• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Proportional Representation a Good Idea?

Is Proportional Representation a Good Idea?

  • Yes

    Votes: 7 63.6%
  • No

    Votes: 4 36.4%

  • Total voters
    11

Roycarn

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
199
Reaction score
75
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Proportional representation characterize election systems where a party's share of the vote matches its share of the seats. If a party gets 30% of the vote, then it gets 30% of the seats. There are a number of pros and cons to such a system.

Pros:
1. Fairness. It just makes sense that parties should get what they deserve in a free and fair election in terms of the number of seats up for grabs.
2. Encourages the election of minor parties. Since parties only need a few votes to get at least some seats, there's a much greater possibility of winning at least some representation in an elected body.
3. Eliminates gerrymandering. Gerrymandering becomes a non-issue since the system by definition guarantees what gerrymandering is hell bent on denying.

Cons:
1. Results in the election of extremists. Small parties with an intense following can gain a foothold in the legislature, as happened with the Nazi party in Weimar Germany or, more recently with the Afd in Germany and Geert Wilders' party in the Netherlands.
2. Results in coalitions, which can cause instability. Again, Germany is another example where recent coalition negotiations failed to create a new government after elections. Italy, Israel, and Brazil are other classic examples of coalitions breaking down after formation resulting in frequent changes in leadership
3. Weakens the link between voters and their representatives. Larger districts that would be required dilutes the influence of an individual voter over their representative.


In conclusion, whether or not you think proportional representation is a good idea probably depends on whether or not you think minor and third parties should be included in a legislature. I look forward to healthy debate about this subject.
 
Proportional representation characterize election systems where a party's share of the vote matches its share of the seats. If a party gets 30% of the vote, then it gets 30% of the seats. There are a number of pros and cons to such a system.

Pros:
1. Fairness. It just makes sense that parties should get what they deserve in a free and fair election in terms of the number of seats up for grabs.
2. Encourages the election of minor parties. Since parties only need a few votes to get at least some seats, there's a much greater possibility of winning at least some representation in an elected body.
3. Eliminates gerrymandering. Gerrymandering becomes a non-issue since the system by definition guarantees what gerrymandering is hell bent on denying.

Cons:
1. Results in the election of extremists. Small parties with an intense following can gain a foothold in the legislature, as happened with the Nazi party in Weimar Germany or, more recently with the Afd in Germany and Geert Wilders' party in the Netherlands.
2. Results in coalitions, which can cause instability. Again, Germany is another example where recent coalition negotiations failed to create a new government after elections. Italy, Israel, and Brazil are other classic examples of coalitions breaking down after formation resulting in frequent changes in leadership
3. Weakens the link between voters and their representatives. Larger districts that would be required dilutes the influence of an individual voter over their representative.


In conclusion, whether or not you think proportional representation is a good idea probably depends on whether or not you think minor and third parties should be included in a legislature. I look forward to healthy debate about this subject.

It's neither good nor bad, but I'm not in a rush to change the system in the US
 
Proportional representation characterize election systems where a party's share of the vote matches its share of the seats. If a party gets 30% of the vote, then it gets 30% of the seats. There are a number of pros and cons to such a system.

Pros:
1. Fairness. It just makes sense that parties should get what they deserve in a free and fair election in terms of the number of seats up for grabs.
2. Encourages the election of minor parties. Since parties only need a few votes to get at least some seats, there's a much greater possibility of winning at least some representation in an elected body.
3. Eliminates gerrymandering. Gerrymandering becomes a non-issue since the system by definition guarantees what gerrymandering is hell bent on denying.

Cons:
1. Results in the election of extremists. Small parties with an intense following can gain a foothold in the legislature, as happened with the Nazi party in Weimar Germany or, more recently with the Afd in Germany and Geert Wilders' party in the Netherlands.
2. Results in coalitions, which can cause instability. Again, Germany is another example where recent coalition negotiations failed to create a new government after elections. Italy, Israel, and Brazil are other classic examples of coalitions breaking down after formation resulting in frequent changes in leadership
3. Weakens the link between voters and their representatives. Larger districts that would be required dilutes the influence of an individual voter over their representative.


In conclusion, whether or not you think proportional representation is a good idea probably depends on whether or not you think minor and third parties should be included in a legislature. I look forward to healthy debate about this subject.

Well the appeal of PR is less about whether minor and third parties should be included in a legislature and more about the legislature's composition being more closely representative of the people and their actual political affinities.

There are also ways to run a PR like system that does have individual representatives/candidates such as Mixed Member Proportional Representation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU

and Single Transferable Vote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI
 
Personally, I think some form of 'ranked choice voting' , combined with removing money from politics as much as possible (public funded elections?), could remedy many of the issues I see with the election system in the USA.

I think that might allow 3rd parties into the picture without proportional representation.

I doubt it'll happen anytime soon, because the two big parties in the USA enjoy their stranglehold on options.
 
Proportional representation characterize election systems where a party's share of the vote matches its share of the seats. If a party gets 30% of the vote, then it gets 30% of the seats. There are a number of pros and cons to such a system.

Pros:
1. Fairness. It just makes sense that parties should get what they deserve in a free and fair election in terms of the number of seats up for grabs.
2. Encourages the election of minor parties. Since parties only need a few votes to get at least some seats, there's a much greater possibility of winning at least some representation in an elected body.
3. Eliminates gerrymandering. Gerrymandering becomes a non-issue since the system by definition guarantees what gerrymandering is hell bent on denying.

Cons:
1. Results in the election of extremists. Small parties with an intense following can gain a foothold in the legislature, as happened with the Nazi party in Weimar Germany or, more recently with the Afd in Germany and Geert Wilders' party in the Netherlands.
2. Results in coalitions, which can cause instability. Again, Germany is another example where recent coalition negotiations failed to create a new government after elections. Italy, Israel, and Brazil are other classic examples of coalitions breaking down after formation resulting in frequent changes in leadership
3. Weakens the link between voters and their representatives. Larger districts that would be required dilutes the influence of an individual voter over their representative.


In conclusion, whether or not you think proportional representation is a good idea probably depends on whether or not you think minor and third parties should be included in a legislature. I look forward to healthy debate about this subject.

We don't do Parliaments because it's too tribal. At least no yet. We force the country to take one side or the other and live with the result. Parliaments are drama from day one and generally tire people out. They are best used in countries with diverse populations, religions, tribes, etc. because they never can get along well enough to agree on anything.
 
We don't do Parliaments because it's too tribal. At least no yet. We force the country to take one side or the other and live with the result. Parliaments are drama from day one and generally tire people out. They are best used in countries with diverse populations, religions, tribes, etc. because they never can get along well enough to agree on anything.

This page is about a change in voting system, not a change in the system of government. The two are separate, but commonly confused with each other, A good example is Brazil, which is both a federal and presidential republic but elects its lower house through party list proportional representation.
 
PR would splinter the major parties and your local representative would be chosen off a list created by party bagmen in Washington and it would likely be someone who lives in another part of the country.
I favour First Past the Post.
 
PR would splinter the major parties and your local representative would be chosen off a list created by party bagmen in Washington and it would likely be someone who lives in another part of the country.
I favour First Past the Post.

I think some splinteering would be a good thing. That way no one has to choose soley between someone like Donald Trump and someone like Hillary Clinton. Some form of PR would créate options both for those on the left who dont want to vote for a crook and those on the right who dont want to vote for a predatory sociopath. Likewise in the UK (which has first past the post) many Labour voters saw Tony Blair as a war criminal but still voted for him to keep the Conservatives out of power.

Compare this to Spain where both the main left wing party (PSOE) and the main rightwing party (PP) have a long history of corruption but both have found themselves almost being eclisped by new parties on each end of the political spectrum. This seems a far more healthy way of holding those in power to account in that the whole party system can be thrown out and (hopefully) replaced with something different.

Lastly I think you are confusing proportional representation with party list. There are other forms of Proportional representation like STV (Single Transferable Vote) in which you still have a local representatives but vote by ranking different candidates in order of preference.
 
Back
Top Bottom