First Past the Post, or Proportional Representation?
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 Representaion:
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.
Ignore this, I meant to post a poll, I shall make a new topic with a poll...
Bookmarks