exercise. If you won't listen, you can't debate.

SGK

The problem of arguing FPTP against PR is of course there are many PR systems and it can be difficult, or wrong, to apply a blanket criticism of PR. One of the biggest problems is the PR mantra that a vote for a losing candidate doesn't 'count' or is 'wasted'. Many PR systems give equally safe seats to the big parties. Throwing a small party a couple of seats under PR can sometimes be worse for the party, oddly enough, though that isn't a reason not to have a balanced system.

It is undoubtedly fairer mathematically and makes sense in other respects. What I discovered, though, after initially being pro-PR, is that there are a mass of disadvantages and these simply are not out-weighed by setting the equation right.

Actually, political deadlock is not always a bad thing! It's political compromise that usually screws things up, or worse, deals whereby laws are passed that would normally never stand a chance.

The minor parties sell-out in a coalition. It's the worst thing they can do, but they can't resist the chance at power. It's also the irony of PR trying to make things fairer, when a party with less than 10% of the vote ends up in power - even if it's a shared power.

It is of course more likely that UKIP would form a coalition with the Conservative party, which could be the death of the UKIP in the long term.

Exactly.

I do not have die-hard opinions, especially when you consider I have changed my mind on this completely, and I am also in agreement that there needs to be a levelling up of things. I argue against the superficial arguments for PR and against those simply denying the existence of problems.

tammy_cat

SGK,

In our discussions we were using the basic definition of democracy as originally practised in ancient Greece, i.e. each citizen has one vote and the majority of votes determines the law or any other item being voted on. In other words rule by the majority.

Representative government is one or more persons elected by a defined set of voters in order to go to Parliament (or another legislative body) and to represent the views of those voters.

Now you are accusing me of having a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy and representative government.

If you have different definitions, then I suggest you go back and check the definitions in your dictionary instead of just throwing insults at me.

As for the rest of your post, you had said that you did not wish to continue the discussion because the posts were getting too long. So politely I did as you wished and did not comment on the rest of your post apart from the fact that I disagreed. The reward for my politeness is yet more insults.

This is the last of your posts I shall respond to, as you obviously prefer insulting people to debating.

SGK

Ancient Greece was not mentioned once in the entire discussion.
Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive, and since everyone seems to have a different view of what democracy is, I have explicity detailed my opinion on the matter.

My assertion is that PR is based on democratic principles far more so than FPTP which is based on principles of representation. Both are democratic, because they involve elections, both create representatives. That you fail to see the fundamental differences in the principles involved in the two systems, in fact you deny a difference exists, leads me to believe that you have a misunderstanding of this, yes. Naturally, with the range of systems classed as 'PR', this democratic principle will vary, but the pro-PR movement clearly believes that PR is more democratic, which is my assertion which you have argued strongly against.

Pro PR websites say:
'Almost any system is more democratic, more empowering and more representative than that used in British general elections'
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/dem/x-nov98-beetham.htm
'more democratic legitimacy'
http://www.makemyvotecount.org.uk/bl...ress_pr_s.html
'But in making the case for reform it's important to consider whether 'fair votes' could let in the far right. This is a legitimate concern for all on the left who want a more democratic electoral system.'
http://www.makemyvotecount.org.uk/opus6204.html
'We need to create a climate where electoral reform is a logical accompaniment to democratic legitimacy'
http://www.electoralreform.connectfree.co.uk/
'our priority should be to ensure a fair and
democratic voting system'
http://72.14.221.104/search?q=cache:.../localgovt.pdf
'the Society claims that STV and open lists are more democratic'
http://www.comisiwnrichard.gov.uk/co...nc/index-w.htm

So even the pro-PR camp is clear that PR is more democratic than FPTP. I really have no idea why you are arguing this.

I'm sorry but you can't accuse someone of 'being in cloud cuckoo land' and then sulk because you think you've been insulted.

SponPlague

Since many people, e.g. women, slaves wern't citizens, they couldn't vote. Was it "rule by the majority"? I'm not sure... :?

SGK

And only Athenien born men to Athenien born parents. It is estimated that only about 12-15% of the population of Athens had a vote and of those, only the rich would have been able to afford to leave their farms and attend the assembly on a regular basis. Of those, only the weathy land owners were able to speak in the assembly and hold office.
It was really an extended aristocracy. Only for about a hundred years, from about 440BC, when all citizens (the 12-15%) could speak, hold any office and vote, could it claim to be a democracy in modern terms (perhaps equating to US early 19th century democracy?).
It has little relevance to modern concepts. Nevertheless, a remarkable development. It is a shame that Athens was conquered and the experiment stopped.

I have an interesting paper by Fleck and Hanssen which looks to prove that democracy developed in stages because the land was difficult to farm, so to encourage the long term investment, the rulers had to surrender political power - specifically surrender the right to expropriate the fruits of the investment.
I look at the way modern states seek to increase democracy on the one hand whilst taking it away with the other. Is this to encourage personal investment, financial and effort, whilst maintaining the ability of expropriation - i.e. taxes? I can't quite get my head round all that!
If you can find the paper, it makes an interesting read (skip the equation bit!)