Brown To Propose Proportional Representation: Massive Uturn

[Krackersdave]

This should be no surprise to anyone - and it's not about Labour keeping some degree of control in the next GE.

This is about neutering the UK Parliament to prevent any future consensus on removing us from the grip of the EU.

This has always been on the cards...

[dhpcza]

Err... to be honest Italy or the recent euro elections isn't exactly the best advert for PR.

I know nothing about Italy, but why are the recent Euro Elections a bad example?

[Moo]

That being said, proportional representation is much better isn't it?

It's better if you consider Germany and Italy to have better political systems than we have.

[MOP]

Should be careful what they wish for.

UKIP, Greens, BNP et al could take over. More people could move over to marginal parties being thoroughly pee'd off with the three main parties knowing that they would more likely get some sort of representation than from the others.

+1

[CrashConnoisseur]

Why PR? It's a radical departure from our existing constituency based system and has numerous disadvantages, not least that candidates with even less support than under First Past The Post may win seats. PR is a typical politicians 'solution' which seeks to regulate the symptoms of the problem rather than addressing the problem itself. The key problem with First Past The Post is that when there are more than two significant candidates it's fundamentally undemocratic. Many electors can not make a sincere vote for their preferred candidate without the risk of letting in another candidate they really don't want. Hence the rise in tactical voting which is undemocratic. Having investigated voting systems in some detail I long-ago concluded that the best and most democratic system is Condorcet or Second Choice Voting...

How Condorcet voting works.

Voters rank candidates in order of preference 1, 2, 3, etc. (or by putting a cross in an appropriate choice column). During counting, candidates are played off against each other rather like a football league -- the winner is the one who would win through if a series of two candidate elections had been held.

Five key advantages of Condorcet voting in the UK:

1. Voters can make a sincere vote for their preferred candidate without any risk of allowing their third or lesser preferred candidate in because they didn't vote tactically for their second choice. Condorcet is the only system mathematically proven to be ungameable -- there is no advantage in voting tactically.
   
2. While minority candidates are likely to get far more first preference votes under Condorcet, in order to win a candidate needs wide support. This prevents extremist candidates 'slipping through' a split vote as can happen with First Past The Post or 'party-list' PR systems.
   
3. It's fully backwards compatible with the current FPTP system. Absent minded or elderly voters can carry on voting as they always have -- a single cross is counted as a first preference vote.
   
4. Although counting is more involved than FPTP, it's still relatively easy to explain. The process is transparent and open to scrutiny throughout, unlike some other systems which require calculations to be made before votes are redistributed amongst candidates.
   
5. Last, but not least, it would encourage positive campaigning. In closely fought elections the winner will not only need first preference votes, but also second and perhaps third preferences too. You don't go around insulting the voter's first choice if you want to pick up their second or third preference vote.
   

For more details see 'Second Choice Voting':

http://www.karlsims.com/second-choice-voting.html

This page describes alternative voting systems for single-winner elections in which voters are given more than just a single choice vote. When implemented properly, second choice voting can have significant advantages over traditional voting:

• It gives better results when there are more than two candidates. The winner should be the one the majority prefers over any other candidate.
  
• It helps voters by allowing them to choose who they really want without losing influence over who actually has a chance of winning. Often voters have to decide between voting strategically so their vote makes a difference, or voting sincerely for who they really prefer. With this method, voters supply additional information so strategic voting should not be necessary.
  
• It helps 3rd candidates because voters should actually vote for them if they prefer them.
  
• It also helps established candidates because the results between them are not skewed in inappropriate ways when a 3rd candidate receives some votes.
  

[R K]

Looks like someone totted up the Tory and UKIP votes and sh1t themselves.

Trying to grab some of the Lib Dem votes whilst they still have a party.

[barrabus]

Looks like someone totted up the Tory and UKIP votes and sh1t themselves.

Trying to grab some of the Lib Dem votes whilst they still have a party.

So after last nights vote that would mean we would have about 100 BMP MP,S

[three pint princess]

It's the AV system say the BBC not PR, AV is not a proportional system.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8092235.stm

In his statement, Mr Brown will say there would have to be a referendum before any change could be made to the voting system.

He will unveil plans for an independent body to police MPs' expenses, a legally binding MPs' code of conduct, and plans to strengthen Commons committees.

Earlier, he chaired a meeting of the new Democratic Renewal Council - a group of ministers - which agreed to consider moving towards the so-called alternative vote or AV system in which voters could list their preferences rather than simply voting for one candidate as now.

Just to repost that image again.

There must be some reason behind this, I can't work it out.

9.4 Alternative Vote (AV)

The Alternative Vote is a minimalist form of electoral

reform which does not alter the current pattern of single

member constituencies but instead introduces preferential

voting (1,2,3… rather than X). However, as with PR

systems people might make different choices under AV

than they do using FPTP.AV is not a proportional system –

single member district systems cannot be, except

accidentally. In some circumstances it could produce more

proportional results (for instance in the 1987 and 1992

elections it would have reduced the Conservative

preponderance) but in others it could produce even more

disproportional results than FPTP. In the 1997 election

feeling was running so strongly against the Conservatives

that AV would simply have helped several more Lib Dem

and Labour voters swap preferences and defeat

Conservatives in seats where the Tories were ahead under

FPTP. In 2001 it would also have swollen the Labour

majority. In 2005 the evidence from opinion polling

suggests that Labour would have once again have had a

larger majority under AV than FPTP. John Curtice

(Independent 10 May 2005) estimated that the Labour

majority would have been 98 rather than 66.

The reason AV would swell the Labour majority is that the

second preferences of Lib Dem supporters still tend to

favour Labour over Conservative when those are the last

two remaining choices, although to a lesser extent than

they did in 1997. AV would have helped narrowly defeated

Labour MPs such as Chris Leslie in Shipley to hold off the

Conservatives. It would also have helped the Lib Dems vis-

à-vis the Conservatives because Labour voters would

favour them heavily in those circumstances; it would help

them also somewhat against Labour.The measurement of

each of these effects is imprecise and varies between

different opinion polls.The Electoral Reform Society is

undertaking some research into second and lower

preferences, which will be reported in due course.

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/downloads/gefinal2005.pdf

:angry:

[Traktion]

Why PR? It's a radical departure from our existing constituency based system and has numerous disadvantages, not least that candidates with even less support than under First Past The Post may win seats. PR is a typical politicians 'solution' which seeks to regulate the symptoms of the problem rather than addressing the problem itself. The key problem with First Past The Post is that when there are more than two significant candidates it's fundamentally undemocratic. Many electors can not make a sincere vote for their preferred candidate without the risk of letting in another candidate they really don't want. Hence the rise in tactical voting which is undemocratic. Having investigated voting systems in some detail I long-ago concluded that the best and most democratic system is Condorcet or Second Choice Voting...

Any system which is better fairer than FPTP would get my vote. How many times have you heard about people saying you should vote for one of the main two or it is a 'wasted vote'? The current system clearly encourages tactical voting.

[Moo]

There must be some reason behind this, I can't work it out.

Given the timing of the announcement, I find it hard to believe the reason is anything other than Labour looking at ways of minimising the size of the ******ing they're looking at at the next GE. Had this been announced during their first or second terms, I think we could ascribe honorable motives to it. Now... no.

[Guest sillybear2]

I know nothing about Italy, but why are the recent Euro Elections a bad example?

Italy has had 62 governments since WW2, there are endlessly shifting coalitions and loyalties producing a volatile, weak and fickle political system where Parliament is dissolved at a whim and people take to the streets so politicians give in to populist measures, many of which are often contradictory, selfish and indulgent. (We want HPI!, We want lavish pensions!, We want no taxes, Make our children pay!)

Generally if you want a stable government for better or worse you want a single party in control with a firm mandate which will then take the credit/blame for events. When Labour were elected in 1997 they had a mandate to change things, if they've failed to do so and have essentially betrayed their own supporters they have no one else to blame but themselves, the buck stops with them, they cannot blame their "coalition" partners or blame minority parties like the Libdems for acting as king makers and holding a veto on all legislation.

As for the Euro elections, we now have two BNP and rest is a comedy show, in the Midlands UKIP managed to win two seats, one going to a 6ft 4 transsexual that declared the EU a "fascist dictatorship" on the winning stump.

[CrashedOutAndBurned]

Ahh, if it's not PR it's no good then - just a new way to divvy-up seats between the identical big three. Boring. False alarm.

[godless]

Also, It really is taking the friggin' pis5 when they've just bought in more unelected people and old expense cronies into the government. :angry:

[Moo]

Ahh, if it's not PR it's no good then - just a new way to divvy-up seat between the identical big three. Boring. False alarm.

I like to think of myself as not exactly a tinfoil hatter, but bugger me, if a deeply unpopular ruling party attempting to change the voting system shortly before an election that may well see them slaughtered and out of power for several decades doesn't set a few alarm bells ringing I have no idea what does!

[Lone_Twin]

<snip>

As for the Euro elections, we now have two BNP and rest is a comedy show, in the Midlands UKIP managed to win two seats, one going to a 6ft 4 transsexual that declared the EU a "fascist dictatorship" on the winning stump.

Whats wrong with 6ft transexuals?

Surely such a person being elected to a traditionaly right wing party is a sign of tolerance and progress.

[lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)]

So he wants a Parliament full of single issue nutters (sorry HPC!) and extremists, with routine hung Parliaments and cabals of endlessly shifting coalitions and king makers. And when something goes wrong they just point fingers at each other because ultimately no single party is actually running the country.

We just need a general election, let a fresh Parliament decide future reforms.

if this means a more ineffective government - good

governments always make things worse - so the less effective the better.

[Guest sillybear2]

Whats wrong with 6ft transexuals?

Surely such a person being elected to a traditionaly right wing party is a sign of tolerance and progress.

Nothing, the 'fascist dictatorship' bit got me. You just have to ask yourself whether single issue parties would be much good for Westminster. Parliament may end up being even more of an irrelevance if it cannot agree on anything, or is constantly bypassed. We may end up with less democracy and transparency. We had hung Parliaments throughout the 1970's, the country was an ungovernable f***g mess.

Having bullied the Labour party into oblivion it seems Brown now thinks he can do anything he likes, including gerrymandering the electoral system in his favour. Shameless.

[Stars]

Ha ha ha ha

what a toad

[Stars]

if this means a more ineffective government - good

governments always make things worse - so the less effective the better.

For once i agree with you

[lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)]

For once i agree with you

careful

you'll be asking for John Galt next

[The Ayatollah Buggeri]

Taken up against the wall and shot will do just fine

No style. Vive la guillotine!

[Gideon Gono]

The mans a psychopath

Unwanted by the electorate, bullying his party and surrounding himself with unelected sycophants....

.....and now he's changing the rules.

Truly terrifying now.

+100!

[sunonmars]

Well if he wants a referendum on a new voting system, lets have it next month along with the GE and the EU referendum all rolled into one to save costs, there sorted!

[Guest tbatst2000]

I like to think of myself as not exactly a tinfoil hatter, but bugger me, if a deeply unpopular ruling party attempting to change the voting system shortly before an election that may well see them slaughtered and out of power for several decades doesn't set a few alarm bells ringing I have no idea what does!

This is a good point but, assuming they do want to go for single transferable vote or similar, it seems likely they'd shoot themselves in the foot. The advantage of STV is that it allows you, effectively, to vote against someone - that is, you list all the other candidates except the one you dislike the most in order on your ballot paper. As it does seem the recent voting, at least in the council elections, showed a lot of people voting tactically to keep labour out (i.e. the number of council seats they lost was greater than their fall in the total share of the vote would suggest), STV really could kill them off completely.

[three pint princess]

This is a good point but, assuming they do want to go for single transferable vote or similar, it seems likely they'd shoot themselves in the foot.

But they want AV, the system most bias towards Labour. Possibly giving them an even larger majority in the previous GE.