If anything, the last few days demonstrates just how a PR system can be unfair, two parties with 5 and 6 times as many seats as the lib dems competing to offer concessions in a bid to get them on board because despite their small number of seats, it was enough to make the difference between governing and not (and yes, under a PR system the lib dems would have more representation, the point I'm making is even if they didn't they'd still be in this very powerful position just because of how the numbers work out).
The flaw in this argument is that, by definition, the majority can never be subservient to the minority.
Any party with more than 50% wins outright so can never be dependant on a small party. I suppose its theorietically possible that there are hundreds of small parties, but most PR systems are designed to have a minimum threshold and weed out very small parties. So there have to be at least two big parties, and maybe three as we have now, or a few. If there are two big mainstream parties then how is there a problem? If the voters have given pretty equal support but not decisive to two parties, why exactly should one take government just because it has a few votes more? If either one is looking around for partners, why should they choose to ally with an extreme party instead of the other big mainstream one? The only reason I can see, is if they think the little partner will give them a better deal than the mainstream one. Not that the minority party will run away with the show, but that it will be an easier partner than one which in fact commanded widespread national support. So it isnt really a rogue taking excess power, its a small party which in the opinion of a big party endorsed by many voters, is a good choice to help them rule.
Its a complete red herring to argue tiny parties will be over important. We just had an example of what is likely to happen. I for one think this a very good result.
In other words PR can in reality do the opposite of first past the post, give supporters of minor parties disproportionately more democratic power than those who support mainstream parties.
No, it gives them precisely proportionate power. The mainstream always has the majority if it chooses to use it. What would be wrong with a lab-con coalition? The benefit of experience plus a reforming new eye. If politicians cannot do what they are supposed to, compromise, then well vote them out next time.
I think it would be better to stick with the current voting system (or only moderately reform it) but introduce more checks on executive power
How?
a more legitimate and powerful upper house,
Proprtionately elected chamber able to veto the commons...er, =pr elected commons=new most legitimate and most important chamber?
with what extra powers?
things that would prevent the current situation where a majority government is effectively a 'parlaimentary dictatorship' until the next election.
proportional representation so parties get seats according to their votes? Whate else can you suggest?
Dare I say it it might even be time to seperate the executive from the legilature entirely, General Elections are run like Presidential campaigns and Prime Ministers act increasingly Presidentially anyway, might just be time to make the law match reality...
quite true. I wonder how if MPs think they dont have time to do jobs on the side as well as being constituency MPs, how they find spare time to be ministers and run the country.
