Proportional Representation

[Baff]

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.

[B0ycey]

I agree with all your statements of discontent.



What i don't agree with is your solution.



I prefer rule by a 40% minority to rule by a 5% minority.

It has a far far greater degree of consent.



Like you I would like to see that higher.

But PR is about empowering minorities.

Reducing that level of consent, not increasing it.



It is not by accident that all the minor parties support PR.

They see it as a route to power.



I am not looking for our democracy to facilitate peoples desire for power.

I am looking for it to arrrest it. To limit and contain it.





A constituency MP is in the same vein of check and balance as localised governments. Yes.

It's not a one shot cure all in and of itself, just part of a system.

How can you break the two party system without giving new parties the opportunity for power?



Why should 40% of the votes control 60% of the votes? FPTP has numerous votes that are in essence worthless in safe seat constituencies. That doesn't sound democratic to me.



With PR, those 5% might not be enough to form an alliance. What occurs in Europe is parties unite by shares interests. And you ally with as fewer parties as possible.

[B0ycey]

They didn't have 50% of the vote - how would they have had a majority under PR?

 :thup: Indeed.



Had the voting trend retained the status quo, we would have had a Corbyn lead coalition!

[Borg Refinery]

They didn't have 50% of the vote - how would they have had a majority under PR?

Maybe I should have ohrased it..would still be by far the largest party.



https://ibb.co/rbJhP4x">



Under STV they lose only 53 seats as compared to FPTP.

[johnofgwent]

Something worth bearing in mind is you dont have to be in power, or even in elected office, to influence government.



You just have to be in a position where enough of you together put up enough of a case that the government believes might topple them at the next election through your swaying the electorate.



The killer example is Phil Woolas the immigration minister under Gordon Brown.



In the dying months of Browns government, Woolas suddenly and quite unexpectedly did a total 180 on two key policies. First, he supported the french police taking down 'le jungle' or was it 'le jungle 2'. Anyway the point was he started saying publicly those in it should be arrested not feted and aided and abetted ....



And secondly he started to utter the mantra that those genuinely seeking asylum should demand it at their first point of entry to the EU not continue to travel clandestinely to the english channel.



Why he chose to adopt these two BNP policies beats me, it's not as if I was going to be replacing him anytime soon.....

[Baff]

I agree with all your statements of discontent.



What i don't agree with is your solution.



I prefer rule by a 40% minority to rule by a 5% minority.

It has a far far greater degree of consent.



Like you I would like to see that higher.

But PR is about empowering minorities.

Reducing that level of consent, not increasing it.



It is not by accident that all the minor parties support PR.

They see it as a route to power.



I am not looking for our democracy to facilitate peoples desire for power.

I am looking for it to arrrest it. To limit and contain it.





A constituency MP is in the same vein of check and balance as localised governments. Yes.

It's not a one shot cure all in and of itself, just part of a system.

[Javert]

I was thinking of the German model.

You get offices of state based on PR.

So in Germany the Greens have 5% of the vote nationally and are in office.

Not just in parliament, but in government. PR givies all the small parties more poltical power.





With regards to  system where 5% of a national vote gives you seats in the house, this takes away localisation.

Constitutency representation.

This means a London fashion, can overule a welsh coastal community for how people in that Welsh coastal comunity must behave. Depsite that it has nothing to do with them. Does notaffet their lioves in any way.



One of the checks and balances we have to limit power in this country is constituency representation.

Otherwise population centres can always rule over remote area's. And as a liberal I am trying to prevent people ruling over each other, not better facilitate this.





I do not want minorities in parliament.

I do not want to give minoirites more power.



I want consetual rule. If you can't get everyone to agree with you, then you don't do it.

If it negatively affects some one, you don't do it. Or as Captain Kirk explains to Dr Spock... The needs of the many do not outweigh the needs of the one.

Form a consensus of opinion and if you can't then leave everyone else alone.



If you are a group of like minded people who wish to get to together and all do something that you agree with, and it hurts no one else, more power to you.

If you are a minority of people and you wish to get into government and force your wishes on the whole country... jog on.



I am a liberal minded person. i wish the bar for affecting other peoples lives to be higher, not lower.

I'm not interested in minority rule.

I don't want more whackos in parliament. I want less.



I don't want every single issue and concern you can think of addressed on a national level.

I don't want every minority concern to be foisted on every single other.

I only want government to address things that we all see eye to eye on.

I want to live free.

Liberalism is minimal state interference. Small state.

I'm not really following your argument.



Firstly, even if they have certain rights to be heard in government with 5%, they certainly would not be making the decisions on their own  



Second, the local representation you talk of doesn't exist today at the HOC level anyway.  Arguably it exists at the local council and parish level but many people seem to completely overlook that and hold their one MP responsible for everything that happens.  In reality, in the majority of cases the local MP will follow the orders of their party leader on national issues, and on local issues, most of the time the problem should be dealt with at local council level.



Third, having a majority government elected on 40% or less of the vote (I think the record is about 38%), does not in any shape or form constitute a consensus - it means 60% of people who may completely disagree with the government on most issues are ignored.

[Baff]

I was thinking of the German model.

You get offices of state based on PR.

So in Germany the Greens have 5% of the vote nationally and are in office.

Not just in parliament, but in government. PR givies all the small parties more poltical power.





With regards to  system where 5% of a national vote gives you seats in the house, this takes away localisation.

Constitutency representation.

This means a London fashion, can overule a welsh coastal community for how people in that Welsh coastal comunity must behave. Depsite that it has nothing to do with them. Does notaffet their lioves in any way.



One of the checks and balances we have to limit power in this country is constituency representation.

Otherwise population centres can always rule over remote area's. And as a liberal I am trying to prevent people ruling over each other, not better facilitate this.





I do not want minorities in parliament.

I do not want to give minoirites more power.



I want consetual rule. If you can't get everyone to agree with you, then you don't do it.

If it negatively affects some one, you don't do it. Or as Captain Kirk explains to Dr Spock... The needs of the many do not outweigh the needs of the one.

Form a consensus of opinion and if you can't then leave everyone else alone.



If you are a group of like minded people who wish to get to together and all do something that you agree with, and it hurts no one else, more power to you.

If you are a minority of people and you wish to get into government and force your wishes on the whole country... jog on.



I am a liberal minded person. i wish the bar for affecting other peoples lives to be higher, not lower.

I'm not interested in minority rule.

I don't want more whackos in parliament. I want less.



I don't want every single issue and concern you can think of addressed on a national level.

I don't want every minority concern to be foisted on every single other.

I only want government to address things that we all see eye to eye on.

I want to live free.

Liberalism is minimal state interference. Small state.

[Javert]

In PR, if the Greens get 5% of the vote, they get a public office and can pass policy that tells the other 95% what to do.

This is illiberal.

But if the greens get 5% of the vote, under a pure PR system they'd get 5% of the seats in parliament.  95% of the seats would go to other parties.  How does this mean they could make the policies and laws?

[Baff]

I am a liberal by disposition.

I beleieve that as far as is reasonably possible, I should not tell other people what to do.

That unless they are directly harming me in some demonstrable and provable way, live and let live.



In a liberal democracy, the sytem is designed to prevent people from having power over you.

We have numerous checks and balances to power.

Second chambers, independent judiciairies, Trial by Jury. Defined periods of office. Elections.

Localised and regionalised assemblies and councils. All those things and more.



The worst of all outcomes is minority rule.

A small number of people telling a large number of people what to do.



It is for this reason that i do not like PR.



In PR, if the Greens get 5% of the vote, they get a public office and can pass policy that tells the other 95% what to do.

This is illiberal.



Under first past the post the degree of public consent required to pass laws is very much higher.

Perhaps 40% ish of the vote.



It's not perfect as we can all see.

But it is much better than this alternative.





I tend to sympathise with the minority party's. I liked UKIP and Brexit and they are always calling for PR.

All minority parties are, Because they want more power.



But first and foremeost i am a liberal. I do not want anyone to have power over me.

And so i reject PR in favour of FPTP.



Rule by consensus is preferred.

And FPTP delivers that better.



It provides a stronger check and balance to power.

Makes it harder for groups of people to enact laws over others.

[Javert]

I would argue that it wasn't anti-democratic. In the unlikely event of the Lib Dems winning that general election, they would have been democratically elected to enact the pledges from their manifesto, which included revoking Article 50. They didn't win the election so that didn't happen.

Not anti-democratic but politically a terrible idea.  Doing this was a gift to their opponents, and the silent majority won't look into the details of "this would only happen if the Lib Dems won a majority".

 - the fact remains that folks voted for Bojo at the GE with a large majority; even under PR they'd have a majority.

They didn't have 50% of the vote - how would they have had a majority under PR?

[Borg Refinery]

I would argue that it wasn't anti-democratic. In the unlikely event of the Lib Dems winning that general election, they would have been democratically elected to enact the pledges from their manifesto, which included revoking Article 50. They didn't win the election so that didn't happen.



One could argue that the Lib Dems, even if they's won the election, didn't have the majority of all votes cast.  But then in 2016 the majority of registered voters didn't vote to leave the EU

Maybe not, but the turnout wasn't small.



https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-referendum-not-largest-democratic-exercise/">https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-referend ... -exercise/">https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-referendum-not-largest-democratic-exercise/



And while Farage famously said "52-48 would be unfinished business by a long way", and all the other quotes by leavers, and both sides cheated horribly etc etc, although leave cheated on a much larger scale and got away with it - the fact remains that folks voted for Bojo at the GE with a large majority; even under PR they'd have a majority.



Of course, they bribed the Brexit Party and cheated in a whole host of other ways but we seem to expect that as "perfectly normal" now and don't even remember the last time there was a clean vote..

[Hyperduck Quack Quack]

But we don't want Swinson as PM. The Revoke option is anti-democratic and was rejected badly at the polls, she's just another wannabe D Cameron who doesn't even understand how the EU works, yet thinks she wants to be part of it.



Clearly it is like rocket science to some..



And she was rejected by European Europhiles too btw, believe it or not, they actually respect democracy in the EU and they were very disapproving of Blair, Cameron and even more so of Swinson.

I would argue that it wasn't anti-democratic. In the unlikely event of the Lib Dems winning that general election, they would have been democratically elected to enact the pledges from their manifesto, which included revoking Article 50. They didn't win the election so that didn't happen.



One could argue that the Lib Dems, even if they's won the election, didn't have the majority of all votes cast.  But then in 2016 the majority of registered voters didn't vote to leave the EU

[Borg Refinery]

But we don't want Swinson as PM. The Revoke option is anti-democratic and was rejected badly at the polls, she's just another wannabe D Cameron who doesn't even understand how the EU works, yet thinks she wants to be part of it.



Clearly it is like rocket science to some..



And she was rejected by European Europhiles too btw, believe it or not, they actually respect democracy in the EU and they were very disapproving of Blair, Cameron and even more so of Swinson.

[Stevlin]

Landslide? Seats sure. Votes. No way! Ironic for this thread as Proportional Represention would have led to a Corbyn led rainbow coalition.



As for Johnsons 'BoJo Hard Brexit', he didn't ride a wave of "No Deal". He rode the wave of "get Brexit done". The referendum was based on lies and when the NHS doesn't get the 350 million we send to the EU instead or these other awesome goodies the plebs were promised, the day of reckoning will begin.

Oh for heaven's sake - stop whining about Brexit! It was a simple issue - remain or leave, and there are MANY factors involved in reaching a decision on whether to leave or not - and the inaccuracy of the required UK contribution is, and was irrelevant, because as I say, it involved many more factors than just money....but having to pay anything to subsidise some of the trading partners is an absolutely ridiculous concept in any event.