Proportional Representation

[miss_s_b]

While I welcome the fact that PR has suddenly become sexy again, I think people need to be more precise when they are talking about it. There are many forms of PR, and not all of them will have the desired effects. As Mark Reckons's famouse graph shows, the correlation is between safe seats and corruption. A system that doesn't remove safe seats is therefore in the interests of the two main parties, who will do anything to preserve the status quo, where they retain as much of the power as possible, and not in the interests of the electorate.

Resist the siren call of party list systems, which are used in the London Assembly, and simply embed the power of the parties. Nothing but STV in multi-member constituencies will do. STV abolishes safe seats, maintains the constituency link, and means that you can vote for one candidate from a party, but not another from the same party. Like constitutional monarchy, it's the worst system, apart from all the others.

And lest anyone think I am saying this out of mere partisanship: thanks to Chris Rennard, our party is actually best geared up to fighting FPTP elections, and would likely LOSE seats if STV came in. But as Liberals, we put principles over self interest. Yes, I know, it sounds unbelievable, doesn't it? But it's true.

---

This blog is proudly sponsored by

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

But "PR" is a pretty vague term, including a huge variety of types of voting system. I agree with Jennie that you have to be clearer and more specific from the outset in what you're arguing for, and why. And "fairness" isn't good enough. You could pray that in aid for all sorts of voting systems, including FPTP.