PDA

View Full Version : Proportional Representation



Garnet
26-Nov-10, 15:34
Pressed wrong button and original post disappeared, so if anyone finds it let me know..it's same subject.

Does anyone have a clue about this, as it seems we're gettin a referendum in May (?) and looks like you have to vote until only one left! Somewhere else does this kind of set-up but where, can't mind!
What are your thoughts on this etc? :confused

Torvaig
26-Nov-10, 16:15
I think proportional representation is the way to go; much more accurate system which reflects the view of the majority in the end. And the other thing needed per se is compulsory voting...... either that or a dictator to crack the whip....

rich
26-Nov-10, 16:42
Thank you very much for introducing this forum discussion on proportional representation. (three people so-far but there may be more once explained.)

First of all you will require a measuring tape at every polling booth. (And a tape measurer.)

I am prepared to be in charge of measuring in the UK just to keep things on the straight and narrow.

Every voter will be measured at the midriff and this figure will then be measured against the average waist circumference of the constituency.

If you are on the tall, heavy, (portly?) side then you get more votes than the skinny, stunted runts.

That's only fair because there is more of you. Therefore you should have more vote.

This is such a simple concept that I can't understand why you have not done it long ago.

The Irish have been doing it for years. The only problem the Irish have found is that some voters stuff cushions down their middles to get more vote.

And of course, on this topic the airlines have much to contribute - I can scarcely wait to see the enthusiastic, happy faces of voters as they are asked to undergo a full-body check at the polling booths....

Garnet
26-Nov-10, 18:59
Well the things you learn!! So that puts paid to that! No worries then, glad I'm not skinny and you can measure me any day..........as for the full body scan..I don't mind that either as it may put an end to that set up.......:lol:;)

theone
26-Nov-10, 20:29
I think proportional representation is a better form of democracy than first past the post, but that said, I think there are a number of problems with our democratic system.

First off, in order to get or stay in power, the MP's have to be popular. What's popular with the electorate is often not what's good for the country.

Party politics go against the ethos voting a regional MP. By following the party line the MP might not be able to best represent his people. Either that or he represents his people but is then shunned from the party.

One man one vote? Fundamental in our way of thinking but possibly flawed? There are people I wouldn't trust to look after a goldfish with the same "power" as everyone else.

Finally, wanting to be an MP should automatically exclude you from becoming one. It should be like jury duty or national service, you should be called up, serve your stint then stand down. Either that or maybe a dictator (but a kind one) would be the best option.

Come the revolution......

hunter
26-Nov-10, 22:02
Every other election now is done by some form of PR.

Westminster is the odd one out.

This is about whether they should fall into line with everyone else.

But it doesn't seem popular among the traditionalists.

It's good enough for the council, Holyrood and Euro elections, so why not Westminster, if it means the outcome more accurately reflects how all the votes were cast.

Gronnuck
26-Nov-10, 23:35
It's good enough for the council, Holyrood and Euro elections, so why not Westminster, if it means the outcome more accurately reflects how all the votes were cast.

I hardly think the last Scottish electoral debacle qualifies as a good example when over 100,000 votes were 'spoilt' and the scanning machines didn't work properly, [disgust].

ducati
27-Nov-10, 09:32
PR would lead to many more cases of coalition Gubberments.

We in the UK are too tribal. We love it when our party is in, we hate it when our party is out. Judging by the popularity of the current coalition, I'd say no. :D

On the otherhand, it is efficient, you get to blame more than one party at a time.