If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
proportional representation or fptp
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
what you think we should have? and why too?
personally i think first past the post is better suited for parliament, as even though it is controlled by party poltics, parliament has functions to act beyond that too, like comitee's etc
i just find it all simpler knowing who is representing your area, even if my area is a safe labour seat
whats your take on it all?
personally i think first past the post is better suited for parliament, as even though it is controlled by party poltics, parliament has functions to act beyond that too, like comitee's etc
i just find it all simpler knowing who is representing your area, even if my area is a safe labour seat
whats your take on it all?
0
Comments
However PR would allow the rise of extremists like BNP and UKIP.
Maybe a hybrid system is needed.
hmm both have their flaws, but PR can leave no clear majority and a weak government, whilst FPTP can give a clear majority
and on the flaws of fptp, in the last general election some people were pledging to trade votes, so in a area where conservatives are 1st and lib dems 2nd, a labour supporter wuld vote lib dem whilst a lib dem supporter in a area where they have no chance wuld vote labour....
The best way is the German system. As I've explained before, half the seats remain constituency-based, as now, but the second half of the chamber is filled with "top-up" MPs to represent voting proportions. You still get local representation, but if you are in the majority who DIDN'T want your local MP your vote still copunts.
FPTP is wrong because, in theory, a party can win power with a huge minority. If labour win 300-odd seats by one vote, and the Tories come in second with margins of 25,000, Labour still win but it's hardly a legitimate Government is it?
Proportional representation in the Weimar Republic left it with weak coalition governments, PR is one of the factors that led to the rise of the Nazis in the Weimar Republic.
Try again.
The fall of the Weimar Republic was mostly down to economic factors, the level of reparations owed to the UK and France and the problems in the Ruhr Valley.
Since 1945 there have been no problems in the German Government. And some countries, India especially, are actually MORE stable due to PR.
But, if the government was not so weak then maybe it would have dealt with those problems better?
As the governments in the Weimar Republic were made up of lots of parties the politicians often agreed on little and nothing got done. This created resentment in the German people and the Nazis capitalised on this. Proportional representation did contribute to the rise of the Nazis. That’s not just my opinion but the verdict of many respected historians.
It does depend on what agenda the historians have, of course.
A weak government contributed to the rise of Nazism, but my point is that PR and weak governments are not corollaries of each other- one does not necessarily mean the other happens.
The Weimar Republic is often cited as the main reason because it is convenient. But the Weimar Republic was fine during the mid-to-late 1920s, and the finance minister of the time had got inflation under control; many think he would have saved Germany again, but he died in 1929.
But all this is just an interesting history lesson. The examples of post-war Germany and India show that PR does not mean weak government. For all the criticisms of the Weimar republic it would actually have been easier for the Nazis to gain control under FPTP.
So people keep saying.
I've yet to see much proof of it- the BNP are little more than a protest vote. If the Government bothered to find out why people were voting BNP as a protest then there wouldn't be a problem at all.
Smaller parties will get a say, but extreme parties won't. Not enough people are extreme.
http://www.londonelects.org.uk/results/mayor/index.php
In London the BNP got more votes than Green. Scary. PR would would give greens a louder voice which is good - but at a price. And that price is the BNP.
The BNP are sick, PR would probably give them more representation so as long as the BNP are around I'm against PR.
Sorry I don't follow, or rather I do but I just don't understand your position.
Every vote should count, and PR is the main way to achieve that. Although I agree with Kermit on the best solution.
However, the BNP shouldn't be used as a reason for not having PR, if anything the opposite should apply. If enough people support their policies, why should those people have their opinion represented in Parliament?
thats the one i was on aboutin my orginal post!!!!!
then 2nd would be FPTP then it wuld be PR
pure PR would stop parties campagning as hard locally and you wouldnt know who your local mp is
Of course, all this is to miss the point too.
Democracy is about the people having a voice. You cannot deny the people this voice because you find what they say distasteful.
True, but surely sometimes for the sake of democracy it would be justifiable to use all attempts to stop something that is undemocratic? Like the BNP…
The Nazis were elected so they were technically the ‘voice’ of the people, however despite that if somebody overthrew them surely that would have been the democratic thing?
It’s irrelevant as the BNP will never get into power but if they were democratically elected I wouldn’t oppose anybody who overthrew them.
remember when it comes down to the crunch, all people really want is a stable life, with a job and access to food and something to strive to be, dont matter who rules the whether it be a parliament or one man or a commitee
For the sake of democracy you advocate subverting democracy. Interesting concept.
No it wouldn't, that's the point. The majority of Germans voted for a Nazi Government. Democratically therefore you would need the majority to vote them out again... what actually happened it a different argument.
It's very relevant because you have a, sadly, large section of the population who has no voice in our parliament. That is just wrong...
Democracy is rule by the will of the people. If the Nazi Party had support of the German people, then overthrowing them would not be democratic. It may or may not be morally right, but it would not be democratic.
This, again, is irrelevant. The Nazi Party never actually legally gained power, as they never had a majority.
The United States Government frequently interfered in countries to prevent "undemocratic" governments, i.e. the Communist Party, from gaining legitimate power. This resulted in General Pinochet and the Nicaraguan Contras.
Either you agree with the concept of democracy, and all it's inherent dangers, or you don't; you can't claim to uphold democracy by overthrowing democratic governments.
The BNP, of course, actually do believe in democracy. They just have a strange definition of "citizen".
As the Nazi Party and BNP themselves contradict any form of democracy overthrowing them is certainly justifiable for the sake of democracy.
"This, again, is irrelevant. The Nazi Party never actually legally gained power, as they never had a majority."
Hitler was still legally elected - he got the majority of the vote. He didn't get power in some sort of coup, he was the German people's choice.
So if the BNP were democratically elected would you just sit back and accept it as they were the democratic choice? Or would you make an active effort to get rid of them? I'd hope you'd answer to the latter if you have a conscience.
You say the BNP believe in democracy, I disagree. If elected they would only allow whites to vote. If elected I doubt freedom of the press, freedom of speech and freedom of expression would exist. How can you say they believe in democracy when they would take away those things from us?
Anyway thankfully this is all neither here nor there as these racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic scumbags will never gain power so this discussion is irrelevant.