As someone who lives in a country with PR, I have to disagree.
With PR, politicians are remote and unreachable. They are not accountable for their voting, as the voter does not elect a person, but a party. A voter never knows what he/she is getting when you vote for a party, as no party will ever get a majority so coalitions have to be made, deals done and manifesto's ignored. You have no person actually represent you or your area in parliament, and the politico's know it. With PR, no minister will ever lose a seat, no matter how sick the public is of him or her.
With PR, you turn all the power to a very, very small group of party leaders, any and all dissidence will result in expulsion.
I'd stick with FPtP if I were you. Even with its flaws, it is a much more democratic and direct influence for the electorate than PR can ever be.
(
Tusk knows where you live, Tue 28 Jun 2016, 11:05,
Reply)
Neither system is perfect
FPTP seems to produce a lack of choice resulting in people feeling that no one is representing them. This disillusionment seems to result in the likes of Trump and Farage, politicians who rely on anger at the mainstream politics allowing them to deny the political and economic realities in which governments must work.
(, Tue 28 Jun 2016, 12:01, Reply)
If people voted for the candidate not the party, politics would be much better and more accountable
[Full disclosure: I used to work for this organisation www.independentnetwork.org.uk/]
(
Mr Mann I love pigs, best of all the animals, Tue 28 Jun 2016, 12:39,
Reply)
It also leads to voter apathy. I have never voted for the winning candidate in any election
Therefore I am unrepresented and every vote has essentially been a wasted vote. Under FPTP if you lose you may as well have not voted.
(
Peej, Tue 28 Jun 2016, 13:59,
Reply)
And how is this different from PR?
I haven't voted in ages. I just draw a massive CDC on the ballot paper
(
Tusk knows where you live, Tue 28 Jun 2016, 14:13,
Reply)
I imagine that under PR you won't feel your vote is wasted as it will go towards the total when deciding how many MPs you get. Lib Dem Supporters for example would be far happier with the result.
It would also help with tactical voting. I hate the idea that someone feels they have to vote for someone other than who they would like to win because they feel its the only way to stop someone else.
Drawing a CDC is still better than not voting at all. Spoiled ballots are at least counted.
(
Peej, Tue 28 Jun 2016, 14:40,
Reply)
You're missing the point.
You don't vote for 'someone', you don't get 'someone', you don't have an MP to call your own.
In PR, you vote for the party leaders, that's it. The rest of the MP's are merely filling seats and have no power or influence. In addition, you don't even know what the party you vote for is going to do, because they must form a coalition, and election manifesto's are worthless after the election. So, a bit like what happened with that tuition fee thing of the LibDems, only under PR it will be every time after every election on every election promise. That's why it takes weeks or even months to form a government after an election here.
Under FPTP, at least you have an MP in your area, who has surgery and you can call him or her a cunt to his/her face. You have an option to get rid of your MP at election time. No such delights for the PR voter.
(
Tusk knows where you live, Tue 28 Jun 2016, 15:23,
Reply)
That still seems preferable to having a government with only 30% of the popular vote.
(
jonbob loves you, Tue 28 Jun 2016, 16:11,
Reply)
Also it makes for a very fractured govt or should I say constant power sharing with no overall majority. In some countries this works, it would never work in the UK, especially now where all the parties are ripping themselves apart from the insides. Could you imagine a Labour /UKIP-EDL-Britain First/Tory govt? Then after 6 months it collapses and everyone has to go out and vote again. NL is democracy on steroids and myself think it is a bad thing. You should see the voting booklets here they are like mini novels in the big cities. Also the same party might put up 2-3 candidates for the same seat, one might run for XXX part of the vote - the other might run on a sole issue like dog dirt in the street or protecting the trees - it is really that silly!
(, Tue 28 Jun 2016, 15:06, Reply)
Which form of PR and where out of curiosity?
STV has always been a standard option of the more popular campaigns for PR, particularly because it could allow for more representation in pre-existing constituencies, an ability not to have to see a person you disagree with who's in a safe seat. The downside is this arguably leads to more MPs when up until recently government was asking for less.
(
Christian's Bolt and Ski, Tue 28 Jun 2016, 17:36,
Reply)
As someone who lives in a country with Limmy, I have to say
I quite like the mixed member system we have up here. Sort of a best of both worlds situation. You elect a constituency MSP who is accountable to the local area and can campaign for local issues, and there's a PR list, so the smaller parties get more representation than in fptp.
(, Tue 28 Jun 2016, 20:38, Reply)