First Past the Post or Proportional Representaion

Since people seem to think general elections are about electing a government as opposed to electing your representatvie to Parliament, which of the 2 systems is better?

We in Scotland have both. 72 MSPs are elected by First Past the Post, and 57 are elected by Proportional Representation. The House of Commons elections, and Local Council elections are solely by First Past the Post.

First Past the Post:

The nation is cut up into the 600 odd constituencies, and each constituency elects its own single representative to the House of Commons in the Palace of Westminster. Each representative has a session once or twice every one or two weeks with their constituents about various matters (ministers rarely hold these sessions, because they have more work). The government is the party which wins most seats.

Proportional Represention:

The nation isn't cut up at all (or if it is, it is into much larger chunks, numbering, say, 12), and the MPs are elected depending on how many votes the party gets over the whole populace, as opposed to a small constituency. The PR MPs don't really hold sessions with constituents, so the MP is more disconnected from the people. They are elected based on their party's views, as opposed to their own work as an MP.

N.B. The House of Commons gets its name from the fact its members represent constituencies. Commons comes from the Norman-French (our nation's language of state) word communes, I think, which means community, or locality, or constituency.

I think a two house system one using the First Past the Post and one using the Proportional Representation system would be best. That way we retain the ability of the Local People to have a say in their communities (And my Dad works as a co-ordinator for a minister and she holds a surgery every week.) And we get the benefits of the PR system which are that its the central party issues that decide seats not local one. (Which in some ways is good and someway's is bad.) How a system like that would work does not come easily but it could be possible to get rid of the house of lords and use the PR system instead of them.

Based on your description I would say first past the post. An MP is there solely as the representative of the people who voted him in, he shouldn't be there to air his own or his parties views.

im a fan of Proportional Representation even though it disconnects voters and mp a bit its fairer

We use PR here in Denmark and its not as bleak as your description.

As a voter you have the choice of just a general vote for a party or for a specific candidate in that party. Personal votes can be very important for who gets in. One minister was not re-elected in our last election.

A MP might not be that dedicated to his own constituency compared to the other system but he/she cannot ignore it completely.


CBR

In Germany we have a mixture of both. The overall shares of seats in the parliament are voted on by PR, however, one half of the MPs is directly elected via FPtP.

Quote:

---

he shouldn't be there to air his own or his parties views.

---

I disagree, MPs should vote with their conscience, rather than slavishly listening to their constituents. It's the nature of a republican democracy.

Anyway, I voted for a mixture, similar to the one outlined by Zelda12.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

I disagree, MPs should vote with their conscience, rather than slavishly listening to their constituents. It's the nature of a republican democracy.

Anyway, I voted for a mixture, similar to the one outlined by Zelda12.

---

So then you have one man pressing his opinions on all the people in his area, how is this democracy.

We vote one man in to represent us all as having a parliment of 70 million would be unworkable, therefore he should represent us, not himself. Being a politician should be a selfless job just like being the prime minister/king/president is being a servant of the nation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ja'chyra

So then you have one man pressing his opinions on all the people in his area, how is this democracy.

We vote one man in to represent us all as having a parliment of 70 million would be unworkable, therefore he should represent us, not himself. Being a politician should be a selfless job just like being the prime minister/king/president is being a servant of the nation.

---

IIRC the main principle of democracy the way the greeks intended it (I do not have any sources at hand to back this up though) was that the people would elect the person who they thought was most capapble of leading them. This does not mean that the elected person should do exactly what the people want, but what he thinks is best for the people.

And IMO that is the best workable way for democracy. Of course the leader should listen to the people but he shouldn't do exactly what they tell him to do. Not all of the common people know everything about politics.

Proportional Representation gives too much power to the small parties wich are able, in negotiating their voices, to impose their own agenda to the majority. See Israel, France during the IV Republic, and Italy.
It is also a system by nature instable.
The problem with election is the map. When one deputy need, let's say 100000 voters to be elected in urban centres, he?she need 10000 in rural areas, but they have the same power in the Parliament.
It was part of the debate in the European Constitution, with the small countries like Slovenia wich feared the bigger countries (France, Germany) would be able to impose on them their laws, and from the bigger countries the concern about how small countries, having less populations than ONE of their town and the same budget would be able to have the same power of decision than them.
Difficult debate, and I still don't know what is the best solution.

Quote:

---

We vote one man in to represent us all as having a parliment of 70 million would be unworkable, therefore he should represent us, not himself.

---

Yes, we do, but we also vote for one man that we trust because most people aren't very well informed. What you are describing-elected representatives doing exactly what their constituents want at all times-is mob rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

Proportional Representation gives too much power to the small parties wich are able, in negotiating their voices, to impose their own agenda to the majority. See Israel, France during the IV Republic, and Italy.
It is also a system by nature instable.

---

You can put certain mechanisms inplace to prevent extreme fragmentation.

E.g., in Germany there is a 5% hurdle that parties have to overcome to be represented in the parliament (alternatively they need to win 3 constituencies).
This way you can avoid having dozens of fringe parties present in the parliament, but you also ensure that a certain diversity of political parties is available for the voters.

Not saying that this is the perfect system to copy - I just would like to point out that there is always a range of options to work with.

from my limited understanding the way that the representation is set up in Germany is a good thing

i dont like the idea of coalition governments as i am not a true moderate - even though it definatly does balance popular opinion and stop things from getting too extreme, but the fptp and proportional methods in conjunction always struck me as a good deal

I have been searching my soul a bit on this issue after the election just gone. Before this election I had still been of the mind that FPTP was still the best system for this country and the easiest way of dealing with things. It gave strong local emphasis and strong govt.

However the election just gone was patently unfair, it clearly gave a huge mandate to a party which polled just 35% over a party who gained 32% of the vote, by a huge margin which is not right. Our system stifles debate and causes the parties to aim at a very small proportion of the electorate in very few marginal seats and that is wrong.

I know believe the Alternative Vote, way of dealing with elections is the best. It gives proportional representation without breaking the local ties and will still give strong govt while being far more fair and giving real choice.

http://www.aceproject.org/main/english/es/esd03.htm

Quote:

---

Alternative Vote

The Alternative Vote (AV) is a relatively unusual electoral system, today used only in Australia, and, in a modified form, in Nauru. Recently, the system has been muted as the best alternative to FPTP in the United Kingdom. AV was used for general elections in Papua New Guinea between 1964 and 1975 (see Papua New Guinea), and in 1996 was recommended as the new electoral system for Fiji. It is thus a good example of the regional diffusion of electoral systems discussed earlier: the majority of past, present, and likely future usage of AV has all occurred within the Oceania region.

Like elections under a First Past the Post (FPTP) system, AV elections are usually held in single-member districts. However, AV gives voters considerably more options than FPTP when marking their ballot. Rather than simply indicating their favoured candidate, under AV electors rank the candidates in the order of their choice, by marking a "1" for their favourite candidate, "2" for their second-choice, "3" for their third choice, and so on. The system thus enables voters to express their preferences between candidates, rather than simply their first choice. For this reason, it is often known as "preferential voting" in the countries using it.

AV also differs from FPTP in the way votes are counted. Like FPTP or Two-Round Systems, a candidate who has won an absolute majority of votes (fifty percent plus one) is immediately elected. However, if no candidate has an absolute majority, under AV the candidate with the lowest number of first preferences is "eliminated" from the count, and their ballot examined for their second preferences. These are then assigned to the remaining candidates in the order as marked on the ballot. This process is repeated until one candidate has an absolute majority, and is declared duly elected. For this reason, AV is usually classified as a majoritarian system, as a candidate requires an absolute majority, and not just a plurality, of all votes cast to secure a seat.

See case studies of the Australia The Alternative Vote in Australia, Sri Lanka Sri Lanka: Changes to Accommodate Diversity, and Papua New Guinea Papua New Guinea.

See advantages Alternative Vote - Advantages and disadvantages Alternative Vote - Disadvantages.

---

Australia has 'Alternative Vote' for local MP and Proportional Representation for the Senate.

'Alternative Vote' allows you to rank your choices and means that if you have two close alternatives they don't get their votes diluted.

ie Four political parties
Lumberjacks
Greenleaf
Greenleaves
Greenwood

You like the Green votes but you're not sure. Only 1/3 of people like the Lumberjacks but all the Green votes are even spread so in First Past the post politics the Lumberjacks win despite 2/3 of the people having a Green preference.

With 'Alternative voting' you rank the parties you desire:
Lumberjacks 4
Greenleaf 1
Greenleaves 2
Greenwood 3

Then the 100 votes are tallied comparing 1's:

Lumberjack 1's = 33 votes.
Greenleaf 1's = 17 votes. (your first preferenc in here)
Greenleaves 1's = 20 votes.
Greenwood 1's= 30 votes.

No one has a majority. The last placing party is eliminated and its votes rolled over with all the elminated parties second preferences now being counted.

Lumberjack 1's = 34 votes.
Greenleaves 1's = 26 votes. (your second preference)
Greenwood 1's= 40 votes.

No majority winner so third round. Greenleaves is eliminated and all its votes redivided (some will be second preference and some will be third like yours).

Lumberjack 1's = 36 votes.
Greenwood 1's= 64 votes. (your third preference)

So you still can protest vote without diluting your preferred choices.

That is exactly why I think it is now the best voting system for us now. That would be totally ideal over here.

Pape has it worked well in Australia?

Depends on your view of Australian democracy.

We don't have many coups, assassinations or glitzy MPs. The two main parties seem to be cut from the same cloth with a slightly different spin.

So we have a methodical but not deadly democracy.

The voting structure does allow more protest votes which do effect mainstream polices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Depends on your view of Australian democracy.

We don't have many coups, assassinations or glitzy MPs. The two main parties seem to be cut from the same cloth with a slightly different spin.

So we have a methodical but not deadly democracy.

The voting structure does allow more protest votes which do effect mainstream polices.

---

Aren't you guy's still a colony ?? ~D

A dominion, which is just about the same.

I think that they were thinking of implementing the AV thingy in the Holyrood parliament. It seems like a good idea also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Aren't you guy's still a colony ?? ~D

---

Aren't you guys still a dutch colony? Tidak Massala... ~:cheers: ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

Yes, we do, but we also vote for one man that we trust because most people aren't very well informed. What you are describing-elected representatives doing exactly what their constituents want at all times-is mob rule.

---

It's not mob rule, it's representation.

Ok, here's an example, if 95% of an area supports abortion 5% don't agree with it, the elected official's own beliefs are that abortion is wrong, which view should he represent?

I say he should vote the way 95% of his electorate tell him to vote, if the vote was 50-50 then that is the time I would expect him to use his best judgement.

Saying that people don't know what's best for them is leading us into a dictatorship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Malcolm

A dominion, which is just about the same.

---

Um, no. That may be the literal description of Australia, but the UK in practice has little if any sway on Australia.

Just wait until I am Prime Minister of the UK...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Malcolm

Just wait until I am Prime Minister of the UK...

---

That's going to be a long wait ~;).

Regardless, if you did try to regain power over Australia, you would give the republican movement in Australia the boost it needs to turn Australia into a republic, not part of the UK.