User:RodCrosby/QPR2: Difference between revisions
→Every vote counts equally: add explanations
m (→Regional: sim) |
(→Every vote counts equally: add explanations) |
||
Line 124:
==Advantages and disadvantages==
===Every vote counts equally===
Parties would be incentivized to seek votes from Land's End to John’O'Groats, not just in the marginals. Good Tory candidates with effective campaigns in Liverpool or Glasgow, even if not elected there, would be as crucial to the national outcome as good Labour candidates in Surrey. Parties would thereby reconnect with the voters. Ludicrously, in both 2005 and 2010, a majority of all voters found themselves represented by parties they did not vote for in their constituencies. Under PR-Squared in 2010, around three-quarters of voters would be represented by an MP from the party of their choice.
===Electoral bias is removed===
Since the national vote totals are the overwhelming determinant of the election outcome, the boundaries, and size, turnout and efficiency effects become irrelevant. All parties would be presented with a level playing-field. The sisyphean task of tinkering with the boundaries to partially redress electoral bias is made redundant, and boundaries could more properly reflect actual communities.
===Safe seats are reduced===
While parties may still have their core constituencies, every candidate there and elsewhere might have to compete equally against others from the same party for the privilege of being elected, if the parties were to adopt the open list format of running candidates as opposed to the "tandem" closed list format.
===More evenly-spread representation===
The tendency under FPTP for sub-regions to produce wipe-outs for a party would be somewhat reduced, and parties would enjoy a fairer geographical distribution of their seats. Pockets of minority support would still gain representation.
===Overall majority possible===
Under the system, the elections of 1979, 1983, 1987, 1992, 1997, 2001 and 2019 would have still produced overall majorities, Landslides would be moderated.
===No practical possibility of "wrong-winner" election===
No other constituency-based system offers this, including FPTP.
===Treats third (and smaller) parties more fairly===
At every election in the past the Liberal Democrats would have won significantly more seats than under FPTP, extremists, splinters and micro-parties would win few, if any.
===Retains small constituencies===
Unlike mixed-member proportional systems there would not be two classes of MP, or “zombies” (those "killed-off" in a constituency yet "resurrected" via a list) Every MP would have to face the voters directly and would represent a tangible constituency.
===Coalition preferences revealed===
In the case of a hung parliament, coalition building is placed in the hands of the voters, if the ranked ballot add-on is adopted, to calculate the two-party preferred vote.
== Possible anomalies ==
==Possible additional features==
| |||