If we had Proportional Representation

[andrewducker]

I'd have expected the Labour party to splinter around the time of the Iraq war.

I'd expect the Tory party to splinter the moment someone said "Europe".

We have broad parties full of people that don't like the views of many of the people they're associated with.  Once it becomes possible to elect smaller parties I expect many of them to head for the hills.

Working out how many votes "The Conservatives" or "Labour" will get at in a proportional system is not likely to get you a very useful result.

(Been meaning to write this for a few days, and finally spurred to it when someone else posted about it, sadly flocked.)

Edit: fjm has unlocked their post. Worth reading - she's a better writer than me.

Comments

[autopope.livejournal.com]

What can possibly go wrong ...?

A strict proportional/party list system combined with tightly whipped parties and a threshold system like Germany -- where there's a cut-off below which parties don't get any seats -- means that dissident MPs would find life very harsh indeed. Reasons for expecting a cut-off: a 1% requirement would effectively exclude the BNP. It'd also play to the interests of the existing parties by giving them a lever for enforcing the whip (i.e. dissident MPs lose the whip, end out in the cold, and because they can't muster 1% of the national vote, lose their seats -- an effective threat).

You also run the risk of the Israeli nightmare, where the balance of power between major blocs is held by the equivalent of UKIP or the Christian Party.

PR isn't an automatic paliative. The devil is in the details.

[andrewducker]

Absolutely. AMS can also have similar problems - because obviously the lists are controlled by the party.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

A cut-off of 1%, going by this election, would still give us the BNP a seats (they got 1.9% of the popular vote this election) and potentially exclude the Greens instead - a little unfortunate. We might have to bite a bullet on that one and let them have their 15 minutes. They'll soon be back out.

[captainlucy.livejournal.com]

As indeed has happened in to a large degree in the local elections, where they've lost nearly 2/3 of their seats.

[autopope.livejournal.com]

They got 1.9% overall? Funny, they got 0.7% up here (in Scotland).

[marrog.livejournal.com]

Unless I'm vastly misreading the BBC page...

[a-pawson.livejournal.com]

No you are correct. The BNP received 563,743 votes, which equates to 1.9% of the popular vote. They are just more popular in England.

[usmu.livejournal.com]

But there are a lot of assumptions in your statement. The Dutch system does not have a threshold system. The number of votes needed to take a seat is the total number votes divided by the number of seats. Remaining seats are allocated to the parties with the highest remainder.

Very few individuals other than the very well known or very high up the list actually achieve this number, so whether or not there's a threshold doesn't really matter. There are several things to consider in that respect.

First: with RP comes a lot of parties. 17 parties took part in the last dutch elections and 7 of them won seats in parliament. We currently have a three party coalition. Given this amount of parties there's always a party that caters to most of your views. This makes party discipline far less of an issue as it is in the current British system.

Second: though voting is usually done along party lines, occasionally with really divisive subjects the whip is lifted and individual members can vote according to their own conscious.

Given the number of RP-countries and those facing the problem the risk of the Israeli nightmare is small. When there's a need for a third small party to make up the numbers this not necessarily an extremist party. And even if it is, their influence is usually relatively small. They need the big parties just as much as they need the small party.

THe thing to realize here is that coalitions are often not about we do this your way if you let us do that our way. It's usually a compromise that is a bit of both. So when a third party is needed it usually influences the policies in a certain direction, but not by that much. Though being in power might not mean you will be getting your way, the trade off is that your chances of getting into power are far greater. This makes that far more people at least get most of what they wanted, instead of nothing.

[usmu.livejournal.com]

To be entirely specific about the Dutch voting system:

You cast your vote for a particular person of a particular party. Everybody eligible gets to choose from the same people. Every party enters a list of candidates running for election.

Te number of total cast votes / number of seats determines the number of votes needed for to win a seat. This is called the threshold.

The number of votes cast for a party / the threshold, rounded down, is the number of seats won by a party. If any seats remain, they are allocated to the parties with the highest remainders.

The won seats per party are allocated to the top of the voting list. If you won 5 seats, the numbers one through five on the list are elected.

If a person gets votes equal or over the threshold he automatically wins a seat. He will take the place of the last person to be elected on general votes. If number 6 gets enough votes and the party has enough votes to take five seats, the numbers 1 through 4 and number 6 will be elected.

[mooism.livejournal.com]

As it is, dissident MPs lose the whip and are forbidden from standing for re-election as their party's official candidate. They can stand as an independent candidate, but are rarely successful in Britain (Northern Ireland is another matter).

[fjm.livejournal.com]

Yep.

I'll unlock.

[andrewducker]

Thanks!