Dumb question about PR
07 May 2010, 04:15 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dumb question about PR
OK, so I can understand the principle behind PR - you get the number of seats depending on your proportion of the national vote cast.
But how are constituencies chosen? Can you end up living in a constituency where you have an MP who has not got the majority of votes in your patch?
dl
But how are constituencies chosen? Can you end up living in a constituency where you have an MP who has not got the majority of votes in your patch?
dl
07 May 2010, 05:53 PM
#2
Basically, it's the same as we had when we did the European elections last(?) year:
The constituencies are much larger, requiring more MP's, up to 10. This doesn't mean more MPs in all, just larger constituencies.
Each party then fields a list of up to the same number of candidates as there are seats available.
After that, most countries use this:
The D'Hondt method of seat allocation is one of the simplest. Any numerate member of the public can work out the winner of an election without a computer, even purely through handwritten calculations.
The total votes cast for each party in the electoral district is divided, first by 1, then by 2, then 3, then 4, then 5, right up to the total number of seats to be allocated for the district/constituency. If the district contains 8 seats, the highest 8 numbers are chosen from all the numbers resulting from the divisions. The parties under which each of these 8 highest numbers were produced get the seat. These highest numbers are sometimes called the 'distribution figure'.
It is clearest when set out like this:
Example: 8 seats to be allocated, so divide each party's total votes by 1 - then by 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8. Each party's divided total votes come to the numbers set out below, called 'distribution figures'. The 8 highest distribution figures are *starred, ranging from *100,000 to *25,000. For each distribution figure belonging to it, the party gets a seat.
Party A: *100,000 - *50,000 - *33,333 - *25,000 - 20,000 - 16,666 - 14,286 - 12,500 > Four **** = 4 seats won
Party B: *80,000 - *40,000 - *26,666 - 20,000 - 16,000 - 13,333 - 11,428 - 10,000 > Three *** = 3 seats won
Party C: *30,000 - 15,000 - 10,000 - 7,500 - 6,000 - 5,000 - 4,286 - 3,750 > One * = 1 seat won
Party D: 20,000 - 10,000 - 6,666 - 5,000 - 4,000 - 3,333 - 2,857 - 2,500 > No * = no seats won
The constituencies are much larger, requiring more MP's, up to 10. This doesn't mean more MPs in all, just larger constituencies.
Each party then fields a list of up to the same number of candidates as there are seats available.
After that, most countries use this:
The D'Hondt method of seat allocation is one of the simplest. Any numerate member of the public can work out the winner of an election without a computer, even purely through handwritten calculations.
The total votes cast for each party in the electoral district is divided, first by 1, then by 2, then 3, then 4, then 5, right up to the total number of seats to be allocated for the district/constituency. If the district contains 8 seats, the highest 8 numbers are chosen from all the numbers resulting from the divisions. The parties under which each of these 8 highest numbers were produced get the seat. These highest numbers are sometimes called the 'distribution figure'.
It is clearest when set out like this:
Example: 8 seats to be allocated, so divide each party's total votes by 1 - then by 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8. Each party's divided total votes come to the numbers set out below, called 'distribution figures'. The 8 highest distribution figures are *starred, ranging from *100,000 to *25,000. For each distribution figure belonging to it, the party gets a seat.
Party A: *100,000 - *50,000 - *33,333 - *25,000 - 20,000 - 16,666 - 14,286 - 12,500 > Four **** = 4 seats won
Party B: *80,000 - *40,000 - *26,666 - 20,000 - 16,000 - 13,333 - 11,428 - 10,000 > Three *** = 3 seats won
Party C: *30,000 - 15,000 - 10,000 - 7,500 - 6,000 - 5,000 - 4,286 - 3,750 > One * = 1 seat won
Party D: 20,000 - 10,000 - 6,666 - 5,000 - 4,000 - 3,333 - 2,857 - 2,500 > No * = no seats won
07 May 2010, 07:46 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, many thanks indeed for that which I have waded through. So we would seem to lose out on choosing an MP that you knew represented your own reasonable size area because constituencies would be so large. It would also wipe out the single protest candidate like Bell I suppose. And some smaller parties would never get a look in perhaps. dl
08 May 2010, 10:40 AM
#7
You then get MPs elected. Once elected they are MPs for that whole area, so if you have a problem that requires MP input, you approach your known one, your favourite, the best looking one
, the one who is a minister, the one who is in the party you support, etc etc.I don't see a problem? We do it in European elections, and the Scots and Welsh assemblies use it. Why NOT us?
Trending Topics
08 May 2010, 03:32 PM
#11
ALL the votes are counted, centrally to the constituency, as now. You have voted for a party, not an individual.
Parties must state who is standing, and what their order of preference, (in what order they will be offered seats), is, BEFORE the vote takes place.
Once the votes are counted, a simple calculation shows who gets how many seats...and as stated above, anyone with any maths can do the calculation too, so no fiddles there.
As I said, I don't see the problem?
08 May 2010, 03:34 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Far Corfe
Posts: 3,618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must admit, I like the current system, it seems much more fair to me. I want to vote for an MP. I dont want some one who didnt get the most votes elected.
Worked well for hundreds of years.
Worked well for hundreds of years.
08 May 2010, 03:51 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Far Corfe
Posts: 3,618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the people in each area get the MP to represent them with the most votes. The only way you could do the other is that if every constituency had the same number of people who actually voted.
Theres issues with all systems.
Germany has had to have party unions for all but 4 years since the war because PR doesnt give a clear winner more times than first past the post.
Theres issues with all systems.
Germany has had to have party unions for all but 4 years since the war because PR doesnt give a clear winner more times than first past the post.
, plus MUCH stronger governments.
08 May 2010, 04:04 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Far Corfe
Posts: 3,618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But that may be due to being in the Eurozone and having their hands tied in trying to stimulate their own economy.
08 May 2010, 07:38 PM
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
The thing about PR as is being mentioned by the LibDums at the moment is it's being sold to the electorate as a way to 'fix our broken political system'. The problem is that it's not the system that's broken it's the politicians! They are completely divorced from reality outside of the 'Westminster bubble' and pander to their own self-centred interests and not to the wishes of the electorate.
Some Labour luvvie said on an election show on Friday that the result showed that the electorate have voted for a hung parliament. I mean, WTF!!!? We voted for the 'best of a bad bunch' as none of the parties actually had a manifesto that met anything like what the majority of people would like. [By that I mean, for example, that polls consistently show that most people would like a referendum on the EU and would like us out of Afghanistan and all the other pointless wars. etc].
PR would be a disaster as the situation we have now (parties having to do deals behind closed doors and having to water down election manifestos so they barely resemble what people voted for) would become the norm. That is not the way to represent the people but that's what the LibDums want as it's the only way they will get a sniff at power. The electoral reform that's needed is to the FPTP system we have now to a) remove the fraud possibilities and b) redraw the constituencies so that each has the same population. So for a - NO postal voting (troops the only exception - and special arrangements made for those serving in battle zones so they can vote!) and proof of ID required at the polling station AND before that, when you register to vote.
Dave
Some Labour luvvie said on an election show on Friday that the result showed that the electorate have voted for a hung parliament. I mean, WTF!!!? We voted for the 'best of a bad bunch' as none of the parties actually had a manifesto that met anything like what the majority of people would like. [By that I mean, for example, that polls consistently show that most people would like a referendum on the EU and would like us out of Afghanistan and all the other pointless wars. etc].
PR would be a disaster as the situation we have now (parties having to do deals behind closed doors and having to water down election manifestos so they barely resemble what people voted for) would become the norm. That is not the way to represent the people but that's what the LibDums want as it's the only way they will get a sniff at power. The electoral reform that's needed is to the FPTP system we have now to a) remove the fraud possibilities and b) redraw the constituencies so that each has the same population. So for a - NO postal voting (troops the only exception - and special arrangements made for those serving in battle zones so they can vote!) and proof of ID required at the polling station AND before that, when you register to vote.
Dave
08 May 2010, 08:26 PM
#21
Don't agree, Dave. The system IS broken, it gives us only a choice between two major parties, everything else is a wasted vote. How is that NOT broken?
If we get a few hung parliaments, so that parties have to toe the middle line, and stop all the nonsense like money for one legged lesbians, then good on it.
We might ACTUALLY get some decisions made for the good of the country, instead of to appease some lefty, or fascist's political leanings.
Long may PR endure, say I.
If we get a few hung parliaments, so that parties have to toe the middle line, and stop all the nonsense like money for one legged lesbians, then good on it.
We might ACTUALLY get some decisions made for the good of the country, instead of to appease some lefty, or fascist's political leanings.
Long may PR endure, say I.
08 May 2010, 08:52 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A big town with sh1t shops: Northampton
Posts: 21,366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some Nu Labia bloke on the breakfast programme this morning said that they urgently need to fix the broken system of our election process..... YOU'VE HAD 13 fecking years to change it, why have't you, you *******?!
09 May 2010, 09:57 AM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The original scheme was to vote for the person you wanted to represent your own constituency in the House. Of course the party he is a member of is a major factor but that is the same for everyone and the comparatively simple system is just as effective and fair in my eyes.
Les
Les
09 May 2010, 09:58 AM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09 May 2010, 10:49 AM
#26
The original scheme was to vote for the person you wanted to represent your own constituency in the House. Of course the party he is a member of is a major factor but that is the same for everyone and the comparatively simple system is just as effective and fair in my eyes.
Les
Les
09 May 2010, 12:10 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know you are not, but if what they have to offer is of any use they will get voted for according to how the electorate feels about them over the others.
Les
09 May 2010, 08:06 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Here, There, Everywhere
Posts: 10,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09 May 2010, 11:06 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But under that PR system voting for small parties like English Democrats would still be a waste of time as the small parties with a vote spread evenly across the country wouldn't get any MP's
P.S. Italy has PR and has had 50 + governments since WW2 as no coalition holds together that long.
Also PR gives more power to small parties as they jump from one coalition to the other selling their support to the bigger parties.
and i think BNP were 5th in total number of votes? If so PR means they would have MP's and also possibly hold key votes for any coalition so we could see them get some of their policies implemented as part of forming a coalition.
PR seems a bad idea
P.S. Italy has PR and has had 50 + governments since WW2 as no coalition holds together that long.
Also PR gives more power to small parties as they jump from one coalition to the other selling their support to the bigger parties.
and i think BNP were 5th in total number of votes? If so PR means they would have MP's and also possibly hold key votes for any coalition so we could see them get some of their policies implemented as part of forming a coalition.
PR seems a bad idea