<% ballot="203790" ' 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 %>%

PR will work in that it will allow parties to sort out governments between themselves. PR won't work to provide more democratic power to the people. Parties have already usurped too much power. Technically, we elect individual representatives - the party label is only an adjective (and wasn't even on the ballot paper until recently). PR tries to accommodate widely diverse opinion. Democracy (rule by everyone) can only deliver satisfaction when we come together in consensus. PR is thus fundamentally undemocratic - the majority of people are almost always dissatisfied, one way or the other. We need a system that forces us to come together in the middle ground (while allowing free speech for minority views to be aired). Of course, if there is an overwhelming consensus, it really doesn't matter what system is used; the same party will still form the government.
The only way to force our representatives to represent US rather than their party activists is to allow us the chance to reject them. At present, one candidate will win no matter how unrepresentative. If we have an extra box for "none of the above" they will have to campaign positively for our support instead of negatively to keep out those less desirable. When victorious candidates actually represent their voters they will, in due course, mould party policy to the centre (majority) consensus. Let's stick with FPTP (with registered abstentions). Keep it simple and let democracy have a chance!
Brian Shaw, England

PR would be a constitutional nightmare! FPTP has led to strong Governments in the past and rarely fails us. Why change a perfectly workable system?
Kevin, Scotland

AV plus is generally a good idea: retains constituency link, increases minority representation, enhances voter choice, every vote counts BUT the second vote will lead to widespread tactical voting: top-up seats will go to the centre party, leaving minorities unrepresented.
Andrew Conway, UK

I agree with the basic findings and proposals from Lord Jenkins. UK voting system at present is not reflective of real support for a political party. It is possible that a member is elected with less than 20% of the votes cast. The elected member must have the confidence of a majority of voters, not only of those who actually vote, this could comprise first, second or third preference but weighted result should be more than 50%. Compulsory voting like Australia may be one answer. Whatever system is adopted to remove the present system's weaknesses will be good for democracy.
Dr. Raj K Jain, Malaysia

The most important consequence of the Jenkins Report is that it has, at the very least, raised the profile of the issue of electoral reform. Electoral systems are not benign creatures: their format directly influences the conduct of politics and the distribution of power in a country.
Neil Smith, England

People misconceive PR as being more democratic than FPTP. In fact, I believe that FPTP is more democratic than PR because it gives the electorate a reasonable chance to vote out a government that it is not satisfied with (1997 General Election being a very good example). PR usually results in the same centre-right coalition being returned to office after every election.
Thaoms Hartwright, UK

Proportion representation is a bad idea. PR gives minority ideas too strong a place in the market place of ideas. Look at Israel, every small party has a place in the parliament even when their ideas are held by an insignificant portion of the population. Convince a significant portion of the public of the validity of your ideas before they are given political power.
Philip Kidder, USA

Why not consider government a sort of national service, with one-sixth of the members chosen at random from those eligible every year. Without party prejudices, each MP would be able to vote to their preference, and, on average, extremists would be balanced out.
John Atkins, Malaysia

PR is an often destabilising electoral system which I feel would have a negative impact on the UK. It would promote greater fragmentation and factionalism than ever imagined in Parliament. It also gives a greater voice to the extremes of the political spectrum - while reducing that of moderation.
Although I do not see the UK as having as many problems with political extremism in government as I do in the US, the potential could be exploited by a move to PR. Also, FPTP is the strongest factor in keeping such extremists in check in the US.
Charlton Barreto, USA (Scotland)

I find the apparent resistance in the Labour party to PR amazing. Do they not know that Labour have never been in power for two consecutive full terms? In the next election, either the Tories will win or Labour will win with a very small majority. Either way, the UK will be on the way to another 20-year Tory government. The idea of PR is (or should be) to prevent long term Tory governments.
Andrew Wright, USA

PR gives voice to the many different views represented in a country much better than the winner-take-all system that is used in this country, a system where two major, nearly identical parties control the agenda and all other groups are marginalized.
S Chase, USA

I believe that our current system has some great features. The local MP is something we should think very carefully before giving up. Minority parties wield too much power under PR. Today's voters are intelligent enough to vote tactically to get their preferred overall outcome, as we saw at the last election, anyway.
Andrew Hunt, England

The British electoral system works incredibly well. Britain enjoys stable government, strong government as well as having representatives directly accountable to the electorate. It is easy to discover who represents you and how to get in touch with them. There is nothing better than a constituency MP who has to represent everyone in their area.
Peter Wallace, Brazil

The opponents of PR always argue that it will produce coalition government - all I can say is that the most successful economy in Europe and one of the most successful in the world - Germany - has had coalition government for years. We would not mind some of their economic success and prosperity, would we?
Kevin Daws, Britain

The AV system is the one used in Australia. On the positive side, it does usually create majority governments, but voting is heavily manipulated by parties offering "How to vote cards". Often it can work against smaller parties - in the last election Pauline Hanson won more preferences than other parties in her seat but was defeated by the larger parties decisions on where to distribute preferences. One other word of warning - it takes up to 2 weeks for the results in some close seats to be finalised!
Mark Dougan, Australia

If it ain't broke don't fix it? Any system which allowed 18 years of disastrous Tory rule, when the majority of people didn't want it needs fixing.
David E Flavell, England

PR is highly inadvisable because by seeking "fair" representation it compromises the abilities of governments to propose and successfully implement a coherent programme of policies. By necessitating post election horse trading following the hung parliament scenarios that inevitably follow from the employment of PR systems, the element of democratic accountability of the government is severely reduced, almost to the extent of being negligible.
Small parties are given a hugely disproportionate level of influence and, since they permanently hold the balance of power, they are almost always in government. In contrast to the shambolic effects of PR, FPTP provides strong, stable governments with the ability to implement the measures they propose in their manifestos. The ability of the electorate to reject an unpopular government can only be guaranteed by FPTP- as such therefore, FPTP is the only system that can realistically keep a government in check and give voters a really genuine choice.
Finally, I feel that the primary purpose of general elections is to elect a government, not to provide representation: as such, FPTP is a system far superior to any form of PR and any attempt to tinker with it should be vigorously resisted in the interests of the nation.
Gareth Bacon, UK

Of course PR will work for the UK. At first sight it looks as though the Jenkin's proposals incorporate the necessary fairness through proportionality whilst maintaining the traditional and important constituency link of British MPs. A further thought: I hope that under the new system that voting results would be available as now within 12 hours of the close of polls - the technology certainly exists to make this possible. If after the count the results are occasionally unclear and politicians have to resort to compromise this just might lead to better government.
A J Langley, UK

In Australia we vote using the single transferable vote for the lower house which gives the minor parties very little chance of winning a seat. Very much like the House of Commons. In our current lower house we only have one independent. In our upper house however we have only six constituencies, one for each state. With 12 members elected for each state. Hence within each state is a proportional voting system. In our upper house we have two minor parties and two independants with the balance of power. The government can only pass legislation if it can get the legislation through the upper house. This has created the stupid situation we have at the moment where the government, having just being elected on a policy of implementing a VAT system, claiming a mandate. While in the upper house the minor parties, having just been elected on a policy of opposing a VAT, claiming they have a mandate to block the legislation. We are not helping ourselves by having two houses of parliament with equal power. Nor are we helping ourselves by having such a complicated voting system. I would say the a true proportional system is the only fair system in principle but a first past the post system is the only fair system in reality.
Ben Corby, Australia

Britain prides itself in having stable government with a stable democracy. PR will potentially cause much instability. Sixty million people have 60 million views. You can't cater to all of them. Look around the world at governments who are saddled with PR. Does Britain really want to sink to their levels?
Ray Marsh, Australia

If you want to reform your electoral system, why not do it properly? I suggest that the things an electoral system should do are: (1) give parties seats in roughly the same proportions as the votes they attract; (2) have MPs attached to particular places; and (3) let voters have a say in who represents them from a particular party rather than giving all the power to the party. FPTP fails badly on (1) and (3); PR fails badly on (2) and (3). The system that provides a reasonable compromise is the Hare-Clark system. There is a description at http://www.electoral.tas.gov.au/pages/infohareclark.html
It uses preferential voting in multi-member electorates - five to seven members works well. In a refinement called the "Robson rotation", ballot papers are printed with party lists in random order, and names within each list in random order. It means that parties cannot dictate the order in which their candidates will be elected. This is used in Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT).
James Graham, Australia

The present FPTP system, which leaves a significant section of the electorate under-represented, badly needs change. Various forms of PR exist (eg, ths single transferable vote) which would maintain the single-member constituency and avoid the excessive political fragmentation associated with "pure" PR. The current Government (for which I voted) would be ill-advised to backpedal on this issue.
Prof G W Irvin, Netherlands

Why do governments need majorities? All that does is let them force through their plans by leaning on the people they 'own'. Provided the people in the government are sensible surely they can work through compromise? Or is that asking too much from politicians?
S Bleasdale, UK

I think that the Jenkins scheme could work well for elections in the UK. It would certainly be a huge improvement on the current system. However, I am concerned that it will not remove safe seats (which means that many voters are just taken for granted) and means that there would be six electoral systems operating in the UK: FPTP for local elections in England, Wales and Scotland, STV for local and euro-elections in Northern Ireland, AMS for the Welsh Assembly, Scottish Parliament and London Assembly, SV for the London Mayor, party lists for the Euro-elections on mainland Britain, and the new AV Top up system for Westminster elections. In my view, STV should be used for all of these elections. I support Jenkins as the best option available. It will be down to Tony Blair to deliver on his promises and give us a referendum before the next election now.
Gordon Woods UK

PR won't change anything, rather it will strengthen party politics. Individual MPs who want to stand out will not be able to get on party lists and we shall all suffer for that.
A Fisher, UK

PR is too much of a compromise. It leads to weak coalition governments, as is the case in other countries. Although the kind of PR recommended in the report would mean keeping a constituency MP the link between the individual constituencies and parliament would suffer. This would have a detrimental effect on the representation of local communities and issues at a national level in the House of Commons.
John Leyden, UK

I'm an x-pat and registered overseas voter. I think that AV. would be best without the plus element.
Martin Irish, USA

PR is a system that just gives the balance of power to the minority parties. It has been tried throughout the world and failed abysmally. New Zealand has recently implemented a form of PR and the chaos that has arisen since should just deter anybody from thinking this is an acceptable way to elect governments.
M J, New Zealand

The problem with most PR systems is that the representatives elected from a "top-up" list or some similar scheme are more likely to represent the leadership of the party than any group of citizens. Also, parties are more likely to try to achieve some sort of politically correct goal (e.g. quotas for women) than selecting the best candidates. I do believe STV could be an improvement, as voters can still vote for their true first choice, even if that candidate is from a very small party. Also, as the Australian system shows, the process of developing preference lists can become a de-facto form of coalition, but without the divisiveness of forming coalitions after the election. I believe we should consider STV here in the States, as people tend to only look at candidates of the two major parties, believing that voting for a third party candidate is "wasting their vote", and being two willing to just settle for the candidate they dislike the least rather than supporting a minor-party candidate they truly support.
Craig DeBlock, USA

FPTP can lead to extremely weak governments. India is an excellent example of the system neither producing a clear result or one bearing much relationship to the votes cast. Meanwhile Italy using a list system overtook Britain and had in fact fairly stable government (the Christian Democrats were in government for 520 consecutive months). Most of the changes of government were roughly equivalent to a reshuffle.
Brett Dunbar, Wales

It is disappointing to see such a limited scope for debate. What about retaining single member electorates and giving minority parties more influence through a preferential single transferable voting method?
Justin Italiano, Australia

The question really should be "do you believe in democracy or not?". I'm 32 and have voted in every election that I have been able to as I believe it is a privilege. Unfortunately, in all the years I have been voting, in all the elections I have cast my vote, not once has my vote actually counted for anything. Not because my political allegiance is extreme or unpopular but because I have always lived in constituencies where more people (not the majority either) have held a different opinion. As far as my personal experience in the UK is concerned, I have never experienced democracy. When voting in national elections I have no voice because my vote is only representative of a local, significant minority. Those who argue against PR would have us believe it brings weak government and instability, rolling out Italy as a prime example. Whilst I think this is a flawed argument, Germany is clear proof of PR working well, I also think it shows a lack of faith in the democratic process. To argue that strong government is all that we really want or need is to argue that we don't need democracy at all. Democracy is about allowing the people to have a voice and play a part in determining their own government. In the UK today that simply doesn't exist.
Chris McGeachin, UK

This system could work. It's not surprising to see the Tories against it, a fair voting system-god forbid.
M Ridcully, UK

Keep the most respected electoral system in the world. This government is intent on changing everything that doesn't need changing!
Adam Hamlington, England

Reason: PR is a fudge, taking real choice away from the voters in favour of murky compromise-politics, as is the case in Belgium for far too long.
Christopher Deisser, Belgium

It's difficult to say if PR will work. It will not necessarily mean more seats for the Lib Dems as people will vote differently under a different voting system. We see that in by-elections and in the US voters cast their votes so that Congress and the Senate are controlled by different parties. One thing is clear though lots of voters will not understand it!
Simon G, UK

If PR gives the regions like Wales a bigger say in our own affairs as well as preventing another repeat of conservative rule of which we have decidedly not endorsed then this system will have proven it's worth. The only danger is the unpredicability of the system in that coalition governments may be difficult to form and maintain giving rise to a fluctuating political scene which may prove detrimental to Britain's future prosperity.
Richard Corless, Wales

First Past The Post is the only system which truly represents democracy on a local level. Rural areas, ethinic communities, industrial heartlands- all rely on their local MP to represent their local interests.
Andrew Oakley, UK

PR - look at Italy. Weak, ineffective government with partnerships between parties. Every year the government is overturned and elections have to be held. It does not work in there country so why risk ours. If this were a business the idea of introducing a system which has failed in other businesses would have the directors out on there ear but our leaders are stlii considering it. In the '80's PR was championed by old Labour because it was the only way they could think of to get rid of Mrs. Thatcher. Labour are in now and there is no real urgency to push it forward. We are living in the most stable democracy in the world, why fix it if it ain't broke? Last election I did not get the MP that I voted for but I don't mind because the will of the people has been reflected. Oh - and we have a hard enough time getting people out to vote when all they have to do is mark a (x) in the box, god help us if we need to use numbers as well
Ron Kane, UK

It'll work, providing enough people understand it - it is much more complicated than the current system, and may deter voters. But, on the whole, it is surely more democratic if the parties are represented on a demographic rather than geographic basis - people not constituencies.
Robert Marriott, UK

It really needs to be single transferable vote - NOT party lists, which take power from the people and from MPs. STV would give more power to back benchers to do what they believe is right.
Roger Stone, England

Adolf Hitler was elected by PR. In itself some justification for not allowing the system here. More significantly, it frequently fails to provide a government able to pass necessary, but unpopular legislation, while giving disproportionate influence to minority and single issue parties.
Andrew Fanner, UK

Hard to say that first-past-the-post gives power to the people when most people don't live in marginal constituencies and most people don't "swing" in their voting patterns from one major party to the other. PR systems give ALL voters real choices among parties across the spectrum. And if they don't like coalitions that form after an elections, they have real choices in the next election to show what they want.
Rob Richie, USA

A system that can give any government a huge majority in Parliament to pass anything it wishes with little chance of opposition yet based on a minority of the electorate (about 45%) should be replaced.
Leigh Bowden, UK

I wonder why after living here for 41 years, I still have to swear allegiance to the Queen in order to vote in a General Election. This is especially illogical as I can vote in ANY other election!
Dirk Koopman, UK

Yes, as long as there is a high degree of public knowledge and it eliminates the 'safe' seats.
Davy Simpson, England

Proportional representation distances voters from the politicians. Instead of voting for one candidate you know you vote for a whole list. It is not possible to feel that you have an individual MP who will represent you when in need. Once the election results are known then everyone goes off for weeks on end to iron out some policies. With all the comprises the end product bears no resemblance to the original proposals put to voters. As it is difficult to really swing votes MP's hardly ever change and one is lumbered with the usual party faithful whether they are good or not.
M J Smith, Belgium

In the UK we have benefited from strong and decisive government. A better proposal would be to reduce the amount of 'damage' a party can do by reducing the time between elections to 3 or 4 years. Unfortunately the candidates currently do not encourage ou to vote for them, they want you to vote for the party. It would be nice to know what PPC believed in rather than if they.
James Barwell, New Zealand

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The FPTP method has shown itself to have a wisdom that defies intellectual analysis. The balances of power and minority governments when warranted have served the people well. Muck about with it by introducing PR and shifts will happen that you might regret. had learnt the manifesto. Alf Nathan Wales I think we need some measure at least of PR to encourage new ideas and competition, there is very little difference between the Labour and Conservative parties these days, I feel PR would bring a certain amount of new blood into British politics.
Barrie Martindale, Canada

PR is a fudge, taking real choice away from the voters in favour of murky compromise politics, as is the case in Belgium for far too long.
Christopher Deisser, Belgium

The New Zealand experience should be taken on board by anyone wanting PR. Also the difficulties of obtaining consensus on any subject should be well known - eg Italy a few years ago.
Eric Bowers, UK

We already have an adequate electoral system. Why waste time / money and cause confusion with a new system?
Matthew Torkington UK

FPTP in England has produced a succession of governments that were elected by a minority of the votes but which have such large majorities and such powerful whips that the PM and cabinet can do whatever they want unchecked for 5 years. PR - even if it produces coalitions - should keep successive governments' policies nearer the middle of the bell curve of the public's range of opinions, rather than lurching from one extreme to the other under FPTP.
Andy Rooney, UK

After 18 years of rule by a political party not obtaining a clear majority of votes how can we not move to PR? First past the post leads to too many wasted votes. What we need though, is to get over centrally chosen candidates (no, no) and we need to have our locally-based representatives. Should be a good debate for tearing the Labour Party to shreds. As a member for thirty years I expect there to be some hefty battles ahead.
Mary Cane, UK

PR empowers by making our representatives more representative. I would rather that parties work together openly to achieve the best for the country rather than being driven by the tiny fraction of "swing" voters in a limited number of marginal seats. I would prefer to see a system based on the Single Transferable Vote, but the Jenkins proposal is a step in the right direction. It gives voters the power to decide their order of preference between candidates, so we can vote honestly, rather than being forced to vote tactically by an electoral system which is no more than an outdated historical accident, increasingly incapable of delivering meaningful representation in a modern, pluralist society. I welcome the report, look forward to a referendum - the sooner the better. I am optimistic that we can achieve an important improvement to our democracy, seeing off the political dinosaurs of both right and left who oppose change on the grounds of self-interest masquerading as a belief that strong government is somehow equivalent to majority power on a minority of the vote.
Ian O'Neill, UK

PR is just a professional politician's stitch-up! The parties get to choose who is "elected", and then they haggle about which of their manifesto "commitments" they will actually attempt to implement. The AV-plus system is inherently unfair to independent candidates who can't, by definition, get on a party list. The whole thing is too complicated for a lot of the electorate, including me! If anyone reading this thinks they understand it perhaps they could explain how a by-election for a second-tier MP would work!
Mark Parker, UK

PR has been a disaster wherever it has been tried - New Zealand, Israel, etc. So why bother bringing it over here? The only reason is that the Liberals want more seats, yet it'll also mean that parties like the NF/BNP (and other unsavoury elements) will also get a seat in parliament. Do we really want to see it in such an undignified fashion? After all it's bad enough as it is!!!!
Andy T, UK

The Jenkins proposals are little more than an attempt to gerrymander the electoral system to benefit left of centre parties in the UK. If the proposals are implemented, the major change will be that the Lib Dems will still come third in national elections but they will determine who the government will be.
Paul Jemetta, UK

The AV+ system that has been recommended could work, and has the potential to provide a more representative parliament. But this depends on the voters understanding the system so that they can make real tactical choices and also on there being a choice of parties available. An alternative vote system cannot work unless people have enough minority party candidates available to them to avoid casting their alternative vote for a party they wish to vote against. In other words there needs to be enough choice to allow a Conservative supporter to cast their alternate vote for a party other than Labour or the Lib Dems. If this choice is not there the current party situation will remain (with slight Lib Dem gains).
Richard, UK

Anything must be better than the first past the post system. Look at 18 years of Conservative rule in Scotland with a minority of Conservative MPs.
Alastair McGrath, Scotland

Of course it'll work for Britain, if that's what the voters want. It works in other countries, so it would work here.
Phil Hunt, UK

Does it work anywhere?
Tony Wills, UK

The drop in turnout over recent years has shown the need to reform the voting system. People need to feel that their individual vote counts and is not "wasted."
Peter, UK

The proposed system that means that only 15-20% of MPs would be elected proportionally should help to assuage some of the criticism. I think that the outcome of elections under this system would be much fairer and would help to ensure that significant minorities are fairly represented and that some new parties can start to break through. It is a shame that some people will try to fight change because it suits them to protect the status quo or they say that PR is too complicated for people to understand. If this is the case, how come PR systems have worked perfectly well in most advanced democracies for many years. I hope that Tony Blair will bite the bullet and recommend acceptance in a referendum during this parliament.
Barry Tregear, England

It will work, but only as much as the existing system works. Any system has advantages and disadvantages. PR systems often give centre parties extra power because they are usually the third biggest and are called upon by one of the others to form a coalition.
Keith Lomax, UK

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