Another complaint that is frequently raised about systems that use Proportional Representation is that they tend to result in hung Parliaments, or, more accurately, they result in coalition governments.
Given that, at the time of writing, the Conservatives have approached the Lib Dems to discuss a coalition against the Labour party in the case of a hung Parliament, it is hardly fair to suggest that our current First-Past-The-Post system is very different. Hung Parliaments are only less likely under FPTP because the electorate are forced into voting for parties they don’t necessarily support, with a single party getting a disproportionate number of MPs.
In fact, complaints about coalition governments are really complaints that the views of the public are diverse. It is a complaint against the concept of democracy itself, and support for rule by the minority.
Coalitions are how grown-up governments work. Politicians have to work with each other, compromise and take into account the views of the majority of the public.
Compare that to our current system where the Labour Government, despite having just 35.3% of the vote, has 55% of the MPs and has pushed through many unpopular pieces of legislation without needing any kind of consensus from the opposition MPs who represent the other 64.7% of the population.
#1 by David Gould on June 15th, 2010
If the coalition collapsed, the state would be bankrupt within weeks. I’d say that was a pretty good argument against PR.
Nice site though. Here’s my effort at a new electoral system:
http://waronfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/fptp-av-and-stv-arent-the-only-electoral-systems/
#2 by Anthony Butcher on June 15th, 2010
Thanks for the comments.
I am not sure why you believe that the state would be bankrupt if the coalition Government fell apart. I see no particular evidence to support the fact that coalition Governments lead to state bankruptcy, certainly in the countries such as Germany who have had a PR system for a while.
That’s an interesting system that you are proposing. I think that there is a distinct difference in terms of the starting premise. Your emphasis on moulding a perfect Government out of a General Election result is certainly original and has definite merits.
However, for me personally, democratic representation wins over electoral engineering in terms of importance. I think that it is more important for Parliament to represent the views of the people as accurately as possible.
I am very uncomfortable with your suggestion that the system might be rigged against the BNP. Either we believe in democratic representation or we don’t, regardless of what we think of their policies. It is a sign of weakness in an electoral system when particular outcomes in favour or against a particular party are mooted I think. The sky didn’t fall in when the BNP gained 2 MEPs
#3 by David Gould on June 16th, 2010
Yes a lot of people say they’re uncomfortable with it. However, it’s more accepted that MPs should follow their conscience and make better decisions than we would otherwise make. So I’m quite happy to leave the BNP out.
Britain has the highest debt ratio of any European country excluding Greece but an even higher deficit than Greece. It is anomalous that we have a AAA credit rating and the rating agencies keep telling us that rating is contingent upon having a credible plan to cut the deficit over the medium term.
Without a government, there’s no credible plan. If we lose our credit rating, the cost of borrowing will triple or more – and it’s already going to cost us £67 billion in 2014.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7150196.ece
I found you on this site:
http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/electoral-reform/76247-demo-outside-lib-dem-meeting-demands-electoral-reform.html
If you still live in Long Ashton, you’re only a couple of miles from me. A local TBP campaign has just started. Meeting on Monday:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=130562390305165
#4 by Anthony Butcher on June 16th, 2010
Let’s not forget that we are in the position we are in because the Labour Government (with a strong majority) massively overspent because no one could stop them. Had that been a coalition, I think that there would have been much greater scrutiny. It’s much harder for a party to hide the facts from a coalition partner who also has to take the responsibility and decisions. It could easily be argued that coalitions offer much greater fiscal responsibility than pure majority governments.
I will definitely try to attend that meeting in Bristol. I went to the first two Bristol events.
#5 by David Gould on June 17th, 2010
Good point about the overspending being less likely with coalitions. A Lab/Lib coalition prior to Clegg might have.
There are a few other circumstances where decisive govts are needed – terrorist attacks, attacks on eg Falklands, Northern Rock.
There’s no inherent reason why STV parties couldn’t come to some pre-Govt arrangement on things like this. I look at the arrogance of the Labour Party and recent Tory Parties and remember everyone making jokes about Italy’s government which collapsed every few months. But these parties were a product of the system as you indicate.
So I think if we were to move to STV, doing it gradually might be a good plan.
I should be there at the meeting.
#6 by Anthony Butcher on June 17th, 2010
Your proposed system is definitely worthy of a place on the Electoral reform Society list of alternative systems – you should drop them an email to see if they will add it.