Proportional Representation

[Ed Waller]

I think it was Michael Bakunin who first said that. Ken has gone down in my estimation for that.

Or maybe Emma Goldman, another of the Anarchist movement. Not sure that Ken went on to be of the opinion (as some anarchists do) that one shouldn't vote as 'it encourages them'.

Not sure about John's point... Democracy didn't prevent Hitler (although arguably it should have done), who, however distateful, gained power with (by and large?) legal or rather constitutional means. Equally not sure that the 'British People' dont agree with Socialism or want it (they may not know it as socialism, and I wonder what a poll of views on that question might produce) - People I know want a decent health care system for everyone, better schools for everyone, secure well paid worthwhile jobs for everyone, enough food in the house for everyone, enough fuel for everyone to be warm throughout winter, an end to the disaster in Iraq. People DO want socialism - this is what socialism is all about.

What they don't want - people doing well just because their family has always done well; people getting better treatment than their poor granny just because they're rich; the schools their kids attend falling apart, with classes that are way too big to maintain order, in surroundings that call to mind Bleak House not Bounty Hall.

What prevents them from 'realising' this? (ie articulating and then achieving?)

The media (owned and controlled by a few)

The Government (of the few for the few, still)

Employers (by definition, the few)

It's time for Gramsci again, and we've only got a few hours before I (at least) go to bed. So I leave this torch here.....

[Lou Phillips]

I've come a little late to this discussion but thought I would like to add my 'two-penneth'. Whilst I am certainly in favour of electoral reform and would like to see a far more representative government I will make 2 points in favour of FPTP. First of all its much easier to understand than anything else, you vote- the most wins. If things get too complicated (lots of ballot papers, allocating preferences etc) we run the risk of lowering turnout even further. Secondly, it weakens the links between MP and constituency. Some, though certainly not all, MPs work tirelessly for their consituents and it is an important part of their job. Any thoughts?

[Juan Carlos]

Proportional electoral system represents more faithfully the will of people. I think that there is no question about it. British or American electoral system permit that radical politicians who represent a small fraction of the people, such as Thatcher or Reagan, carry out social reforms that probably had not been applied in a democracy based on proportional system.

However, sometimes proportional system can be really harmful for a democracy. Some examples:

Italian "partitocraty" and all the bargaining around "Democrazia Cristiana" during the Cold War. A very fragmented Parliament don't always represent better a society.

Oversized influence of Nationalist parties in Spain causes that quite a few people decide the orientation of political power.