First Past the Post or Proportional Representaion

**Duke Malcolm** · 05-09-2005, 15:34

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.

**zelda12** · 05-09-2005, 15:40

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.

**Ja'chyra** · 05-09-2005, 16:08

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.

**LittleGrizzly** · 05-09-2005, 16:22

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

**CBR** · 05-09-2005, 16:31

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

**Ser Clegane** · 05-09-2005, 16:37

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.

**Big King Sanctaphrax** · 05-09-2005, 18:48

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.

**Ja'chyra** · 05-09-2005, 19:58

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.