Wait, wait, in what Bizarro-Britain would PR be a “huge step backwards”?
In this normal Britain. PR weakens or removes the link between the MP and the constituents. FPTP may be pretty bad, but it’s one of the best options available.
The Westminster system provides strong and energetic government, giving voters a real voice in which parties constitute the government, and pushes political parties towards the center.
Say goodbye to all that with PR; the Liberal Dems and electoral reformers in Britain have seem to convince themselves that a legislature should exactly mirror a vote count, naively overlooking that the FPTP system provides ex ante incentives to moderate and seek electoral mandates necessary to form an effective government.
And electing the Lords? Ever since the Lords have been neutered of legislative power, Britain has avoided the gridlock and diffusion of responsibility that plagues, for example, the United States Congress. Do they really want to move in that direction? I doubt it.
It also means that the party currently opinion-polling in third place (Labour) will still win the next general election if the results stay as they stand, whereas the party opinion-polling in first place (Conservatives) only come in second, with the Liberal Democrats third, despite being ahead of Labour in the opinion-polls.
Frankly, I think a little of the “energetic government” can be spared to actually reflect the way people are voting. A minority of people who were polled prefer Labour. There should be no way in which a party opinion-polling in third position is re-elected due to an arbitrary carving up of the country into constituencies.
I also disagree that PR necessarily weakens the link between an MP and his constituents. How do closed list PR voting systems weaken the link between constituent and MP?
Agreed. When I lived under the ferociously complex PR system in Ireland, I observed a very strong link between constituents and our TD(s). Way more apparent in Dublin than Oxford, certainly.
Depends which system you use - AV is pretty much the same in terms of there being constituent MPs, the votes are just counted different (with people getting several choices). STV can still have a constituency link it’s just that the boundaries tend to be bigger and you have multiple representatives for an area. I don’t see that as being a problem personally.
Unless you’re in a seat whose composition means that you voting for who you do want means you’re more likely to get who you don’t want. A colleague of mine lives in Barking and Daggenham where there’s a real chance of a BNP candidate being elected, so she’s stuck of being in the position of pretty much having to vote Labour even though she doesn’t want to, or getting a BNP candidate. How is that fair?
That is a bug masquerading as a feature.
Avoided the diffusion of responsibility? That doesn’t sound like our government system to me.
So far as gridlock goes, well, that really depends on who and what are being gridlocked. There are some things that I want an extra obstacle to, and some thing I don’t. I don’t think a lack of gridlock is inherently a good thing.
She should vote for Labor, and support the Tories/LibDems in other ways the other 59 months of the British electoral cycle. There’s no reason to be ashamed of tactical voting. You got to play with the hand you’re dealt.
A modern democracy thrives on clear lines of accountability, so voters know who is responsible for the government does, and who to blame if the government fails to meet expectations. Empowering a second house of government will give Britain the things I despise about my country’s relic of a political system: elections without consequences.
(A few weeks ago there was a thread about who we should credit with the success of some Clinton-era budget: the Administration or the Republican Congress. Anyone who cares for accountable government sees how ridiculous it is to even have to have that conversation.)
Sounds rather undemocratic to me.
She’s not ashamed of tactical voting, she’d just prefer not to have to. Again, isn’t the idea of democracy that you vote for who you want to represent you, rather than for someone you don’t want just to ensure the lesser of two evils?
Says the guy who has expressed support for FPTP over PR by saying “Tactical voting’s really not so bad!” :dubious:
You don’t think there’s tactical voting in PR systems?
Obviously there would be considerably less if it than in a single-member-district winner-take-all system.
Consider that in a PR system, no one party is likely to have a majority in Parliament/Congress at any given time, meaning that nothing gets done unless two or more parties can agree it’s a good idea. Is that enough gridlock, in your judgment?
Really, i’d say having a two party system (though that may, to some extent, change) really removes much of the threat of accountability. Beyond that, it’s not as though the parties outside of power don’t recognise that they have a chance at it in future and so will move to stop accountability now. Look at the recent expenses scandal - the Conservatives were much in the same boat as Labour, because even though they weren’t in power their MPs had abused it too and presumably were looking forward to continuing doing so in the future. When what’s at stake threatens all MPs, or any party in power, then politicians become strangely silent until forced to speak.
Not if it was voted for, or, voted for by proxy by voting in a particular party. Voting for a lack of gridlock would be just as undemocratic.
It depends, really. Obviously I wouldn’t want to see anything like the U.S. system, which at times it seems as though neither party will comprimise and will shout bloody oaths at being asked to move an inch. But I think a system of that over here would require input from smaller parties to the extent that a certain degree of comprimise and give-and-take is necessary, and it would help to balance out the more extreme ends of the political spectrum. On the other hand, it would be all-in, and with everyone having a chance to get a say in government there’d be less anti-establishment figures, which i’d say would be a bad thing - and, over time, probably it would become just another old boy’s club. I suppose my honest answer would be that regular change is necessary to keep MPs on their toes, and that would mean more or less inbuilt gridlock should be required.
Well, that’s not a feature of the American political system, nor even of the political culture, but only of the political climate, occasionally and recently.
I’m generally well-disposed to the idea of a proportional representation system.
However … when considering multi-party systems that actually exist, do we really get what we want? Take a look at Israel … frequent elections, hardly ever any clear public mandate on policy … their political system is mired in a bog (heh) and obvious solutions are impossible to pursue politically.
India also has a pretty rigorous multi-party system, even with winner-take-all districts (FPTP constituencies), but the parties essentially coalesce into three broad coalitions. Is India’s system what we would consider the kind of healthy, functioning democracy we’re aiming for?