[kmlx]

1. we already had a vote on proportional representation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternat...

2. everyone thinks proportional representation is excellent. the reason is usually a misunderstanding of the voting process. in reality it has drawbacks, same as first past the post. before the UK referendum a study was commissioned exploring the various types of voting. the conclusion was that all these systems have flaws and all these systems are similar. but the clarity and the definitive mandate a party gets from FPTP will make sure alternative voting will not be adopted anytime soon.

[jiajweiorjawejr]

I don't buy the "FPTP gives strong government" argument. Even if we accept that FPTP gives the government "clarity and a definitive mandate" (a very dubious claim given the chaos of the last few years), what's so great about strong government? The whole point of democracy is to prevent the government from getting too strong; if we really wanted strong government we'd abolish parliament and go back to letting the monarch decide everything.

Many, many European countries have proportional systems in which it's very rare for one party to get a clear majority and governments are almost always coalitions. Would Norway, Sweden or the Netherlands really be better off under a system like FPTP that effectively disenfranchises a large majority of the electorate?

[cabalamat]

> we already had a vote on proportional representation

No, because AV is not a proportional system

> in reality it has drawbacks

There are lots of proportional systems, so it does not make senser to say "it has drawbacks".

> all these systems are similar

That's not true either.

[zimablue]

No we didn’t, that system wasn’t proportional representation by any definition, please do not make posts that are not true, other readers might be misled.