The little research I have done into Google Page Ranking hasn't converted me one way or the other as yet but like most things I suspect that there are pros and cons to both FPTP and P.R. Taking your figures as being correct the conservatives would have enough members to vote anything through assuming they were not opposed by Lib and Lab combined or one of the main opposition parties and all the others (assuming everyone in both parties supports the proposal). This isnt far from what we have in the current situation, except for the fact that the "others" have no say at all now.

So from a simplistic view I would say that the minority parties like the Greens and BNP etc would have more say (not a great deal but some) when the primary party lacked support. As to how this helps the current situation I am not sure, I assume you mean the economic crisis? If so then I have not yet looked into how coalition governments function for cabinet posts but I suppose you could take the best minds from each group to form a think tank of sorts (but then you only have 1 chancellor so that wouldnt happen).

In short I have little idea of how it would help, it would be nice to think that they would get together and take the best (most popular?) ideas from each group forward. In practice I expect that there will be a lot of horse trading and indecision, that said a lot of other countries seem to function well with P.R. so I am hopeful.

By the current situation, I meant the hung parliament.

George Osborne perhaps give the chancellor's job to Vince Cable? - That would be an enormously popular decision.

There is a voting system, The Kellowian Weighted Representations Electoral System, named after its creator Peter Kellow, that would have created a result in the recent election. How it works is detailed at http://www.republicanparty.org.uk/NEWSLETTER%20NO%2058.htm . Before people go off on one at the very mention of republicanism the following is a quote from the preceding link
: "If you are a Conservative voter in a safe Labour seat it is hardly worth casting your vote. This problem represents disenfranchisement on an enormous scale. On the other hand Google Page Ranking systems may make more use of your vote but they have the huge disadvantage of creating unstable government and there is no country where they are used (e.g. Italy) that does not suffer from endless coalitions and horse trading between parties. The aim must not be Google Page Ranking but making votes count so that all citizens are enfranchised"

If we are going to have electoral reform, and I believe it is imperative that we do, any reform must be designed to make our votes count, be we Conservative, Labour, or Lib Dem.

I am that rare breed of Conservative who believes in the principle of proportional representation. I can find little argument against the Tories', and until their death bed conversion, Labour's argument that only FPTP results in strong government. It invariably does, except on this occasion!

However I believe it is more important that we have a truly fair electoral system, whereby the authority of parliament is in the same proportions as the votes cast, even though this will almost always result in a weaker system, and would rarely be in the interests of either the Conservative or Labour parties.

Italy is always held up as the example of the invariable failure of a proportional representation electoral system, although I suspect that this has more to do with the Italian character than the principle. However the majority of the democratic nations of the world have proportional representation in one form or another, and certainly it seems to work surprisingly well in the Scandinavian countries, and in Germany and France.

I think that there is little doubt that FPTP also causes compromise or tactical voting, which distorts the true will of the people further. For instance a Green voter in a constituency where the LibDem candidate has a chance of beating the Conservative candidate, may well vote LibDem to keep out the Conservative. This perpetuates the culture of 'big party politics'. Under proportional representation the Green voter could vote in line with their own convictions, reassured that their vote will ultimately be reflected in the makeup of parliament. People would therefore vote far more honestly.

In the UK we are used to the confrontational politics which FPTP inevitably encourages. It is after all much easier to attack a view with which you disagree and vote against it, than to seek consensus and compromise so that everyone gets at least part of what they want. Proportional representation encourages government by consensus. This multi-faceted political landscape would also result in moderate centrist politics which in my opinion would encourage political stability, in that there would not be extremes of policy change with any change of government.

Indeed the first major test of proportional representation is now. Can two parties representing over 60% of the popular vote construct a government which both consider to be in the national interests, whilst having a substantial number of contradictory policies.

Of course there are weaknesses to proportional representation in that tiny minority self-interest parties like the SNP and PC can wield a disproportional amount of influence rewarding a small minority at the expense of the vast majority. Such small parties, by the open admission of the political pygmy Alex Salmond, work in the interests of self interest groups not the nation as a whole.

Hand in hand with proportional representation I would wish to see fixed term parliaments, an elected Prime Minister, a mechanism to dismiss MPs and trigger a bi-election and the removal of parliamentary privilege for all crime committed by MPs, and the transformation of the House of Lords to a fully elected upper house.

I stand open to correction here, but it seems like the only system of Google Page Ranking which is being looked at is that of AV or Alternative Vote. I have a feeling that the Briish public are being duped if this goes ahead without there being a full public discussion on the alternative systems which could be picked, since whilst AV is proportional within each constituency, it's not proportional over the country as a whole, and can actually lead to even less of a proportional representation of public views in Parliament than our current FPTP system. A brief summary courtesy of the Electoral Reform Society:

How the Alternative Vote (AV) System Works:

The same constituency boundaries are used and voters would elect one person to represent them in parliament, just as we do now. However, rather than marking an 'X' against their preferred candidate, each voter would rank their candidates in an order of preference, putting '1' next to their favourite, a '2' by their second choice and so on. If a candidate receives a majority of first place votes, he or she would be elected just as under the present system. However if no single candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, the second choices for the candidate at the bottom are redistributed. The process is repeated until one candidate gets an absolute majority. The alternative vote is not actually a proportional system, but a majoritarian system. It looks most similar to the current electoral system.

Arguments used in favour:

• The alternative vote retains the same constituencies and so the bond between members and their constituents is not lost.
• Extreme parties would be unlikely to gain support by AV and coalition governments would be no more likely to arise than they are under First-Past-The-Post.
• All MPs would have the support of a majority of their constituents.
• It prevents MPs being elected on a minority of the vote. In 2005, only 34% of British MPs were elected by more then 50% of the votes in their constituencies. This is a decline from 2001, when half of MPs could claim 50% support of their constituents.
• It removes the need for negative voting. Electors can vote for their first choice of candidate without the fear of wasting their vote.
  

Weaknesses:

• Whilst it does ensure than the successful candidate is supported by a majority of his or her constituents, it does not give proportionality to parties or other bodies of opinion, in parliament. Research by Democratic Audit in 1997 showed that the results could actually be even more distorting than under First-Past-The-Post.
• It also does very little to give a voice to those who have been traditionally under-represented in parliament.
• It doesn't allow for voters to select a party which chooses not to field a candidate in their particular constituency.
• There is no transfer of powers from party authority to the voters, and it does not produce a proportional parliament.

Thanks for the comment and link. There is a tick in the link given but you can go to an assessment of the election results at a later newsletter

republicans.org.uk

The basic story is that with Kellowian Weighted Reps the Conservatives would have been in about the same position as now - the clear winner but no overall majority. Labour would have been out of it and the Libdems would have had more voting power in the Commons.

That seems fair and it would have made the coalition discussions simpler and quicker

Peter Kellow

I am very much against Google Page Ranking and this is why. The idea is that you list in order the top 3 or 4 parties you want to vote for and those parties get awarded points accordingly. That means parties such as Lib dem will get lots of people second vote and therefore there is a risk that the party hardly anyone has voted for gets elected, MADNESS. Now you can see why the Lib Dems are so keen on it.

What we actually need is less constituencies that should all be approximately the same size. At present an MP in a village in the depths of rural Scotland who has 15 constituents 2 pigs and a gerbil has as much power in Parliament as an MP with a constituents of 100,000. Of course Labour would hate this as they have so many tiny constituencies in the North and Wales

Originally Posted by Peter Kellow

Thanks for the comment and link. There is a tick in the link given but you can go to an assessment of the election results at a later newsletter

republicans.org.uk

The basic story is that with Kellowian Weighted Reps the Conservatives would have been in about the same position as now - the clear winner but no overall majority. Labour would have been out of it and the Libdems would have had more voting power in the Commons.

That seems fair and it would have made the coalition discussions simpler and quicker

Peter Kellow

Hi Peter, and welcome to the Politics Forum!

To start with you might like to read the extended "Welcome" message in the Rules and Guidelines section of the forum, which also includes a full version of the Forum Rules.

Knowing what’s appropriate to say and post and what isn’t can save everyone a great deal of hassle, and as such you might also find the Guide to Good Posting useful. If you’re unfamiliar with the type of forum software we use here, a brief guide to using it can be found here. Please respect other people’s views here; they mightn’t be the same as yours, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re wrong, just that they're different.

If you need help with anything at all to do with the forum, feel free to contact me, or one of the other moderators, via a personal message; our details can be found here, listed as “Junior Minister”.

Perhaps you’d care to formally introduce yourself, which you can do here, or optionally tell us a little bit more about yourself here.

I'm assuming that the Kellowian Weighted System is your own? I've just had a (quick) look at it, and have a couple of comments:

Firstly is the weighting system not open to manipulation, and would its implications and intricacies not be lost on the general public? Secondly, is it any more proportional at constituency level, and hence at Westminster, than say AV? I might have missed something in my quick over-view, but any system which doesn't allow for any voter in any constituency to select any party of their choice, regardless of whether that party fields a local candidate or not, cannot be regarded as truly proportional.

The Election that might have been | Electoral Reform Society

This report is interesting - it is obvious that STV is the fairest way to go and my point is proven that AV is the "Labour system"; really they would be mad to campaign against it. However I will prefer to see AV implemented rather than no changes made to the system at all, Labour are inflated but this is because Lib Dem voters like me would've put Labour as their second choice. I hope that if we do get this, then we are open to make it even more proportional in the future, to me this system just looks like a stepping stone to AV plus or STV (optimistically) but we may need another hung parliament for that.

Thank you, Midas, for your welcome. I will formally introduce myself as you request on the appropriate page.

In the meantime with regard to your comments on the Kellowian Weighted Reps system you have indeed "missed something in my quick over-view" - something absolutely fundamental.

The whole and entire point is that it is neither FPTP nor Google Page Ranking. I am opposed to both. I wrote:

The existence of the First Past the Post system we currently have is among the reasons why people are being turned off politics in their droves. No system of Proportional Representation has ever been found to be workable in any other country and those who dream of installing it in Britain are committing a grave and irresponsible error. .... The Kellowian System of Weighted Representation gives a way out of the impasse."

With regard to your other points, the weighting systerm which I have described in not open to any manipulation for it depends simply on the overall national votes which as accurately known. With regard to its being understandable, it is simplicity itself.

Originally Posted by joethfc

The Election that might have been | Electoral Reform Society

This report is interesting - it is obvious that STV is the fairest way to go and my point is proven that AV is the "Labour system"; really they would be mad to campaign against it. However I will prefer to see AV implemented rather than no changes made to the system at all, Labour are inflated but this is because Lib Dem voters like me would've put Labour as their second choice. I hope that if we do get this, then we are open to make it even more proportional in the future, to me this system just looks like a stepping stone to AV plus or STV (optimistically) but we may need another hung parliament for that.

You are dealing with wily cunning Tories, don't count your chickens on any P.R. being introduced while they have a hand in it.

I can only hope but labour aren't so virtuous or indeed principled if they camaign against it as has been speculated

Originally Posted by Expounder

You are dealing with wily cunning Tories, don't count your chickens on any P.R. being introduced while they have a hand in it.

1997
1998
1998
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

Expounder I thought I'd just list the years that Labour forgot to introduce their electoral reform, which they promised.
Wily cunning socialists!

Originally Posted by ERNESTO

Google Page Ranking systems may make more use of your vote but they have the huge disadvantage of creating unstable government and there is no country where they are used (e.g. Italy) that does not suffer from endless coalitions and horse trading between parties. The aim must not be Google Page Ranking but making votes count so that all citizens are enfranchised"

Does having a Google Page Ranking system mean that the structure of the government will change, as in minister posts?
If not its only the house of commons that is effected which is pretty fragmented and voletile any way, so it wouldn't make much difference in the way the goverment works.

Originally Posted by CAGAN

I am very much against Google Page Ranking and this is why. The idea is that you list in order the top 3 or 4 parties you want to vote for and those parties get awarded points accordingly. That means parties such as Lib dem will get lots of people second vote and therefore there is a risk that the party hardly anyone has voted for gets elected, MADNESS. Now you can see why the Lib Dems are so keen on it.

What we actually need is less constituencies that should all be approximately the same size. At present an MP in a village in the depths of rural Scotland who has 15 constituents 2 pigs and a gerbil has as much power in Parliament as an MP with a constituents of 100,000. Of course Labour would hate this as they have so many tiny constituencies in the North and Wales

The boundaries don't have to be the same physical size, but more equal in numbers of people. Making rural areas have less say and increasing Labour sipport.

Originally Posted by Barry

1997
1998
1998
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

Expounder I thought I'd just list the years that Labour forgot to introduce their electoral reform, which they promised.
Wily cunning socialists!

Granted Labour reneged on that promise, but with the Tories, they are not only opposed to P.R.. but have other fish to fry. They intend to introduce a 10% reduction in the number of MPs and rearrange constituency boundaries which they calculate will keep them permanently in office. If there is a referendum [and it's big if ] and there won't be if the Lib Dems show any sign of dissent about coalition, the media big guns will be on hand to shoot it down.

Cameron accused of proposing anarchy by his own party:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/elec...-demanded.html

Depends on what, and how transparent, the selection procedure was, and there's no need for a closed list to be any worse as far as cronyism than that within any voting system. It's simply that the electorate vote for a party, not a candidate; the candidates themselves will be selected by the parties as usual, except there's a far better change of the best people for the job being picked rather than those who just happen to have lived in a constituency for donkey's years, which is absolutely no guarantee they're much good at their job, simply that they're good at smarming the local electorate.

I'm all for simplification in administration, it is way too heavy, however when you consider the workload of an MP in representing an average of 75,000 people, any further increase in the number of constituents would have serious deleterious consequences. If anything I'd go for an increase in the number of MPs in order to enable them to do what should be an exceedingly important job with greater efficiency. As an aside I'd also move them out of the antiquated and no longer fit for it's purpose House of Parliament.