04/26/2010: "Election - Proportional representation"

proportional representation, or PR as its more commonly known, is a "fairer" way to elect a government.... or is it?

* each party puts forward its party list of selected people, in a given voting area
* based on the percentage of the vote that party obtains, the list of people for each party are given the job of MP
* the largest percentage of the vote equals the most MPs and they form the new government

sounds fairer?

what about the draw backs?
- who picks the people each party put forward?
a party leader or MP that was not wanted by the people, would be at the top of the selection list for thier own party, so would be elected into office as an MP even with a small percentage of the vote.
the party would select their MPs not the people, it doesnt sound very democratic to me
- an MP cheats on their expenses, or votes to keep their expenses secret (dont they lembit opik!) they pay it back but the damage is done, if they are still a high up figure within their own party, they would be nominated 1st or 2nd place on the party list. how would the public vote them out of office?
unless the party they stood for got almost nil votes, then the person would again be re elected to MP - with areas of the country voting for their party of choice, regardless of past record, it would be impossible to get them out.
- would we ever have a majority government?
in the past 40 years, if we were ruled under PR, britain would have rarely, if ever, have had a one party government in control.. without the need for deals, without watering down legislation or laws.
its perfectly natural for different parties to have different views and want all those ideal scenarios, but to get them in a different way to other parties.
its a damned sight harder to get them, when the near permanent state of affairs is having to do deals with other parties who want to do things their way.
action would be buried under yet another layer of political beaurocracy - dependant on yet another set of opinions - another survey or review... the point is, we the public would only be told what they the two parties who share power, what they want us to know.
the public would be presented with big policies that could have been so much better, so much cheaper, so much more workable, if there was just a single party who were in government.

so which would be the best voting system for the people of britain?
no matter how much i have tried to see benefits in the voting system of PR, i cannot see how it can be better than the first past the post system we currently have.

those in favour of PR would argue that, under our current first past the post system, around 70% do not vote for the party that would have the most seats... its even possible that the party finishing 3rd would have most seats.
how does this differ from the PR system?
truth is.. it doesnt!
if the three parties get 30% of the vote each in an election, the winning party would rule over 70% of an electorate, that voted against it
under PR, the ruling party would still rule 70% of people that voted against it.

so why is so much focus being placed on the PR voting system?
the libdem's know full well, that the labour party would never form an alliance with the conservatives.
the only party to benefit from a hung parliament, is the the liberal democrat party... so why do you suppose that they are so insistant on it being part of any deal....