Why are British left-wingers so enthusiastic about proportional representation?

[crypto-fascist superhero]

Given http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2009_%28United_Kingdom%29

[freefair]

I'm guessing they think it would turn out differently in GE's and Locals.
Really though, Its because nobody has got a Popular Vote majority since 1935, and their obsession with forming an "Anti-Tory Coalition" based on the bizarre premise that if you don't vote Conservative then they must be the party you hate the most.
But Hey, I'm a Tory and I support PR on the basis that is gives the fairest and most level playing field and encourages cross-political cooperation. I'd hope that is the honest reason why leftist support it too.

[Joe Republic]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by citing that election, given that EU elections are inherently... 'different' from normal British elections.  UKIP and BNP invariably do much better in those than they would in Westminster elections under some type of PR.

A large chunk of the Labour Party - if not a majority of it - are in favor of FPTP, while nearly all minor parties are in favor of PR.  It shouldn't take a genius to understand why.

[freefair]

A large chunk of the Labour Party - if not a majority of it - are in favor of FPTP, while nearly all minor parties are in favor of PR.  It shouldn't take a genius to understand why.

Yeah, a majority of Labour MP's supported NO2AV. Doesn't mean they oppose full PR, but it is a good indicator.

[You kip if you want to...]

FPTP isn't the worst system (AV...), but i'd prefer an AMS or AV+ system like the one in Scotland and Wales.

And lefties aren't "enthusiastic" about it, the Liberals are and if you think the Liberals are left-wingers... well...

[crypto-fascist superhero]

I get that Euro elections are different from regular but it's at least something of an indicator that PR hardly is the answer to their prayers.  I get that most parliamentary Labour members don't favor PR, though it seemed like most of the ones on Atlas did during the AV thingy.  In any case, I fail to see why they'd be so in favor of something that'd most likely lead to BNP and UKIP gaining representation in a perpetually-hung parliament in which the Lib Dems (or even the BNP) would always hold the balance of power.

[Sibboleth]

They aren't. You're confusing 'left-wing' with 'middle class liberal' and there's a fairly large difference.

[Insula Dei]

'Hung parliaments' only exist under majoritarian systems. Under PR it's normal for no party to have an overall majority and coalitions are the norm. The 2009 European elections (with an unpopular Labour government having spent the last 12 years in government and the expected europhobia of the great British public) are probably as unrepresentative an election as you could possibly pick for what a general election under PR would look like. Euro elections are secondary elections in most countries. Voters voted to kick the government or stayed at home. Smaller parties with a dedicated base and sympathizers outside of their own voters (think: Greens; UKIP) will always do well in such elections.

Anyway a 'pure' PR system in the UK is extremely unfeasible as it would mean the partisan landscape would have been to redrawn completely. Ironically, the LibDems would be probably the first to explode under such a system. Though neither the conservatives and Labour wouldn't be longlived either. UKIP would never get over 5% in a real election I suppose, and the BNP wouldn't get 5% either. A more polished far-right outfit might get there, obviously, and if it could draw in the more unsavoury aspects of the Tory right, who knows where the limit for such a party would be?

[crypto-fascist superhero]

They aren't. You're confusing 'left-wing' with 'middle class liberal' and there's a fairly large difference.

Just going from the first few pages of the AV thread:

LOL no. It's not PR and the Liberals shouldn't be rewarded for their poor governmental skills.

No. It's not my preferred alternative to FPTP (which is actually the Scottish system) and I really, really don't like a system that would risk the Lib Dems holding the balance of power on a permanent basis.

I was going to vote no*, but I think I'll take a leaf out of some of the posters in this thread and just spoil my ballot with a statement making clear I wanted PR on there.

etc.

[crypto-fascist superhero]

UKIP would never get over 5% in a real election I suppose, and the BNP wouldn't get 5% either. A more polished far-right outfit might get there, obviously, and if it could draw in the more unsavoury aspects of the Tory right, who knows where the limit for such a party would be?

The BNP probably polled around their "natural" base of support in '09 - single-issue Euroskeptic voters would've gone with UKIP, not BNP.  UKIP got 3.1% in the 2010 general election under FPTP - it's a virtual certainty they'd poll above 5%.

[Insula Dei]

The BNP has exploded since. Also, what was turnout like in 2009? High Twenties?

[Joe Republic]

They aren't. You're confusing 'left-wing' with 'middle class liberal' and there's a fairly large difference.

Just going from the first few pages of the AV thread:

LOL no. It's not PR and the Liberals shouldn't be rewarded for their poor governmental skills.

No. It's not my preferred alternative to FPTP (which is actually the Scottish system) and I really, really don't like a system that would risk the Lib Dems holding the balance of power on a permanent basis.

I was going to vote no*, but I think I'll take a leaf out of some of the posters in this thread and just spoil my ballot with a statement making clear I wanted PR on there.

etc.

Again, are you implying that the Lib Dems are left-wing?

[crypto-fascist superhero]

They aren't. You're confusing 'left-wing' with 'middle class liberal' and there's a fairly large difference.

Just going from the first few pages of the AV thread:

LOL no. It's not PR and the Liberals shouldn't be rewarded for their poor governmental skills.

No. It's not my preferred alternative to FPTP (which is actually the Scottish system) and I really, really don't like a system that would risk the Lib Dems holding the balance of power on a permanent basis.

I was going to vote no*, but I think I'll take a leaf out of some of the posters in this thread and just spoil my ballot with a statement making clear I wanted PR on there.

etc.

Again, are you implying that the Lib Dems are left-wing?

I believe all those people were Labour supporters.  The Lib Dems are most reminiscent of "centrist" parties like the Canadian Liberals or the old Italian Christian Democracy, with no coherent ideology (actually, the 'right-wing' Lib Dems have a relatively coherent ideology, though most of the party doesn't).

[Sibboleth]

'Hung parliaments' only exist under majoritarian systems. Under PR it's normal for no party to have an overall majority and coalitions are the norm. The 2009 European elections (with an unpopular Labour government having spent the last 12 years in government and the expected europhobia of the great British public) are probably as unrepresentative an election as you could possibly pick for what a general election under PR would look like.

It was also held during the middle of the expenses scandal.

Though neither the conservatives and Labour wouldn't be longlived either.

There would be splinters (of course), but you'd be surprised.

[Sibboleth]

They aren't. You're confusing 'left-wing' with 'middle class liberal' and there's a fairly large difference.

Just going from the first few pages of the AV thread:

LOL no. It's not PR and the Liberals shouldn't be rewarded for their poor governmental skills.

No. It's not my preferred alternative to FPTP (which is actually the Scottish system) and I really, really don't like a system that would risk the Lib Dems holding the balance of power on a permanent basis.

I was going to vote no*, but I think I'll take a leaf out of some of the posters in this thread and just spoil my ballot with a statement making clear I wanted PR on there.

etc.

It's just about possible that the membership here is not entirely reflective of wider trends in British political life. Enthusiasm for proportional representation is a LibDem thing, mostly. Not exclusively, but mostly*. Within the Labour Party most support - and almost all of the enthusiasm - for PR has come from people who are not exactly on the Left (in an LP context anyway). And so on.

*Since the 1980s there's also been a small group of broadly non-partisan (in outlook, anyway) left-wing liberals who have been very much in favour.

[YL]

As others have said, European elections are not exactly typical of British elections.

I'm broadly in favour of PR, though I don't like closed lists and generally it isn't a make-or-break issue for me.  IMO FPTP tends to produce unhealthily large majorities on vote shares which don't really deserve them, causes too much of a focus on marginal seats and encourages voters to vote for parties they don't really support because their real preference would be a "wasted vote" (and it also encourages parties to explicitly campaign to get such votes)*.  I'm not sure that that has a lot to do with my position on the left/right scale, except that my view of the large majorities obtained in 1983 and 1987 is coloured by my (very negative) view of what those majorities were used to do.

* I know tactical voting is possible in other systems too, but it seems to be a particular feature of FPTP.

[Leftbehind]

Pretty much because we're now at US-levels of consensus RE neoliberal economics + reactionary social policies within the main parties; even if it inadvertently allowed UKIP* or BNP success it'd still be better than what's largely a democracy not worth participating in. Personally, I'd like to vote for a minority rump of leftists you see across Western Europe - which could join a coalition with Labour, or at least wield a positive influence in parliament - than be forever voting for right-wing parties or pointless also-runs and staying at home in disgust.

*You're a) quoting 2009 - a way-above average performance from the Right, largely due to the collapse of Labour and b) a Euro election, where UKIP gains votes for being the prominent anti-EU party in a Euro election.

[Vasall des Midas]

I would like to point out that one of those three posts is in favor of the Scottish/Welsh system... which is very far from actual PR. It gives a rather hefty bonus to the largest party (D'Hondt and you not just get to keep overhang, the other parties are actually reduced to make room for your overhang!), it includes a safeguard against the underrepresentation of low-turnout regions - which is the most valid counterargument against pure pr - and in Wales especially (yeah, yeah, I know only Scotland was mentioned) has a way-too-high threshold for my tastes.
That happened to be the comment by the poster least like that middle class, left-liberal subset of Labour and most like the Labour Party at large...

[Leftbehind]

I don't really get the characterisation - I can't believe there's anyone more happy with FPTP on the left than Blairite/right-wing Labour members, who support the current direction, enjoy that through Labour they capture a far bigger vote than they would do, have basically ensured there's no avenue for the left and are usually middle-class liberals (in the economic sense) themselves (sure, historically Labour left's been opposed to PR, but I'd suggest that made sense until they became completely sidelined).

[Vasall des Midas]

I didn't mean liberal in the economic sense (or as an insult at all). I'm not sure Al did, either.

[Leftbehind]

Even still it's an uncomfortable generalisation, which I don't adhere to. I'm sure PR is a middle-class issue - with the social liberals on one side, and the market liberals on the other - but that's hardly surprising when politics itself is increasingly becoming a middle-class interest.

[Vasall des Midas]

Even still it's an uncomfortable generalisation, which I don't adhere to. I'm sure PR is a middle-class issue - with the social liberals on one side, and the market liberals on the other - but that's hardly surprising when politics itself is increasingly becoming a middle-class interest.

Which is true, which is true.

Especially the kind of politics-as-hobby you'll find on a politics forum on the internet... which is sorta QED, but only sorta.

[Iannis]

I hope that people are in favour of proportional representation simply because it' the most democratic system, simpe as it is, not for strategic calculations.
It's simly ridicoulous that a party with 35% of popular vote with a turn-out of 60% can be in government alone (Labour 2005)

[Vasall des Midas]

Of course, the patterns talked about (plus a small side pattern of England vs ROB) are very apparent here. Yeah, I know the referendum was on AV, not some (non-pure form of) PR. It affected the margin, but I fail to see a rational argument that it affected the pattern much.

[redcommander]

I've always thought the PR system is counterproductive because it doesn't allow for politicians to be directly accountable to the voters, but instead to party members and lists. Also it give enormous clout to fringe groups on the right and left unless you have an incredibly high threshold for seat allocation like in Spain for instance. MMP or STV seems like the best solution to FPTP's problems of being "undemocratic" but that's just my two cents.