Proportional Representation

[daniel]

I think "None of the Above" is better. Have an extra box on every ballot called "None of the Above". If that choice gets the plurality of votes, then a new election has to be held in the riding, and none of the candidates on the last ballot are allowed to run.

My suggestion would be if "None of the Above" wins the riding, then the "None of the Above" ridings across the country is allocated in such a way to as to provide proportional representation by overall popular vote.

[Alta4ever]

My suggestion would be if "None of the Above" wins the riding, then the "None of the Above" ridings across the country is allocated in such a way to as to provide proportional representation by overall popular vote.

Why not go back and select new canidate to run? If they are given up to PR, then not one person in that riding is having their democratic rights respected as someone will be appointed to that riding.

[daniel]

Why not go back and select new canidate to run? If they are given up to PR, then not one person in that riding is having their democratic rights respected as someone will be appointed to that riding.

That's right. Each voter can have PR (ie RoC) select an MP for him or he can select one himself.

Edited March 19, 2009 by daniel

[Alta4ever]

That's right. Each voter can have PR (ie RoC) select an MP for him or he can select one himself.

That would be unconsitutional each riding has the democratic right to pick its MP, the ROC has no say and should have no say.

[punked]

Run off elections I stick by them. They might kill my party but at least someone will get 50% of the vote.

[ReeferMadness]

This discussion consists largely of a collection of stereotypes about proportional representation, mixed up with some wacky ideas. If our education system taught us about democracy and how it works in the rest of the world, maybe we'd get somewhere.

First of all, proportional representation isn't a single system. It's a group of quite disparate systems that support the goal of having the percentage of representatives in a legislative assembly be similar to the percentage of popular vote that a given party gets. According to Wikipedia, the main forms of PR are party list systems, additional member systems (including MMP), and Single Transferrable Vote.

A number of comments in this forum indicate that some people oppose PR because they think it gives the parties too much power. I think this is true with the party list system (particularly the 'closed list' flavour in which the party chooses which representatives that it sends to government. However, it is interesting that here in BC, where we are voting on Single Transferable Vote (STV), the major parties are not in favour. Presumably, that is because they think that STV will somewhat reduce the power the party wields over individual MLA's. In fact, STV tends to produce more independents than FPTP.

Proportional representation is not, as I said, a single system and can really be thought of as a reaction against the many weaknesses of the first past the post (FPTP) system including:

1. lack of proportionality - in BC in 1996, the NDP got 54% of the seats with just 39% of the popular vote. In 2001, the NDP got 2.5% of the seats with 21% of the popular vote. Neither of these results can be justified under any reasonable principles of democracy. Most majorities in the FPTP system are false majorities.
   
2. vote rigging strategies including gerrymandering and "spoiler" candidates
   
3. "strategic voting" - Voting for someone you don't want to win to deter someone you want to win even less is ridiculous
   
4. low voter turnout - A lot of people come to the correct conclusion that their votes don't matter.
   
5. excessive party control over candidates and the political system
   
6. "wasted" votes
   

Let's not forget that the FPTP system is a holdover from the days when the only people who could vote were men who had income-producing property. Most people Canadians probably vote against PR because most of them don't even understand our current electoral system. One of the lessons from the Federal 'coalition crisis' of a couple of months ago is that most Canadians don't have the foggiest idea of how representative democracy is supposed to work. Unless we can convince people to care enough to get a minimally educate themselves, democracy is and will continue to be a farce.

Italy has had proprep for a long time, and has had about 60 governments since WW11.

Red herring. People who want to scare everyone away from PR always bring up Italy and Israel. Most of the worlds democracies use some form of PR. In fact, PR can lead to more stable governments, even if they are coalitions. The reason is that under FPTP, a swing of a couple of points in popular vote produces a much larger swing in the percentage of seats. Why do you think Harper broke his own fixed election law? He thought he could get a false majority.

And as has been stated, Canada is proof of the success of FPTP. The idea that people don't vote because the Greens never get elected is preposterous. If we want fringe parties to be represented, then we can set up the system to allow token representation for parties that get 5% of the vote or more. But that means that the family heritage part (or whatever they're called) will be in the House of Commons.

How do you know why people don't vote. Under FPTP, it is common for 50% or more of the electorate to be represented by someone for who they didn't vote. Personally I get tired of it. And if the Family Heritage Party gets a significant portion of the vote (say 5% or more), the people who voted for them deserve to be represented. That's called democracy . We see so little of it that it's no wonder people don't know what it is.

If we end tax subs and 1.95 per vote to the parties 2 of the parties would disapear tomorrow. The fringe element would disapear and we wouldn't have to listen to the bloc or the screeching coming from that horrible elizabeth may.

Yes, let's do go back to the old days where big corporations, unions and wealthy individuals bought their politicians outright. And if that "fringe" few million Canadians who don't feel represented by the "goofy 3" main parties, well, too bad!

[CAMP]

So I gather you're in favour of PR?

This discussion consists largely of a collection of stereotypes about proportional representation, mixed up with some wacky ideas. If our education system taught us about democracy and how it works in the rest of the world, maybe we'd get somewhere.

First of all, proportional representation isn't a single system. It's a group of quite disparate systems that support the goal of having the percentage of representatives in a legislative assembly be similar to the percentage of popular vote that a given party gets. According to Wikipedia, the main forms of PR are party list systems, additional member systems (including MMP), and Single Transferrable Vote.

A number of comments in this forum indicate that some people oppose PR because they think it gives the parties too much power. I think this is true with the party list system (particularly the 'closed list' flavour in which the party chooses which representatives that it sends to government. However, it is interesting that here in BC, where we are voting on Single Transferable Vote (STV), the major parties are not in favour. Presumably, that is because they think that STV will somewhat reduce the power the party wields over individual MLA's. In fact, STV tends to produce more independents than FPTP.

Proportional representation is not, as I said, a single system and can really be thought of as a reaction against the many weaknesses of the first past the post (FPTP) system including:

1. lack of proportionality - in BC in 1996, the NDP got 54% of the seats with just 39% of the popular vote. In 2001, the NDP got 2.5% of the seats with 21% of the popular vote. Neither of these results can be justified under any reasonable principles of democracy. Most majorities in the FPTP system are false majorities.
   
2. vote rigging strategies including gerrymandering and "spoiler" candidates
   
3. "strategic voting" - Voting for someone you don't want to win to deter someone you want to win even less is ridiculous
   
4. low voter turnout - A lot of people come to the correct conclusion that their votes don't matter.
   
5. excessive party control over candidates and the political system
   
6. "wasted" votes
   

Let's not forget that the FPTP system is a holdover from the days when the only people who could vote were men who had income-producing property. Most people Canadians probably vote against PR because most of them don't even understand our current electoral system. One of the lessons from the Federal 'coalition crisis' of a couple of months ago is that most Canadians don't have the foggiest idea of how representative democracy is supposed to work. Unless we can convince people to care enough to get a minimally educate themselves, democracy is and will continue to be a farce.

Red herring. People who want to scare everyone away from PR always bring up Italy and Israel. Most of the worlds democracies use some form of PR. In fact, PR can lead to more stable governments, even if they are coalitions. The reason is that under FPTP, a swing of a couple of points in popular vote produces a much larger swing in the percentage of seats. Why do you think Harper broke his own fixed election law? He thought he could get a false majority.

How do you know why people don't vote. Under FPTP, it is common for 50% or more of the electorate to be represented by someone for who they didn't vote. Personally I get tired of it. And if the Family Heritage Party gets a significant portion of the vote (say 5% or more), the people who voted for them deserve to be represented. That's called democracy . We see so little of it that it's no wonder people don't know what it is.

Yes, let's do go back to the old days where big corporations, unions and wealthy individuals bought their politicians outright. And if that "fringe" few million Canadians who don't feel represented by the "goofy 3" main parties, well, too bad!

[ReeferMadness]

So I gather you're in favour of PR?

Of course. I don't understand how anyone who purports to be for democracy could be against trying to make the number of seats in representative democracy more reflective of popular vote. But the devil's in the details. Trying to implement pure PR with no threshold for percentage of vote can produce a parliament that is unworkable and gives fringe elements disproportional leverage. And let's be clear about what a "fringe is". The Christian Heritage Party received 0.19% of the vote. That is a fringe. The Green Party, OTOH, won received almost a million votes despite all of the people who voted for other parties due to "strategic voting" (there's a euphemism for you). People from most democracies would think it strange that we are disenfranchising 7% of the population because we're stuck in an anachronistic voting system.

There are systems that mix regional representation and proportionality. People should check out the Single Transferable Vote (STV)

system that is proposed for BC. It is still a representative system but it achieves proportionality through larger, multi-member ridings. It's definitely workable for BC but it probably won't pass because the party insiders are trying to kill it. It would present some problems for Canada due to the size of some of the ridings but I think it could work federally as well.

[Riverwind]

First of all, proportional representation isn't a single system.

PR is PR. If you want to talk about other systems like STV then you need talk about STV. The fact that the wiki editors have lumped every system other than FPTP into the 'PR' category does not make it true.

Let's not forget that the FPTP system is a holdover from the days when the only people who could vote were men who had income-producing property. Most people Canadians probably vote against PR because most of them don't even understand our current electoral system.

People understand the difference quite well. FPTP produces a single winner who represents a relatively small area. Any other system would produce multiple 'winners' who represent a much larger region. Most people like the idea of having a local representative.

One of the lessons from the Federal 'coalition crisis' of a couple of months ago is that most Canadians don't have the foggiest idea of how representative democracy is supposed to work.

No people understand exactly what they expect from the system. The fact that the coalition was technically legal under the rules does not alter the fact that people felt that coalition government has no right to take power unless it was discussed during the election. This is a perfectly reasonable opinion that has nothing to do with lack of knowledge.

In fact, PR can lead to more stable governments, even if they are coalitions.

More often they lead to a lot of grandstanding and behind the scenes horsetrading that leaves people just as dissatified with their representatives. Countries like Canada need to have regional/local representatives which means FPTP the is only practical system. Any other variation would dilute the regional/local representation and led to more problems.

How do you know why people don't vote. Under FPTP, it is common for 50% or more of the electorate to be represented by someone for who they didn't vote. Personally I get tired of it. And if the Family Heritage Party gets a significant portion of the vote (say 5% or more), the people who voted for them deserve to be represented. That's called democracy . We see so little of it that it's no wonder people don't know what it is.

Democracy is a system designed to ensure a peaceful hand over of power to a new set of people that can command the support of the majority of the people (note: all commanding support means is their rule is accepted as legimate by the majority - not that the majority voted for them). There is no requirement to ensure that 'every vote counts'. The only people who want PR are people with fringe ideas which they hope foist on the majority via a system that gives minority parties more power than they deserve. Edited March 20, 2009 by Riverwind

[madmax]

The polling results on MLW aren't close as of today. Its 15 to 6 of decided voters. 2.5 for FPTP for every 1 vote for PR.

[daniel]

Polling a bunch of conservative supporters if they are in favour of a system that weakens their position? The results are hardly surprising.

[Smallc]

Polling a bunch of conservative supporters if they are in favour of a system that weakens their position?

Last night I went to a Liberal event in Winnipeg to watch Ignatieff speak. I also voted for FPTP.

[Michael Hardner]

Polling a bunch of conservative supporters if they are in favour of a system that weakens their position? The results are hardly surprising.

I traditionally vote left, and I voted for FPTP.

So - you believe that conservatives are weakened by PR ? And you're in favour of PR ? Can I start to use this fact in my arguments against PR now ?

If you look at the FPTP system, it's true that any particular election can and does give skewed results as to the overall vote however it's misrepresenting things to say that this is unfair. Overall, the system gives one party a clear mandate to govern and each political view is more or less represented in those governments over the long term.

We have had right-wing, left-wing, and mostly centrist governments, which represents how the population is made up.

PR advocates will always use a purely mathematical argument to start out, then they admit that 'the devil is in the details'. Well, if you're willing to water down your PR solution somewhat, then why are you using the 'pure math' argument to start with ?

Under PR, the chance of ever having a conservative government is greatly diminished. This effectively legislates conservatives out of power. Although I don't vote conservative, I know that shutting down conservatives through legislation is not how our democracy was designed - and it has served us well.

Please, fellow liberals, don't make the mistake of thinking you can simply eradicate conservative viewpoints by legislating conservatives out of existence.

[Riverwind]

Polling a bunch of conservative supporters if they are in favour of a system that weakens their position? The results are hardly surprising.

I have voted Liberal in the and might in the future with Iggy in charge. That does not change my opinion on PR.

The majority of people who actually vote, vote for parties that get seats. They may not get a seat in their riding but they get enough seats to allow people to fell that their idelogical choices are represented in parliment.

Also FTPT does not mean the minority party voters are ignored. When major parties see a block of votes like the ones going for the greens they have an incentive to craft policies that will attract those voters.

[ReeferMadness]

PR is PR. If you want to talk about other systems like STV then you need talk about STV. The fact that the wiki editors have lumped every system other than FPTP into the 'PR' category does not make it true.

Well, let's see:

The UK History Learning Site thinks STV is a form of proportional representation.

The Scotland Electoral Commission thinks STV is a form of proportional representation.

The PR library at the Mount Holyoke College says that STV is a form of proportional representation.

The Electoral Reform Society of Scotland thinks STV is a form of proportional representation.

A group who call themselves the Conservative Action for Electoral Reform think that STV is a form of proprortional representation.

Fair Vote Canada thinks that STV is a form of proportional representation.

The Electoral Council of Australia thinks that STV is a form of proportional representation.

The electoral experts

UVIC Professor of Political Science Dr. Dennis Pilon thinks that STV is a form of proportional representation.

I've done a lot of reading on the topic and guess how many opinions I've found that STV is not a form of PR. One - yours. But I'm sure you know best, right?

People understand the difference quite well. FPTP produces a single winner who represents a relatively small area. Any other system would produce multiple 'winners' who represent a much larger region. Most people like the idea of having a local representative.

Well, I've just established that you don't know what in the hell you're talking about. Are most Canadians better informed than you? People may say they like the idea of a local representative but they overwhelmingly vote along party lines. Also, I'll bet most people have never tried to get their local rep to do anything for them. On matters of dealing with government agencies, they can probably expect some help but I don't see why it would be better to have someone locally. On matters of policy, good luck. I've personally had my e-mails ignored both provincially and federally. And even if your local rep wants to help, what the responsible minister and prime minister says goes.

No people understand exactly what they expect from the system. The fact that the coalition was technically legal under the rules does not alter the fact that people felt that coalition government has no right to take power unless it was discussed during the election. This is a perfectly reasonable opinion that has nothing to do with lack of knowledge.

You're arguing both sides of the issue. If you are saying that people understand that they are electing a representative to go and represent them (not a party and certainly not a prime minister), then it is perfectly legitimate for those representatives to go and form a coalition. The fact is that most Canadians don't understand their political system and the Conservative Party shamelessly exploited their ignorance, calling the coalition a 'coup d'etat'. I had e-mails from Albertan relative proclaiming the untruths that were made up and promulgated by the Conservative Party of Canada. And the worst thing was that Stephen Harper was a total hypocrite because he tried to do the same thing a few years earlier. Of course, our well-informed populace knew all about that too.

More often they lead to a lot of grandstanding and behind the scenes horsetrading that leaves people just as dissatified with their representatives. Countries like Canada need to have regional/local representatives which means FPTP the is only practical system. Any other variation would dilute the regional/local representation and led to more problems.

The system was designed so that the MP's would represent the views of the constituents to the government. The parties have successfully turned the system on its head so that what actually happens is that the MP's are doing the reverse - representing the policies of the government or opposition party back to the constituents. Local representation is a crock.

Democracy is a system designed to ensure a peaceful hand over of power to a new set of people that can command the support of the majority of the people (note: all commanding support means is their rule is accepted as legimate by the majority - not that the majority voted for them). There is no requirement to ensure that 'every vote counts'. The only people who want PR are people with fringe ideas which they hope foist on the majority via a system that gives minority parties more power than they deserve.

Sez you. Democracy is supposed to ensure that the views of the people are represented in government. Tell people that you can have a virtual dictatorship for 4 years with 40% of the popular vote and see how many really agree. Most people don't pay attention and they are simply unaware of percentages or how much power resides in the PMO. PR won't solve all of the problems but it will put some basic fairness back into a system that has been badly abused.

The people who want to retain FPTP are mostly political insiders and others who are doing well from the inequities of the current system.

[Riverwind]

I've done a lot of reading on the topic and guess how many opinions I've found that STV is not a form of PR. One - yours. But I'm sure you know best, right?

Have it your way but don't be surprised if people get really confused because the term "PR" is used to conver a wide range of very different systems. If you wish to communicate your opinions you woudl better off talking about the specific system that you advocate.

People may say they like the idea of a local representative but they overwhelmingly vote along party lines.

The two are not mutually contradictory. An NDP voter in Northern BC is *not* going to be satisfied with a NDP MP from the Lower Mainland. The desire for local representation is not about the need to go talk to your MP - it is about believing that your MP can understand the issues that are important to your city/region because that is where they come from. FTPT gives people the best chance of having a MP that shares their local perspective.

Conservative Party shamelessly exploited their ignorance, calling the coalition a 'coup d'etat'.

The Conservative rhetoric would have fallen on deaf ears if people did not feel that the coalition was a betrayal because it was not discussed as an option in the election. It is that feeling that drove public opinion - not the intracies of the system.

Local representation is a crock.

Only because you seem to think that representation must be demonstrated on the floor of the house of commons. The BC Liberal backbenchers just revolted and forced Campbell to backdown on his latest policy initiative. Systems that encourage public grandstanding make compromise and tough decisions much more difficult.

Sez you. Democracy is supposed to ensure that the views of the people are represented in government. Tell people that you can have a virtual dictatorship for 4 years with 40% of the popular vote and see how many really agree.

Systems that elect governments that can get stuff done are more effective than systems that are constantly bogged down with political horse trading. I lived in BC under the NDP majorities that messed up the province. Fortunately, the subsequent Liberal majority allowed them to fix many of the problems. I would rather have a system where a party of people I disagree with is allowed to have the power they need to implement their policies provided they can be easily booted out once people realize how dumb the policies were. Minority governments (however they are elected) are a recipe for stagnation.

Most people don't pay attention and they are simply unaware of percentages or how much power resides in the PMO. PR won't solve all of the problems but it will put some basic fairness back into a system that has been badly abused.

Not a chance. It would just exchange one type of unfairness for another.

The people who want to retain FPTP are mostly political insiders and others who are doing well from the inequities of the current system.

I have never belonged to a political party and don't always vote for the same party either. I like the system because it allows for difficult decisions to get made. The good fiscal position of the country today is entirely the result of system that gave the liberals uncontested power during the 90s. As soon as Martin felt his political future was in doubt he turned on the spending taps. A tradition that Harper has followed. Edited March 22, 2009 by Riverwind

[ReeferMadness]

Have it your way but don't be surprised if people get really confused because the term "PR" is used to conver a wide range of very different systems. If you wish to communicate your opinions you woudl better off talking about the specific system that you advocate.

It isn't "my way". Read the links - it's the way it is. If people get confused, it's because other people express opinions on things they know nothing about. Sound familiar?

The two are not mutually contradictory. An NDP voter in Northern BC is *not* going to be satisfied with a NDP MP from the Lower Mainland. The desire for local representation is not about the need to go talk to your MP - it is about believing that your MP can understand the issues that are important to your city/region because that is where they come from. FTPT gives people the best chance of having a MP that shares their local perspective.

Once again, you don't know what you're talking about. Different PR systems will produce different results and FPTP tends to shut out minority opinion. According to Fair Vote Canada member Wilf Day, (someone who actually spends time studying this stuff), BC-STV would likely produce 1 NDP MLA from North Central BC (Prince George) and one NDP MLA from Northeast BC (Peace River). Currently, the five MLA's are all Liberal.

Systems that elect governments that can get stuff done are more effective than systems that are constantly bogged down with political horse trading. I lived in BC under the NDP majorities that messed up the province. Fortunately, the subsequent Liberal majority allowed them to fix many of the problems. I would rather have a system where a party of people I disagree with is allowed to have the power they need to implement their policies provided they can be easily booted out once people realize how dumb the policies were. Minority governments (however they are elected) are a recipe for stagnation.

Open your mind and do some research. Coalition governments are common and stable in many parts of the world. The exceptions to this (Israel and Italy) have extremely low thresholds for electing representatives (2%) and very fractured electorates.

I have never belonged to a political party and don't always vote for the same party either. I like the system because it allows for difficult decisions to get made. The good fiscal position of the country today is entirely the result of system that gave the liberals uncontested power during the 90s. As soon as Martin felt his political future was in doubt he turned on the spending taps. A tradition that Harper has followed.

I've never belonged to a political party, either. If you want a good system for making difficult decisions, I recommend dictatorship. Oh, wait. That's basically what we have today.

[Riverwind]

It isn't "my way". Read the links - it's the way it is. If people get confused, it's because other people express opinions on things they know nothing about.

You are the one who was complaining about how people were confused. I just pointed out that the problem is people use "PR" as a catch all when it really refers to a specific system. There is no rational reason for calling STV a PR system. It is a variant on FPTP that theorectially produces a more "proportional" result. BTW FPTP can produce a proportional result too.

Different PR systems will produce different results and FPTP tends to shut out minority opinion.

Which is not necessarily a bad thing. FPTP forces people to look at the big picture before they vote and recognize that compromises have to be made and they can't necessarily get their way. PR gives people the illusion that they don't need to compromise because they have a buffet of political parties to choose from. This will make the political process much more fractious.

According to Fair Vote Canada member Wilf Day, (someone who actually spends time studying this stuff), BC-STV would likely produce 1 NDP MLA from North Central BC (Prince George) and one NDP MLA from Northeast BC (Peace River). Currently, the five MLA's are all Liberal.

As I said, STV is really a variant on FPTP which makes it less objectionable than the others. On the other hand, if it produces perpetual minority governments I am not interested. I cannot quantify the risk of that outcome therefore I see no reason to change a system that is not really broken.

I've never belonged to a political party, either. If you want a good system for making difficult decisions, I recommend dictatorship. Oh, wait. That's basically what we have today.

So how is a system where the 1st and 3rd largest parties form a coalition any less a dictatorship? I would say it is even a worse form of tyranny of the minority because the 3rd largest party would get more concessions that they deserve given the percentage of the population that they represent. Edited March 22, 2009 by Riverwind

[ReeferMadness]

You are the one who was complaining about how people were confused. I just pointed out that the problem is people use "PR" as a catch all when it really refers to a specific system. There is no rational reason for calling STV a PR system. It is a variant on FPTP that theorectially produces a more "proportional" result. BTW FPTP can produce a proportional result too.

Are we back to this again? Go and argue with all of the experts who think STV is a type of PR.

Which is not necessarily a bad thing. FPTP forces people to look at the big picture before they vote and recognize that compromises have to be made and they can't necessarily get their way. PR gives people the illusion that they don't need to compromise because they have a buffet of political parties to choose from. This will make the political process much more fractious.

Crap - ola. FPTP, as it's currently practised, gives the party all of the power. 40% of the votes = 60% of the seats = 100% of the power. In 1996, the NDP formed a majority government with less than 40% of the popular vote; and significantly less votes than the Liberals received.

Under PR, voters are allowed to vote their conscience but the representatives still need to compromise in the government. Most of the democracies in the world use some form of PR. We are one of the backwards countries stuck with an archaic system.

As I said, STV is really a variant on FPTP which makes it less objectionable than the others. On the other hand, if it produces perpetual minority governments I am not interested. I cannot quantify the risk of that outcome therefore I see no reason to change a system that is not really broken.

So how is a system where the 1st and 3rd largest parties form a coalition any less a dictatorship? I would say it is even a worse form of tyranny of the minority because the 3rd largest party would get more concessions that they deserve given the percentage of the population that they represent.

STV is not a variant of FPTP. It is an electoral system that supports the best element of FPTP (regional representation) while still producing proportional representation. If the parties represent more than 50% of the population, then they have a mandate to make decisions. Cooperation is central to democracy.

[Riverwind]

Crap - ola. FPTP, as it's currently practised, gives the party all of the power. 40% of the votes = 60% of the seats = 100% of the power. In 1996, the NDP formed a majority government with less than 40% of the popular vote; and significantly less votes than the Liberals received.

So? It happens rarely enough that it is not a big concern.

Under PR, voters are allowed to vote their conscience but the representatives still need to compromise in the government. Most of the democracies in the world use some form of PR. We are one of the backwards countries stuck with an archaic system.

And the system we have has served us quite well over the years.

STV is not a variant of FPTP. It is an electoral system that supports the best element of FPTP (regional representation) while still producing proportional representation. If the parties represent more than 50% of the population, then they have a mandate to make decisions. Cooperation is central to democracy.

In almost all places a clear the majority of people will typically vote for one of the two main parties. If you want fairness then the government should always be a coalition of these two main parties and the minority on the fringes would be ignored. However, it never works out that way because the main parties will always try to position themselves as alternate governments. This means coalitions always consist of one of the main parties + one or more fringe parties. These dynamics give these fringe parties too much power to impose their ideas on the majority.

With FPTP the main parties have to cater to the majority view because even if they did not get the votes in the last election they want to make sure they gets those votes in the next election. This means your claim that the views of the majority are not represented is an outright falsehood.

Bottom line. People who want moderate, centrist governments should support FPTP. People who want governments who are beholden to the demands of radical fringes should support PR.

Edited March 23, 2009 by Riverwind

[Oleg Bach]

If you are going to have a democracy - who ever gets the most votes wins!