Miss Ann Thrope

Wow, do you write editorials for the Daily Mail? This is pure nonsense - just look at the most successful countries and economies in Europe and the world. Almost all have some form of PR voting. You can argue equally that FPTP gives far too much influence to the extremist wings of major parties. At least with PR you know what you are voting for..

The biggest issue with FPTP is the huge number of "safe seats" which never change and thus reinforce the idea that voting and politics is a big waste of time. I think there is a cogent argument that this is behind much of the disaffection in the UK and given one chance to actually poke the "establishment" in the eye directly (with a referendum), the electorate took it.

Ireland has the most complex and representative form of PR - single transferable vote. This was imposed by the British* in 1918 in order to preserve the representation of the minority Anglo-Irish communities in parliament. Ironically it served to amplify the triumph of Sinn Fein in the following election. Aside from that though, it became an intrinsic part of the Irish political process and eventually enshrined in our constitution. On two separate occasions in the past 60 years, the largest Irish political party (on one occasion supported by the other large party) introduced a referendum to replace PR-STV with a simpler system. On both occasions the public soundly rejected this change despite all of the propaganda urging them to accept it.

Accordingly PR is an untouchable bedrock of the Irish system even though it has occasionally produced some short-term political instability. On the other hand, in Ireland, as elsewhere, a large majority has never assured good government. Also worth noting that where people understand the options they plump for a complex representative system unlike the ridiculous UK referendum on AV which demonstrated the complete lack of understanding about PR options among the British commentariat and electorate. Consider this, for example: STV means large multi-seat constituencies where the MPs will likely be from a range of parties. This means you can have an MP who represents your area and your political opinion. And there are no safe seats ever, as many party leaders who lost their seats over the years can testify.


* what have they ever done for us etc etc

DXBtoDOH

This is a succinct overview of May from the Economist. Worth a read.

http://www.economist.com/news/217211...sa-mays-vision

Her vision is not going to be one that everyone understands or wants (including among the more pro-free market Tories) but it does show how quietly powerful it can be and for those who don't understand why the Tories are polling so well despite everything, this is the answer.

LouisB

More importantly the less people vote the more those few votes matter. In the limit, you could gift one person to decide. So conversely everyone should vote regardless. Although if you can't be bothered to vote cons, I won't try to convince you otherwise.

scrubbedexpat141

Agree totally.

I'll be voting via Mother Scamp and that's that....Conservatives hold Salisbury.

TheShed

Personally, I feel that people who don't bother to vote, don't have the right to complain afterwards. Had the younger generation turned out in numbers for the referendum, the result could have been the other way and most of the complainers I hear are from that exact young, failed to vote generation.

Meow

It is very frustrating that so many people don't bother. I have actually heard people, of varying ages, say that politics isn't relevant to their lives.

Maybe schools should teach the basics of politics and the relevant political systems as it's obvious so many people really don't understand why it matter and why their vote can make a difference, especially if they get involved on a local level?

IKnowNothing

To paraphrase a scene in AWP where they all vote on the internal colour of a hut, each of them chose a different colour and 5/7 choose yellow as the second colour, so yellow wins.

"So everybody gets what nobody wants"

"Well that's democracy (PR) for you Dennis".

Says a lot.

ExpatAl

I agree. Only problem is, trying to remain impartial rather than indoctrinating children to vote in a certain way.

Meow

It should never be about party politics but about the system and how it works from the grass roots upwards.

Meow

That's called a compromise. It's how life in much of the civilised world works, with everyone giving a little to keep everyone else happy.

Bahtatboy

Should be ok, given the broad political mix of teachers ...

weasel decentral

Yes you are correct, Hilter's rise to power can be fully attributed to the inadequacy of a PR system.

Inselaffen

not fully but he never would have got a strong foothold in the Reichstag without the PR system and the rise of the Nazi's was also aided by the lack of strong Government in the Weimar Republic. This was largely a result of the PR system.

Miss Ann Thrope

Again this is unbelievable nonsense. Had there been FPTP in Germany then Hitler would have almost certainly secured a majority in the July 1932 federal elections and come to power 6 months earlier than he actually did. The Nazis got over 37% of the vote in July 1932 versus 22% for the second place SDP and 14% for the KPD. That is remarkably similar to the respective vote totals for the Tories, Labour and UKIP in the last UK election and look what that delivered.... Hitler would have had a "legitimate" and likely very large majority.

The Nazi vote fell to 33% in the November 1932 election and it was only Hitler's bully boy tactics that brought him to power in spite rather than because of the proportional electoral system which denied him a parliamentary majority that he would have received under FPTP.

But why let facts get in the way?

Inselaffen

why let the facts get in the way that in the 1930 elections the nazi's gained significant strength and influence with only 18pct of the vote. A FPTP system would have allowed a strong government to stand against their rise and they would never have reached the 33pct they achieved in 1932.

there are many problems with a FPTP system but it's big positive is it allows for the formation of strong stable government.

I'm sure many of those favouring PR would not be happy with the representation that would have given UKIP in Parliament.