User:RodCrosby/QPR2: Difference between revisions

m
(→‎Objectives and rationale: it's probably about 60%)
m (→‎Objectives and rationale: better wording)
Line 11:
Stringer believes that a combination of political vested interest and inability to agree on one of the various true proportional systems means that it is unlikely that the UK will ever abandon FPTP for Westminster. A resolute attachment to single-member constituencies and the presumed desirability of majority governments are also factors, especially for the UK's most successful party, the Conservatives.
 
PR squared is a system that is a relatively small change from the perspective of voters and the major parties, has some benefits for almost all parties, and accordingly may stand a higher chance of achieving consensus for its adoption. While not closely proportional, PR squared can be shown to be approaching about half asthe disproportionaldisproportionality asof FPTP, according to certain common measures, in particular treating third and fourth parties which compete UK-wide more fairly.
 
The prospect of majority government on a minority of votes remains quite possible, and in large part PR squared is advocated for pragmatic reasons. It is essentially a "half-way house" between FPTP and PR, retaining much of the former's structure and familiarity, while going a considerable distance towards proportionality.
193

edits