To me, the biggest weakness of PR is hilghlighted by the party system in Italy since Mussolini, and in France before de Gaulle....
But the best way to decide on it would be by referendum. That said, it's probably a waste of energey discussing it here. I'm fairly certain a British public would reject PR, firstly because Brits like their institutions, and Westminster-style democracy is one of them, and secondly, because folks are likely to vote along party lines, and the Tories and Labour are bound to campaign against it.
I do not think the British style westminster system is the best or effective at all. And the situation where the party with less popular votes gets into power is more difficult to swallow.
And India strangely adopted this system from the British.If the British which is a evolved democracy is having problems with that .Imagine this system here In India which is more vaster and very diverse culturally.
And with a large population beign confined to backward social traditions, There has been emergence of smaller political parties seeking to get as many seats they can get,even one in many cases based on religion,caste, and other identity and popularity politics.Even hardman tactics.
I know this is the British Politics thread. But since we are discussing the Electoral systems i thought i should get this out .
I have to say for a big and diverse country like India the U.s system would be way more ideal.
For Britain i think Proportional representation could work well too.
Gordon is gone!
The speed at which a fielding team gets through the innings is overrated.
Cameron will be PM before the night is out, well, inevitable. Am sure most of you are spitting, but after thirteen years of Labour dross it really was time for change.
Originally Posted by John King
RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.
Brown and out!...(just needed to be said)
Good innings from Gordon Brown, I can't see David Cameron being as good as him. Goodbye Brown.
Last edited by andmark; 11-05-2010 at 02:12 PM.
Rip Fardin Qayyumi, Bob Woolmer and Craig.
One party can have 200 MP's who win by big margins and have more popular vote but another party can have 120 MP's winning by Big margins and 100 Mp's winning by a small margin or against a third party,thus having less of the popular vote.
A party which has concentrated votes in a region is more likely to get higher number of seats than a party which has more votes but spread over a larger area.This is the biggest problem for me with this system,which gives rise to region based parties,religion based and caste based parties and other parties which have a narrow agenda and not a nationalistic one.
I know in britain with less number of parties this is less likely to happen,but here in India with smaller parties being so many ,in a triangular or a four way constest in a state one percent of vote can lead to irrational swing of seats.
That's the whole point of the British system, your local representative is there to push your area's needs at a national scale. Regional based parties getting in show there is demand in the region for that voice to represent them at the top table. Britain doesn't have any religion/caste (ethnicity/culture i suppose is our equivalent) based parties that are taken seriously by sane people, luckily the, well, ****wits who vote for them are a very small minority.
"All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusions is called a philosopher." - Ambrose Bierce
Langeveldt: I of course blame their parents.. and unchecked immigration!
GingerFurball: He's Austrian, they tend to produce the odd ****ed up individual
Burgey: Be careful dealing with neighbours whose cars don't have wheels but whose houses do.
Uppercut: Maybe I just need better strippers
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)