egafd.com

Sam, before I ask this question I want you to know that I'm in favour of wholesale electoral reform (encompassing PR, fixed term parliaments, changes in the methodology of voting and the scrutineering of elections), so I don't have an axe to grind with you regarding the introduction of proportional representation per se. Nor am I using the results of the last week's General Election as the basis for my hypothetical scenario. However...


Throughout our lengthy debates over the last few days on these forums you have consistently proclaimed it as being the fairest system of electing a government. My question to you is this... how fair can an electoral system be when a minor party with only a small percentage of the votes and therefore seats (maybe even a fringe party like the BNP) can be thrust into a position of holding the balance of power?

While PR allows the parties to receive the number of seats that fairly reflect their popularity, PR also gives DISPROPORTIONATE power to smaller parties when it comes to coalition governments.

Discuss.

[quote]While PR allows the parties to receive the number of seats that fairly reflect their popularity, PR also gives DISPROPORTIONATE power to smaller parties when it comes to coalition governments.[/quote]

Yes, that's true. I would argue that, I'd rather give disproportionately more power to smaller parties than disproportionately less power to smaller parties. Why? Well think of it in terms of race and equality. Being part of a minority means you have to shout twice as loud to be heard. Something like, say, the NBPA could be regarded as unfair. After all, do white Police officers get a club that solely concentrates on defending them, or making sure they're heard? We accept a little unfairness because the NBPA is there to protect a minority; a minority that without, what may seem, disproportionate representation might be totally ignored, or become completely insignificant.

That's my defence of PR regarding this type of criticism. It might not be the best but there you go. Compared to FPTP that keeps small parties down, this leads to too many people's votes, and thus voices, being a completer waste. Again, 23% of the people voted Lib Dem and they get just over 8% of the seats. That's, what, 4 million people without proper, direct representation in parliament? I think the positives outweigh the negatives.

The reform that I would like to see is for ALL constituencies to have a similar amount of constituents. If it meant fewer, or even more MP's then so be it. What it would mean is that the same proportion of people would be voting in each constituency, thereby making a vote for whoever the same in each.
Or am I being too simplistic?

They couldn't do it on population. I think the plan is to do it on geographical size, which of course would favour the Tories, who tend to have large rural constituencies, and hit Labour, who have smaller and much more densely populated ones.

[quote]The reform that I would like to see is for ALL constituencies to have a similar amount of constituents.[/quote]

That's the way it is now. Most constituencies in the UK are between 56,000 and 80,000 apart from the Isle of White. There's a bit too much variation, sure, but I don't think constituency lines can go over county, or borough lines and because of this it's hard to make them all closer in terms of the number of voters.

Making each constituency the same size, geographically, as Ned points out, isn't going to happen. That could mean an MP on the outer Hebrides would be representing 500 people and an MP in the centre of London 5 million people. Madness.

Cameron plans to reduce the number of constituencies to 585 and reduce the size differential between them. The Conservatives propose that the constituency boundaries should be redrawn so that no constituency should be between 3.5% and 5% either large or smaller than the average.

Under the Tory proposals the average constituency based on 2009 figures would have 77,642 electors. The size would range between 73,761 and 81.360 if a 5% variation were allowed.

Take it as read that the main purpose of this would be to result in less Labour held seats.

A key requirement for the above to happen would be permission to ignore existing local council ward boundaries.


Cheers
D

Interesting question

I'll fire one back at you

Is it fair that a party that cant even get 50% of the populations support should be allowed to implement their ideological driven plan in full,which favours the 30-40% that voted for them,at the expense of the 60-70% that didnt?