Actually in this election if you had a PR System that elected MPs seperately by each state in the UK we would have the possibility of a lib lab coalition and a con lib coalition. Also the FPTP system puts people off voting for smaller parties and the liberals so there would be a growth in the liberals, greens, ukip, snp, bnp, dup, sdlp etc. Plus it would be a more effective system for changin with the times if attitudes change to a liberal perspective en masse people will vote for more liberal parties so it changes party policies to suit the voters. In this country the politicians know that voters only see two parties so it is often a 5 year dictatorship.
We only have one state: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Under PR, more people *would* vote for smaller parties - while it appears that this would be more democratic (and in a sense it would be), it means that in order to get majority coalition together, you would routinely need to gather 4 or 5 parties together. Small parties with niche interests could be given a disproportionate amount of power - imagine a centre-left coalition with the Green Party paralysing the transport and energy policies, or the lib dems stopping taxation or foreign policy changes. Consider also that you couldn't elect (or turf out) individual MPs - Peter Robinson and Jacqui Smith would be protected against the wrath of the voter. The alternative is to run with a minority government, but both a minority government and a 4 or 5-party coalition doesn't do much for stability and will limit the governments capability to pass more radical laws. That is not to say other electoral systems are worse than FPTP, because they are not - they simply have a different set of strengths and weaknesses. However, when most people talk about PR, they usually don't have a clue what it constitutes. For example, the Lib Dem policy is to implement PR (without a referendum) and they currently favour the Single Transferable Vote system, and consequently many (including MPs themselves) think that Labour's new-found fondness for electoral reform means they are suitable bed-fellows. However, Chris Huhne has already warned that Labour's preferred Alternate Vote system is unacceptable - AV is a majority voting system like FPTP, which would likely favour the centre-left in this country (e.g. failed lib-dem votes would likely be passed on to labour). Others prefer the Mixed Member Proportional system, but many object because it is neither fully proportional nor an effective majority system. It's far more complex than simply repeating the claim that PR is somehow more fair - it is equally unfair but to different people in different ways. Consider that the Tories don't want PR but seem to be significantly penalised by the inherent bias in the current FPTP system. A smaller share of the vote got a 60 seat majority for Blair in 2005 - so why wouldn't the Tories want a change?
I think it's a bad joke that the party with the most votes is not in power. The country clearly showed they want Tories in but because of a stupid system, we are in this appalling situation. If Labour go in with Lib Dems we will end up with the 2nd prime minister, in a row, that we didn't vote in. (Gordon Brown is resigning later this year) This is just beyond unacceptable, but we just have to suck it up...what a load of bollocks.
Actually, nearly 64% of those who bothered to vote said they didn't want a Conservative Government... and the Majority didn't want a Labour Government last time. But i agree, let Cameron be PM with his 36% of the vote and his 47% of the seats and lets see what a difference he can make in terms of legislation/budget changes.
Technically your voting for the party not the person as this is not a presedential election. With the current economic crisis you need a government that can make decisions and push through policy/reform quickly. My prediction is a labour/lib dem partnership until the referendum on voting reform. Based on the outcome of that i think the government will dissolve and another election will be called.
Voting reform is likely to end up with us in this situation after every election, it'll do nothing to stop the people voting and then parties making deals with each other to form a coalition government.
The ironic thing is PR is just another way of forming a coalition government unless you get an insane swing with everyone behind one party. Thats why its known as "power sharing" Its meant for smaller parties to some power so therefore their views are represented in the way that SNP are getting now. The new proposed system with single seats doesn't change anything apart from allow people who "wasted their votes" get a second vote until 50% is reached. Over here its usually the top six out of about 12 people usually between 6 or 7 parties.
As Krazeh says, PR would merely institutionalise this situation. Most people haven't got a clue what PR is or what it means. I heard someone claim today that Labour are closer to the Lib Dems because they support PR - which of course they don't; the Alternate Vote system is much closer to FPTP. In reality, it means that 1/3rd of Lib Dem votes will end up with Labour and another 3rd will end up with the Tories. And of the true PR systems would mean either the Tories or the Labour would have to offer various inducements to the minor parties for their co-operation. While that sounds very democratic, as Labours John Reid points out, it means the English will take most of the pain because nationalist parties in Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland will veto anything that negatively effects their countries. Favourite quote of the day: Edit: Another quote just out: [QUOTE='Senior Lib Dem' on BBC 3.11pm]We are on an island with the Tories, but some people hope a lifeboat driven by Ed Balls is going to come along. What they don't realise is that lifeboat is going in the wrong direction and it's sinking. [/QUOTE]
This is what worries me most about a change in the voting system, we'll end up in a situation where issues in England are decided by parties who are solely concerned with how it affects Scotland, Wales and NI. In my opinion any electoral reform has to look at that situation and propose an effective solution before it can be taken seriously.
Well it looks as if talks between the Lib Dems and Labour have broken down... So it seems a Tory/Lib Dem coalition will be set to go forward.
You could just let said countries have their independance time to put on my bullet proof vest I think =p
Not neccessarily. The Lib Dems could decide to allow a tory minority government to go ahead, safe in the knowledge that the tories won't last 4 years with a minority government. It means we'll have to go through this whole bloody mess again in another 18-36 months, but at least the tories won't be around for long.
The opposite could happen too where people will get so fed up that it will be a landslide to the tories since the other parties don't play ball. Lib dems don't get their voting reform and loose more support when people try to avoid a similar situation. There no way of predicting what will happen in the case of a minority government, collition or re-vote. Lib dems have a chance to actually get something out of this walking away is just stupid and will more likely cost them in the long run.
I can't see what possible advantage the Lib Dems would see in taking such a route. If they allowed a tory minority government to go ahead and we did end up with another general election in the near future then all I can see it doing is reducing their voter base as people will remember them as the party who didn't want to play nice and will move their vote to one of the big two in order to make sure that one party gets a overall majority.
So you'd prefer they play party politics rather than act for the good of the country? I'm not sure there will be a coalition as such - I think there may well be a voting agreement on certain policies perhaps with an expiry date (say 2 years).
Or, all the Lib Dem voters who didn't want Tory will admire the Lib Dems for sticking to their principals.
That could happen, what could also happen is all the Lib Dem voters who wanted them to form a coalition with Labour could end up just voting Labour anyway. Oh and all the Lib Dem voters who did want them to join with the Tories end up voting Tory.
Dignity and integrity, that's the advantage. The Liberal Democrats are meant to be liberal, and democratic. The tories aren't especially into either of these things in the sense that the Lib Dems are. They're not socially liberal, and they're not into reformation of the democracy. Understandably, a lot of Lib Dems are opposed to joining up with the tories, and I suspect that while the Lib Dems will gain in some ways if they join with the tories, they will lose in other ways. Alienating your core support base to gain a couple of years with small amounts of power might not be worth it, in the long run. Party politics is precisely what's being played now, and party politics is precisely what will be being played if the Lib Dems join the tories. It is not in the countries interest to have a paralysed government with multiple personality disorder. I understand the desire for a strong government (something we're not getting this time around, regardless of how things go) - but the Lib Dems abandoning their core ideals just to cement a government whose policies they are, for the most part, fundamentally opposed to is a depressing and undignified thought. People are supposed to get into politics because they have beliefs about what would be good for the country - those beliefs shouldn't be chucked out of the window the second one gets a whiff of power. I can't imagine there are too many voters who desired a Lib-Con coalition pre-election who didn't just vote Tory.
