Len Rum said:You're absolutely right the detail is crucial.Henkeman said:SWP's back said:Would be a fine thing.
I'm not sure why people just say "proportional representation". It's completely meaningless. A straight List System, Additional Member System? Alternative Vote? Single Transferable Vote? What?
But starting from the other end of the argument what I would like to see is - if the result of an election is say Tories 35%, Labour 30%, Lib Dems 15%,UKIP 15%, rest 5% then the national parliament should reflect this split.
Everyone would then feel that their vote counts unlike the present system where only the marginals decide it, with a high proportion of the electorate effectively disenfranchised. Our government would change to one of consensus rather than conflict ( witness this thread). Extremists would get more power, but if they get the votes why should they be denied that, it's democracy.
The only major nation that has a directly proportional system is Israel. In the Knesset fringe parties hold disproportionate power and under a list system you cannot vote out a politician no matter what, as long as they're on the list. It gives the parties overwhelming power over the electorate. That's not very democratic at all.
No system is perfect, but the aim for proportionality has massive costs. People can decide what matters most to them, but the belief in proportionality as inherently fairer misses the critical point that fairness is irrelevant, democracy is the aim.