<% ballot="202289" ' Check nothing is broken broken = 0 if ballot = "" then broken = 1 end if set vt = Server.Createobject("mps.Vote") openresult = vt.Open("Vote", "sa", "") ' Created object? if IsObject(vt) = TRUE then ' Opened db? if openresult = True AND broken = 0 then ballotresult = vt.SetBallotName(ballot) ' read the vote votetotal=(vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "yes")+vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "no")) if votetotal <> 0 then ' there are votes in the database numberyes = vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "yes") numberno = vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "no") percentyes = Int((numberyes/votetotal)*100) percentno = 100 - percentyes ' fix graph so funny graph heights dont appear 'if percentyes = 0 then ' percentyes = 1 'end if 'if percentno = 0 then ' percentno = 1 'end if else ' summut went wrong frig it numberyes = 0 numberno = 0 percentyes = 50 percentno = 50 end if end if end if %> Votes so far:

100% 0%			>		>
			Yes: <% =percentyes %>%		No: <% =percentno %>%

It is noticeable that the vast majority of countries that have embraced a form of PR are extremely prosperous and stable.
Chris Hunter, UK

There seems to be a lot of the lame old arguments against PR. Under STV with multiple member constituencies, you vote for a candidate, not a party, and the winning candidate has to have a measure of support from at least half the electorate. FPTP does not give real power to a large number of people. Unless you live in a marginal seat, and happen to vote for the leading parties in that seat, your voice will be totally ignored. FPTP is the main cause of the voter apathy we have seen in recent years.
Stephen Axcell, UK

A party list system takes power away from the voters and gives it to the politicians. What might be worth looking at is a single transferable vote system for our existing single member constituencies. This would more complex but it would ensure that, to be elected, a candidate would have to get majority support within the constituency.
Malory Davies, England

The fact that there's so much attention paid to the issue of "tactical voting" in FPTP countries shows that there is something seriously wrong with that method of selecting governments. What is tactical voting but an admission that the electorate feels driven to vote for a candidate they don't truly support? Here in Canada, witness the number of recent provincial governments elected to "majority" governments with less than 40% of the votes. In any political system with more than two parties FPTP is simply indefensible! For once I'd like to be able to walk into a polling station and be able to vote for who I truly wanted with the confidence that my vote would count.
Jeffrey McFarlane, Canada

There are too many people under the current system who feel that their vote has no value. To truly empower all UK citizens we must make sure their votes are represented in the makeup of parliament.
Paul Gregory, UK

All PR really achives is to increase the reliance on small parties in the representative body of the nation. These then consequently yield undue power and influence, which far surpasses their electoral base, especially so in nation which have several political parties, such as Sweden or Germany.
Tolling, USA

I'm sure there are countries with a successful implementations of PR - so it gets truly boring to hear people's justifications for FPTP by comparing the experiences of Italy or New Zealand. Surely PR will bring more consistency - as you won't get the white wash effect as we saw at the last election. Whether it succeeds or fails depends mainly on individuals' ability to compromise and come to agreements. I don't like Political Parties anyway, so if more independents and reasonable people get into government, the better it will be!
Aurora Anders, UK

Democracy is non existent in the 'West'. Whatever and however we vote global multinationals control everything! No I'm not paranoid! Just realistic, all pretence at democracy is a sham.
Graham Levett, England

After hearing of Labours plans for PR in next years Euro elections I am all against it. They are planning to (against the recommendations of the Jenkins commission) have it so that we vote for the party, and they decide who becomes an MP. We would vote only for parties, and not for people, this would effectively destroy the idea of independents or small parties, and be wide open to abuse. The example of such abuse is that people will vote Tory, thinking they are voting for a eurosceptic, only to be dumped with a federalist, this to my mind is far less democratic that FPTP and gives us far less power.
Alex Stanway, England

PR means at least half of the people in the country will be represented. This is better than only say 40% Simple eh!
Richard, England

It's a method devised to give power to the party rather than the individual elected by vote. It is the party as a whole that comes into power and thereafter can put anyone regardless of whether the voter wants him/her. This actually takes away the voters right of choice of who should be elected.
Michael.S.A, Canada

FPTP doesn't necessarily guarantee strong government either. Neither does it prevent small parties having disproportionate influence - think of the final pathetic years of the Major government when he held to ransom time and time again by the likes of Ian Paisley.
Steve Evans, Norway

Even the best democracies only give people nominal power over their governments. Anyone with a proper evidence-based grasp of reality knows this. The only sensible view of democracy is an anti-dictatorship measure, the majority of democratic activity is farcical.
Amo, Kenya

The critics of PR say that it gives small parties disproportionate power. Our current FPTP system gives big parties disproportionate powers and prevents new parties and ideas emerging. We have had a succession of governments elected and given absolute power with the support of a minority of the people. A Government opposed by the majority of voters cannot be democratic. PR has to be better because it delivers fairness, ensures that every vote counts, and means that at least we should get a Government even if it is a coalition which commands wide support. I hope that Tony Blair has the courage to introduce PR for Westminster elections to spare the majority from tyrants like Thatcher who only ever had minority support.
Barry Tregear, England

It does in the USA, especially to organized groups of people.
Jerry Brazeal, USA

It's certainly better than the current system where the government has a massive majority but was voted for by a minority of the electorate. The arguments over whether PR provides strong government or even better government are irrelevant - democracy is a right regardless and the current system isn't really democratic.
John Mitchell, England

It would allow coalitions, forcing parties not to stick to just their own lines and would therefore allow a larger representation of the electorate to be satisfied with what the Government is doing.
Niall Fletcher, Scotland

No it doesn't; it gives chaos and instability to the people. PR advocates should take a long hard look at New Zealand, which introduced such a system, of sorts, at the last election. There was virtually no government for several weeks as a result, as parties jockeyed for partnerships. Absolute madness! And here in Australia we have a government, which is almost paralysed by one senator. The Brits would be totally mad if they fell for it.
Ray Marsh, Australia

Proportional representation does give the people more fair power, but it also does create instability. But it allows the different political parties to keep accountable to each other, as in the US government, versus unstable governments like the Balkans, where violence and whoever happens to be leading, decides what direction the country takes, or how the country is defined.
Noelle Barrera, USA

PR tends to lead to finely balanced coalition governments. This can effectively hand over a say in crucial national decisions to tiny minority parties. Hardly fair is it? Witness Italy.
Andy, UK

Historically, Governments elected through PR have brief and fiery lives. They create policies, which are trying to be all things to all people. While First-past- the-post may have flaws, it is still the best system of election in use.
John Atkins, Malaysia

I do not want to say it works better or not, because that depends on the country. Italy for example, has a history of weak governments and a lot of small parties that can have a lot of power because they are needed for a majority government. They also tend to bring the government down very easily. On the other hand, in Germany and my country it works very well because these are countries where people are very rationalistic and compromise a lot instead of being ideological. However, it is a better representation of the people's political colour. But that does not say it works better than FPTP.
Reinier Bosman, Netherlands (living in the USA)

If PR leads to a government that does not have the power to force through its more extreme politically motivated measures then I would see removing power from politicians as empowering the people. I do not want to see my country run by a choice of one apparently left wing bunch of ex public school boys or the other lot of apparently right wing ex public school boys. Perhaps in times of war it is good to have a strong hand at the helm but in peacetime this is closer to tyranny.
Chris Hann, USA (Brit)

Under the First Past The Post system MPs claim that they will represent the views of ALL their constituents thus making it easy for voters to be lazy as regards their own involvement in issues. With a PR system MPs have no choice but to represent the views of the groupings which elected them. The effect therefore of PR will be to force the voter to take a greater interest in politics or get left on the sidelines. Surely this will be good for democracy.
Chris Jackson, UK

FPTP at least gives a clean sweep. PR will lead to a parliament full of political timeservers, Italy for example.
Peter Atkinson, Saudi Arabia

How ironic that Mathew (USA) now chooses to live in the US whilst castigating the 'damage' done by UK governments in the 1980's. Presumably the damage that he speaks of is reducing inflation, delivering the lowest unemployment of any major economy in the EU, growing the economy and increasing the wealth of the nation. Indeed the policies are exactly those of the two parties he is happy with here in the US. PR would never have delivered these results. The revolution of 1979 that overhauled the UK's discredited economy happened because voters were able to overthrow the welfare state consensus favoured by the Lib-Lab Pact. He likes two parties that are the same; well Blair has stolen all the Tories policies!
David, USA

PR fosters consensus politics and negates the confrontational culture of politics. It is time for the UK to have a system that makes votes count.
Alan Davidson, UK

FPTP is one of the most unfair methods of electing a parliament there is. It consistently gives one party a majority in parliament, when it does not have a majority of the votes in the country. However you slice it, that cannot be fair. PR has its problems, it's slow, and complex, and often does not give clear results. But if the nation votes 40:40:20 %, why should one party have all the say, if the electorate's vote is split, then they should work with what they have. In Northern Ireland, MPs are elected by PR. If it's used there to preserve fairness, why not for the rest of the UK?
Adam Trickett, USA

I've heard no reason why PR isn't a better system of voting - except that it would break the monopoly of the 2 or 3 largest parties. How can a system possibly be fair when a party can get a majority of several hundred seats in the houses of parliament when only 40 percent of the country that bothered to vote actually supported them. If the party gets 40% of the vote, they should get 40% of the seats. Simple. This wouldn't lead to weaker government, just fairer, more representative government.
Andrew Dowle, UK

Any time you give people a voting system so complicated that most people don't fully understand it, you are taking power away from the voter
Jon Livesey, USA

PR leads to the government being more representative of the people. If there is not an overall majority of the public in favour of a single party, it is undemocratic for that party to have an absolute majority of seats in parliament and hence to become an "elected dictatorship". There is no value in having a 'strong' government if it is steadfastly leading the country in a direction that is opposed by the majority of the population, as for instance happened during the Thatcher administration.
Jon Ball, UK

First Past The Post produces strong governments? Tell that to John Major. And frankly, given the damage done by the UK's strong government of the 1980s, I wish it had been a lot weaker. I also see the usual myths about PR being recycled here. For example, you don't have to vote for parties under PR -- there are PR systems where you can vote for individuals. I gave up on the UK when it became clear that it was stuck with First Past The Post. If I'm going to live in a country with a bent electoral system controlled by two practically indistinguishable parties, I may as well make it America.
Mathew, USA

I can see how PR could be fairer, and better for small parties, but I believe there is also a degree of proportionality in first past the post, for instance you tend to get far right Tories in safe Tory seats, or far left labour MPs in safe labour seats, in marginal seats, you do tend to get more moderate politicians who (should) try to encompass the views of all their constituents, not just the ones that voted for them. I think the greatest hurdle in front of true democracy in this country is loyalty to parties, which leaves us with politicians who represent their parties to the constituents, rather than representing their constituents to the party and to the commons, I don't know quite how we should tackle this other than all voting for independents, but I don't believe PR will do it, if anything it could increase the dominance of parties.
Alex Stanway, England

The answer to the question is no, since the politicians will ultimately decide between themselves the formation of the new government. However, PR is still right for Britain. How fair is it that a Labour Government is elected with 44% of the vote and two-thirds of the seats? I say this as a Labour supporter too. Even with PR, changes in government direction and policy happen with changes in the electorate's mood - look at the German election for an example. The voters wanted a change, and they got it, broadly as they wanted. Here, we have an extremely powerful government with less than half the electorate having voted for them. PR should come, not just for the Commons, but the Lords too.
Andrew Leicester, United Kingdom

There has not been a UK government in quite some time that has achieved an overwhelming majority of votes at a general election. On the basis of this, I have to conclude that PR is unlikely to produce strong governments in the future and would instead produce weak coalitions. Regardless of one's political views, is this really desirable?
J Soames, UK

Asking the electorate to simply place an X next to one box underestimates their intelligence. Most people have second or third choices that they would also consider and some also want to object to one particular candidate but not his/her party. Some types of PR address this issue, so that most people get a government they can be satisfied with. Under first-past-the-post, only a minority gets the government they want; the majority are told that they simply have to put up with it for another five years.
David Heald, Wales, UK

As a life-long Labour supporter I am deeply suspicious of PR. I profoundly reject the notion that proportional systems are somehow 'fairer' or morally superior to FPTP. To others PR is just a chattering classes kind of system to try to keep the Conservatives permanently out of office - something that can only happen by creating weak, coalition governments. I do want to keep the Tories out but it has to be because it is what the electorate want, not by a shabby compromise in smoke filled rooms as is happening in Scotland at the moment. There is no fair system of PR in operation around the world anywhere at this time - I have no reason to believe the UK can suddenly invent one.
Mario Dunn, London

If gerrymandering does not work, try PR. (It will not work either). As you can see with the "special case" regarding Northern Ireland, what happens is that a minority of the population are represented by a disproportionately greater number of seats. (Democracy?) Of course everyone should be represented... but fairly. As for giving power to the people, the power has always and will always remain with government who will endeavour to protect their interests despite voxpops to the contrary eg capital punishment, lenient sentencing, care in the community, agricultural policy, fishing in British waters, to name but a few.
Allan Vining, UK

One problem with PR is that the voter is forced to choose a party rather than a person. This makes political parties stronger than they deserve to be. I prefer to cast my vote based on the beliefs, character, and intelligence of the candidate, not on his party affiliation.
James Castro, USA

Back to top | BBC News Home | BBC Homepage | ©