pwa wrote:My knowledge of European democracies is limited, so I'll stay away from that rather than making a mistake. My only real observation is that the deal between the DUP and the Tories is the kind of arrangement that would always be needed with PR, and it does give the smaller party more leverage (per voter). If you think it is a good thing, fine. I see problems with PR and FPTP.
Last Saturday my local MP, the Secretary of State for Wales, was strolling around the village fete on the rugby ground in front of my house. If I had wanted to have a chat about something I could have done. My MP. But with PR that doesn't happen. Neil Hamilton is a UKIP AM in the Welsh parliament because he was on his party's list. I doubt very much that Welsh UKIP supporters like him. But they like UKIP and he was on their list. When I vote I do like voting for a name, a person.
I think that if you are going to make statements like
pwa wrote: I think PR brings distortion later on, when the parties start looking at how they can combine to rule. Both systems end up with some voters having more influence on policy than others. If you want to see how government will look with PR, watch how the DUP and the Tories do things over the next few months.
It is reasonable to ask for examples. Otherwise, how can we understnad what you mean by this. DUP supporting a Tory example is not an example of this becuase the need of the Tories for the support of a single party gives them an unusual amount of political leverage.
What actually happens in a PR government is that one party wants to introduce new legislation from their platform or from one representative's initiative, and they talk to closely aligned parties about the feasibility. If it looks like they might get enough support, they talk to other parties. One party can't hold them hostage because if one party has excessive demands for their support, another might have more reasonable demands. Or the initiating party might let it lie for a while until someone else wants support for a pet project to go forward. Then they can say, we'll support you if...
Extreme measures are very unlikely to be mooted because they simply won't garner any support.
Once in a while, a single controversial issue drives the creation of a new party, ala UKIP. While it is clear that sort of thing can have an impact on PR, it has had a profound effect in the UK's two-party system. I suspect that UKIP's impact would have been somewhat smaller in a multi-party system. There would likely have been other, more moderate parties that supported independence, and less need for UKIP to exist.
That's not say Brexit could not have occurred. We can never know that answer to that.
As for voting for a person, that is still possible. It depends greatly on the system. In Sweden and Norway, people can vote for a person, as well as the party. They select the party by ballet paper, then if they wish (it is not required), they select the name of the person they wish to represent them. They can also write in a name on a blank ballot paper. The person or people with the most votes are then elected as representatives.
Other systems have one part of the legislature elected by PR (i.e. from a pool of representatives), and another part elected by direct election.
Yet other systems, use something like the alternative vote to combine direct representation with PR. I don't know so much about that type of system. I am only familiar with what was proposed in referendum in the UK in 2011.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
maybe that's why I fell off over the w/end...