On 08/06/15 21:09, bert wrote:
Because we elect a representative to send to parliament. We do not elect
a government. There are arguments for and against but neither is
perfect. I prefer this one precisely because it prevents minority
parties having too much influence through the balance of power. Of
course there are means other than parliamentary seats of exerting
influence . Witness the crap talked about climate change and renewable
energy.

I see your point, but I disagree that a party that got 12% vote share is
a "minority". Noone can argue that that is "fair" in any way, shape or form.

I sympathise with the point of view that we elect a local rep to
government, but most people consider that when they vote they are voting
for a government too.

I do not accept that the current system is the best possible.

Something that elects a local person is fair from the local perspective,
but I would prefer the vote share to be reflected in the overall
government even if by artificial means ("Party X gets a voting
multiplier of 0.76 in HoC votes" for example".

I have never accepted in anything the view that "we've always done it
this way, so why change" is a good enough reason for inaction.