You also say that under PR you don’t know who your representative is, but that’s not true of STV. Under STV you have a multi-member constituency so you’re more likely to have an MP that you voted for. Compare this to the current system where a Lib Dem voter living in a Conservative constituency is essentially not represented. The MP-Constituency link is actually strengthened under STV, not weakened. What I don’t get is why you think STV favours large parties. It does a little bit, but nothing like as much as FPTP. Look at the results for the Northern Ireland Assembly elections, they’re only a couple of percentage points off full proportionality.

Of course your last point is ridiculous. No electoral system is perfect and there has to be compromise. It depends on what a society values most in an electoral system, so just because there are different systems in use doesn’t mean that they’re all bad.

Personally I think the introduction of a more proportional system could be very good for the UK, but other things could (and in my opinion should) come with it, such as more compromise and inter-party agreement in government, a weakening of the party whip system, a less adversarial style of politics. Let’s do this like grown-ups.

Like most things in politics, it makes absolute sense to some and frustrates the hell out of others who can’t understand why someone with “the most votes” didn’t win just because they only got 40% of the total.

In simple terms it’s a case of “if I can’t have the representative I really want, I’d rather have this one or this one or this one before that one.” Makes sense when it’s understood but if you end up with the pillock you most despise then no system seems sensible

To see what voter power means, I suggest you visit http://www.voterpower.org.uk. And thank your lucky stars you don’t live in Bootle…

On PR: Many times I have heard it said, that “first past the post” gives strong government. Not today it doesn’t! You couldn’t ask for a more hung parliament than we will end up with today. the only way Cameron could form a government is with the Lib Dems backing him – the maths doesn’t stack up any other way. And the Lib Dems would drive a hard bargain. But that is what is meant of course, by the word “compromise”.

Such compromise will stick in the craw of many Conservatives, and also very likely many Lib Dems. But to deal with the issues facing us in the next few years, no other option is really open, unless we have another election in a few months. So one has to hope that the party leaders will stick socks in the mouths of their more outspoken nutters, if I can use that word, and engage properly with the situation the electorate and the electoral system has dumped them in.

Curiously, over a long period, PR (with just a few parties – it gets unwieldy with a larger number) gives more stable government than FPTP. A few percent change here and there won’t make a significant difference except perhaps in the unseating of unpopular MPs (through voting systems like AV or STV). The reason the Conservatives don’t want PR, is very likely to be that the Lib Dems would quite likely form a longer-term coalition with the (nowadays much more moderate and reasonable) Labour party, and by this means the excesses (of both sides!) would be moderated, and long-term adherence to one clear set of agreed policies based on some compromise, would give stability.

The Conservatives would then be relegated to long-term opposition. Clearly, they don’t want that! It seems likely, that the Labour Party might finally be realising this…

…By the way, congrats, Andy, on the recent addition to your family!

Candidates are chosen by party bureaucracies? Really, how many? And how many are chosen by the parties’ members?

The current system of single member constituencies results in MPs who are good at playing politics, not so good at being “free-thinking” members, who love all things sciencey? Is a move to multiple-member constituencies (as required by PR systems), where your place on the list dictates whether you get elected, really less likely to result in MPs who are good at playing politics? Really?

Also, while noting the “billionaire party backers”, we might as well make reference to the convicted fraudsters too.

Evan Harris seems an admirable MP, and I hope he’ll be re-elected, but let’s not kid ourselves that the 2nd oldest party is that much different from the older or younger one.

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2010/05/why-this-ex-tory-boy-is-voting-liberal.html

Just a note of realism here; giving even more power to politicians wouldn’t by itself fill the chamber with honest and humble geniuses, quite the opposite in fact. I particularly like the phrase ‘richer parliament’ for the self serving bureaucrats that make up most PR groups. We can at least change the government and possibly the direction which is something that most PR countries have difficulty in doing.

I also quite like the rather bizarre view that just because your guy hasn’t got any meaningful support your vote is ‘wasted’. Quite the opposite I would have thought as the miniscule parties need every vote they can get. The bloke who wins has the ‘wasted’ votes as he only needs 1 more than the runner up and usually has thousands.

If you want the same government forever, don’t care who your representative is or even who the prime minister is then PR is just the tool for that. STV just complicates counting and doesn’t really feature on most PR supporter’s radar as a real PR system. Like our present but at least understandable system it favours the larger parties and won’t change much at all. Why else do you think the last government suddenly favours it?

You might also ponder as to why there are a multitude of PR systems currently in use all with special variants and all with the same absolute priority of me first, duty later with the added incentive that you need a computer to work out the results. If PR was so great wouldn’t they all use the same one?

Quite woolly thinking by the author this time.