Hacker News Reader

Comment by ButterWashed | Hacker News Reader

Until a major party comes out with a manifesto pledge to offer a public vote on moving to Proportional Representation I'm not sure why anyone would bother voting Conservative or Labour anymore.

View on HN

Why would the new PR referendum give a different result to the previous PR referendum?

because, uh, the previous referendum was on AV, which isn't PR?

There has never been a referendum on PR.

Why would you expect a PR referendum to get a different result to the AV referendum?

Every PR supporter I know voted Yes for AV

> Why would you expect

Where did you read that I'd expect anything?

> Every PR supporter I know voted Yes for AV

Lol well we don't need referenda then - we'll just ask what your mates want in the future /s

I was just restating the question in a way that acknowledged your nitpicking response. It's a pretty natural inference from what you said. If you weren't suggesting that the referendums would have different results then I don't see the point of your original response.

AV and PR are different things. People may have different opinions, even if your particular circle wouldn’t.

In any case, there's no referendum needed. If it ends up with a Lab Lib government next time, I expect it to just be legislated for.

> If it ends up with a Lab Lib government next time, I expect it to just be legislated for.

Are Labour in favour of changing the voting system?

I don't think they are. Why would they be? It doesn't make any sense for them.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/27/unions-vote...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/27/propor...

And even if members were, the PLP certainly aren't - as they'd lose their jobs.

the 1997 labour manifesto had a committment to changing the voting system

there was a consultation and its results were quietly buried

no reason to expect it would be different next time

Because of the SNP. Without Scotland, it would be very difficult for them to get a majority with FPTP.

AV was confusing. To those who knew what it meant, there were no obvious benefits, so why bother. To those who didn't know, the difference could only be explained by mathematics and unintuitive use cases, and no-one could make a compelling argument about why it was better, so why bother.

The argument for PR is far clearer. In the last general election (FPTP), Conservatives got 42% of the vote but won 50% seats; Labour 40% of the vote but 41% of seats; Lib Dem 7% of the vote but 2% of seats; SNP 3% of vote but 5% of seats; etc. THAT intuitively doesn't seem fair or democratic. PR seeks to reflect % of votes with % of elected seats, which does seem intuitively fair and democratic.

Im not sure why PR is being treated as a panacea. It has its benefits but I cant be wild about a system where, for example, far right parties pushing racial supremacy can get to play kingmaker like in Israel.

I wouldnt necessarily be against it but if I had limited political capital I could think of better things to spend it on than trying to make lib dem tory coalitions more common. The last one did sod all good.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com