Proportional Representation

[Baff]

For myeself a deadlocked government is usually what i prefer.



With the proviso that this deadlock is not being used to stonewall the democratic consensus





In recent experioence, negotiation and compromise did not break the deadlock.

What broke the deadlock was a change of representatives. An election.



Those representatives who had been failing to represent, got removed from the equation.

The democratic consensus was respected. The voters decided it for them.

Which is how it should be.

[Borg Refinery]

Politics in Israel is very tricksy. (Gollum quote  ::  ) They've negotiated a period for Netanyahu in charge followed by a similar period for Benny Gantz, however, it wouldn't surprise me to see the agreement somehow collapse when Gantz get's his turn and it will be election time again.  :kikass:

The problem is that an almost-convicted criminal is in charge and has been given power yet again, he's found a way of manipulating the other parties and their electoral system to his considerable advantage.... that's not an acceptable state of affairs; arguably it's worse than over here right now..

[Borg Refinery]

So they got through it?

Well, your question tells me you should read up about it before you repeat 'compromise' for the 3rd time like we don't know how PR works.

[Barry]

If you followed Israel's politics, you wouod see that this is not really possible under their system. They only got through it cos of Gantz's betrayal.

Politics in Israel is very tricksy. (Gollum quote  ::  ) They've negotiated a period for Netanyahu in charge followed by a similar period for Benny Gantz, however, it wouldn't surprise me to see the agreement somehow collapse when Gantz get's his turn and it will be election time again.  :kikass:

[B0ycey]

If you followed Israel's politics, you wouod see that this is not really possible under their system. They only got through it cos of Gantz's betrayal.

So they got through it?



Under PR, parties form coalitions. It generally works because they compromise. They form a government. Although even with FPTP, you still have deadlocks. How was Brexit again?

[Borg Refinery]

Compromise?

If you followed Israel's politics, you wouod see that this is not really possible under their system. They only got through it cos of Gantz's betrayal.

[Borg Refinery]

The only way to overcome deadlock is negotiation, which has to have some real objective to create a people's government.

It could lead to a moderation of the more hard-line parties stance, which could be good for the mainstream political members of the electorate. Nothing too extreme will be enacted.

An 80 seat majority does not have many checks and balances.

Well, my point was re Israel's politics which you seem to be well acquainted with - as am I.



It seems to work much better in the EU and in Scotland; less deadlocks + more minority party representation.



..hence why I proposed a mix of the two systems, as we don't want any element of FPTP.

[Barry]

The only way to overcome deadlock is negotiation, which has to have some real objective to create a people's government.

It could lead to a moderation of the more hard-line parties stance, which could be good for the mainstream political members of the electorate. Nothing too extreme will be enacted.

An 80 seat majority does not have many checks and balances.

[B0ycey]

How do you think such deadlocks can be overcome within a PR based system?

Compromise?

[Borg Refinery]

Hi Baff!  :hattip



As you know Spain has PR and had a stagnant government for years. Israel has PR and has only just made a compromise.

Although true PR provides the number of representatives from each party to match the vote, it can lead to a very weak government, where the horse-trading becomes more important than the manifestos of each constituent party in the coalition.



I still support PR, but I do admit to misgivings about possible deadlocked government which produces bland legislation and gets nothing done.

Excellent point.



How do you think such deadlocks can be overcome within a PR based system?



Perhaps a mixed system as in Scotland and Wales? Though reading about the Senedd, it is a pretty poorly devised system that surely lends itself to abuse. Perhaps a mix of the EU's list system + STV would be preferable..?

[Barry]

It is my beleif that FPTP provides considerably more consensus than PR.

Not absolute consensus.

Just way more consensus than the alternative you are suggesting.

Hi Baff!  :hattip



As you know Spain has PR and had a stagnant government for years. Israel has PR and has only just made a compromise.

Although true PR provides the number of representatives from each party to match the vote, it can lead to a very weak government, where the horse-trading becomes more important than the manifestos of each constituent party in the coalition.



I still support PR, but I do admit to misgivings about possible deadlocked government which produces bland legislation and gets nothing done.

[Baff]

Therefore I would question your belief that having an FPTP system means that only things that everyone really wants gets implemented.  In fact on the contrary, it can lead to major policies being implemented that more than half the population are against.

That is not my belief.

You are taking things to extremes.



It is my beleif that FPTP provides considerably more consensus than PR.

Not absolute consensus.

Just way more consensus than the alternative you are suggesting.







I personally advocate for the Swiss system, where any law proposed by the government can be put to a referendum if enough people call for it to be so.



Which is why they never joined the EU in the first place and we did, against the majority wish of the country.

Anti democratically.

[Baff]

As for the Lib Dem-Tory coalition, student loans is an example of how the littler party doesn't have control over the larger party! So much for those 5% controlling government policy as you claimed previously. PR in a Westminster setting would require cooperation and as such policy would match the public view concensus.

I don't want the little party to have control over the larger party.

But i do wish the electorate to have control over their representatives.

And coalitions negotiated after the vote takes place and not before.... doesn't work.



I don;t want poltiicans to have a consensus amongst themselves.

I want them to have a consensus amongst the electorate.







To make policies everyone can agree with or not make policies at all.

Not, make policies amongst themselves once it is too late for anyone not to vote for them.

[Javert]

Beelbebub had a good proposal for this a while back that we can dig out.



Anyway, if you see the current system as making sure that the government only implements policies that "the majority want", let's take a look at the flagship policies:



- Brexit in general - less than 50% wanted Brexit from about mid 2017 onwards.

- No deal Brexit - I haven't seen a poll putting true support for no deal Brexit above about 35%.

- HS2 - again, a huge chunk of people, probably over 50% are against.

- Universal Credit - again, far from majority support for this policy among the entire population.



Therefore I would question your belief that having an FPTP system means that only things that everyone really wants gets implemented.  In fact on the contrary, it can lead to major policies being implemented that more than half the population are against.

[B0ycey]

I'm not trying to break the party system.

It's not my top conern.



I'm not interested in giving more power to new parties or amyone else for that matter.



40% of the people should not have control over 60% of the people.

5% of the people having power over 95% of the people however is a much much worse situation.



The alliance formed by 40% of the people to take control under FPTP is harder to achieve.

They must come up with policies that more people agree with. Appeal to a broader church. Gain more public consent for anything they wish to do.

I'm not looking to make power over me easier for people to achieve. I am looking to make it harder



I don't want every minority to have an ability to pass laws in their own interests.

I don't seek to increase the opportunity for minority rule at all.



I would much rather that any alliances made are made with the electorate and not between politicians after the vote has ended.



If we take the Lib Dems as our example, when they went into coalition with the Tory's they rowed back on what they had been elected to do. (Student loans). The exact opposite of what they were elected to represent.

Had they have promised to do this before the election, they would never have been elected in the first place.

And at the next election, many of them were removed because of it.

They operated without the consent of their electorate and were rightly punished for it.

One vote in the ballot box should be worth one vote in the chamber.



It might not be your concern and you might also be happy of having to vote for which party you don't like rather than the party you do, but it does highlight why FPTP isn't democratic nonetheless.



With PR, every vote matters. With FPTP only the marginal seats votes count for anything. You also have the issue that 40% (or less) of the votes controlling what the other 60% do. And that doesn't sound democratic at all to me.



As for the Lib Dem-Tory coalition, student loans is an example of how the littler party doesn't have control over the larger party! So much for those 5% controlling government policy as you claimed previously. PR in a Westminster setting would require cooperation and as such policy would match the public view concensus.