tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post112260276863452958..comments2023-10-16T15:59:02.445+01:00Comments on NEIL HARDING: PR=SocialismNeil Hardinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-1130343479053375192005-10-26T17:17:00.000+01:002005-10-26T17:17:00.000+01:00One comment on PR, with particular reference to SA...One comment on PR, with particular reference to SA.<BR/><BR/>In the SA system the ratios of seats in parliament are determined every five years by the voters. Ideally these ratios should remain fixed between elections. For the last couple of years we have had the curious situation of legalised "floor crossing". In other words, an MP elected to represent part of the X% of the population who voted for his party can change allegiance. Again ideally, any MP who felt his own party wasn't representing his conscience should resign and let someone else take his place. Unfortunately this is not happening. Although it is hotly denied the suspicion is that MP's cross the floor for personal advantage rather than for any issue of conscience.<BR/><BR/>At least with a FPTP system an MP can claim (with how much honesty I'll leave the voters to decide) his change of allegiance was because he felt the "other side" represented his constituents better. Of course any constituency MP with a shred of honour should step down and fight a by-election. But how often is that likely to happen?<BR/><BR/>I realise FPTP has its flaws, but on a personal level I still favour it over PR largely because having a local MP does something to increase accountability and forces someone in parliament to take at least a passing interest in local matters. In my view PR widens the gap between the elected and the electors.<BR/><BR/>I was once chatting to an Italian on the subject of the multiplicity of governments that country has had since 1945. He said that in reality Italy had only had one government since that date. If you looked at the makeup of the coalitions PR had forced the same faces from both main parties cropped up in cabinet after cabinet. In other words, the same ruling clique, whether they were nominally socialist or conservative, ran the country for 50 years. The only real changes came when someone died, retired or was caught stealing too much and the theives often got back in after a few years penitance (his words).<BR/><BR/>No, flawed and quirky as it is, I'll stick with FPTP for the moment.<BR/><BR/>RMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com