First Past the Post or Proportional Representaion

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

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]

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.

[the tokai]

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.

[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.
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.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

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.

[Ja'chyra]

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.

[Ser Clegane]

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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

[JAG]

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

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.

[Papewaio]

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.