Joensuu

I wanted to vote for Caroline Lucas, but unfortunately we don't have a presidential system, and I don't live in Brighton.

Ha, a Lib/Green & BNP/UKIP alliance? Under which version of PR would such a thing ever occur? The alternative party they are allied against must be one truely scarey entity (perhaps the 'Jim Davidson' party? [shudder]).

Oh, yes, the miracle devalue your own population's wealth answer. The real reason Greece (like the UK) is in such a state, is it's Government spends more than it brings in. What happens during a US recession? Can Texas devalue it's currency? Or do different economic rules work in the States?

Dune, as you can see from the link you provided, the UK has paid into a EU stabilisation fund - nothing to do with the Euro. However, we decided not to pay into the larger Euro Zone rescue package of £624 billion. If the UK were to go into meltdown, we could therefore expect some help from the EU stabilisation package; but why would Steling expect a Euro bailout, when we aren't paying to prop it up? Interestingly, Sweden, who are in the same position as us (in EU, outside Eurozone) suggested it would "not rule out" being part of the wider fund. Perhaps the UK should be more generous when our neighbours are in need, we might not get a 'sod off' next time we need some help.

The number of MPs should be proportional to the votes cast. The veiws of everybody who voted BNP, UKIP, or Green are not currently being represented, and should. If I'd voted UKIP or BNP I would be up in arms at the current electoral system (a colleague at work said he wanted to vote UKIP, but opted to the Lib Dems, he hates their policies, but he wants to see PR introduced to make his vote count). As a liberal I'm all for having a representative system, even if that unfortunately means MPs representing the nasty side of UK society being elected. My guess is that many people vote BNP to protest, but might reconsider if they stood a chance of gaining seats (cf. Barking). Whereas many people vote Lib or Labour tactically, when they really wanted to vote Green. As such, I'd expect a PR election to result in

What utter ba*****ds! How dare we consider helping a neighbour in need. I know, we are on our knees too, and this might push us over the edge, but personally I'd share my last chuck of bread to help a friend.

But tbf, you do seem to be a more progressive (moderate?) Tory (reading between the lines). The problem for a Con-Lib alliance is than c.50% of the Tories will think it's far too soft, and start to loath Cameron, while c.70% of the Liberals will be disgusted with the lack of real voting reform. Any Lib-Con government will fall within months. (of course I can't see any rainbow government lasting long either. The best we can hope for is for the rapid introduction of real voting reform, and a new election by aultumn)

Is the right wing of the SWF compaining that the current electoral system isn't fair? BTW, if nobody stood against Brown, it's not his fault that he won. In 2003, some football fans suggested that a south coast team got a relatively easy run to a cup final. The fans of said team responded by arguing they could only beat the team that stood before them. It was not the fault of the south coast team that the opposition was generally relatively weak. If nobody stood against Brown, then there was obviously nobody who thought that they stood a chance of beating Brown. That's not Brown's fault. Unfortunately/fortunately, it's the luck of the draw.

Had UKIP not stood, and their voters all opted to vote Tory instead, there would have been several extra blue seats on last Friday morning. Just as an example, each of the following seats would probably have elected a Tory MP: St Ives, Somerton and Frome, St Austell and Newquay, Morley and Outwood, Southampton Itchen, Dudley North It probably wouldn't have been enough seats to make a majority though, as the media are slipping in seats such as Oldham East and Saddleworth, which would only have not gone Labour, if the UKIP voters had swung to the Lib Dems... which I can't see happening. Certainly, with the extra seats UKIP prevented the Tories from winning, Cameron would be more likely to be able to create a coalition (with the DUP), and would have made it harder for the 'rainbow' coalition to form. However, you could extend the argument further, did the Lib Dems standing prevent Labour from winning? When you think about it like this, the UKIP are a valid political party, who should be allowed to stand and challenge for seats. Under PR UKIP would have won a number of seats, and been able to reflect their views in the commons, probably in alliance with the Conservatives. More choice, more democracy.

Trousers, if party A wins most FPTP seats, and gets to form the government, but part B gets more seats in total (via a strong AV vote), won't this system make for regular non-proportional minority governments? Surely PR is a better bet (or if you want to retain constituencies) local, 3 seat, PR. Under that a region such as Hampshire southwest might elect say 2 Tories and a Lib Dem? I'd still opt for full national PR, but local 3 seat PR is a step in the right direction...

Sorry JB, it was an example, please feel free to replace 'hospital' with, 'coal power plant', 'wind farm', 'motorway', 'new football stadium' etc

Let me give you an example: A hospital is closing in the consituency of an MP who wants to see hospital closures. As the system of election is FPTP, and the local MP is in favour of the closure, there is nobody who will raise the issue in the Commons. Under a regional or national PR system, that same hospital might be being closed. The same MP still objects, but because of the electoral system there are other MPs representing other parties. As there are local votes to be gained (and potentially a name to be made in the Commons), it is likely that a couple of the representative MPs will bring the issue to the attention of the Commons. As you can see, under FPTP despite having a dedicated local representative, there is a high chance that they will be partisan when deciding which local issues they want to champion; under PR there are MPs looking for votes from muliple parties who will bring the issue to parliament. Local issues are frequently receive more political attention under a proportional system.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism?wasRedirected=true

I fully understand Conservative concerns. They are worried that they will be exculed from power by PR. However, this won't last forever, as politics is returned to the centre ground, the number of progressive votes will reduce, and a centralist balance will be restored. PR won't exclude the Tories from power for long, the electorate will naturally become bored and want change. All PR will do is reestablish a poltics of the centre, with parties revolving around the centre of political opinion. Fair and proportional representation is only a bitter pill to swallow if your party of choice has for too long been over-represented in government.

Lord D - Yes it's complex. Yes it's got problems, especially when it comes to the party list, but yes, it is also significantly better than we have already. Wes - Of course I will be happy if PR is the end result. I recognise Labour are unpopular, but as the election showed, so must the Tory party be (how else did they fail to win?). I suggest that had Brown not been at the helm, Labour would have retained a majority. Trousers - Love the analogy, but as you are aware it's not very accurate is it. A race is all about winning; an election is about ensuring all views are considered, and the majority have their way (not the largest minority). Whitey G - Yes. I consider my technicality corrected. Based upon the law of averages one would assume that had the all eligable voters been forced to vote outcome might have been similar.

Has Brown been reading my posts? To be honest, it's unlikely to last, but it is Clegg's only real option.

23%. And thats pretty much the first time in generations that those 23% have had any form of represetation at all. Surely it's fair to give a quarter of the population a little bit of say once in a blue moon?

Firstly, the answer depends upon the number of seats this vote is for. If this vote is for one seat, then your example will only produce a win for Party B if all of the voters for Parties C,D & E find party B more acceptable than party A. However, as you know that outcome is very improbable, and party A are almost certain to get the seat. If this vote is for say 10 seats, then each seat will require 9% of the vote to reach the threshold. As such, party A will already have won at least 5 seats and each of the other parties will have already won a single seat each. The final seat is most likely to go to either party A or B (depending upon who picks up most second choice votes).

No they couldn't. If a person/party isn't the first choice of any of the voters, then this party will be the one with the least votes in the first round. As such, it will be their second choice votes which are distributed in the second round. If a party picks up no first choice votes it can't win.

I fear you might be right with this. But I hope that for once the electorate won't be let down. If we can get a fair voting system we can start to pass fair laws, rather than partizan ones.

http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/8953/coalition_talks_voting_reform_is_the_publics_fourth_priority.html This poll puts reforming the voting system as one of top priorites amongst voters (only the economy/debt, and immigration rank higher).

http://www.libdemvoice.org/what-lib-dem-members-think-about-talking-to-the-tories-ldv-poll-results-19424.html While not worried about going into an agreement with the Tories, 80% say that significant progress on electoral reform is a deal-breaker. If Clegg doesn't get a referendum on PR he will fracture the Lib Dems. He has no choice but to press harder.

Yes. Perfect demonstration on what happens when a minority government attempts to pass unpopular legislation. Quite simply, the laws that are passed need to be balanced, and thought through, not just passed because they will improve the lot of your core voter.

Thankfully, under a PR system, there would be a much lower chance of a majority government, with the extreme swings from left to right that they deliver. Instead only the more balanced and considered policies would become legislation.

Personally, yes.