UK: Proportional Representation or First Past The Post.?

Which will you vote for and why? What are the benefits and drawbacks of each one?
And also: Which parties would gain from a transformation to PR?
I would prefer an increased referendum system combined with PR.

For example, a referendum would own not have allowed mass African, Asian etc immigration.

I am known as mortal against mass immigration but I would accept a majority vote for or against. The immigration fanatics are I believe a tiny minority who enjoy tricked the British into mass immigration by importing immigrants contained by secret, they know they would have lost a referendum to bring millions of Africans/Asians etc into our country.
First Past The Post - benefits: Simple to understand. There is a clear winner at the shutting of it, so when they are in government decision will be made quicker, as they will not have to group up with other party to get a majority. (I know it has happen now, with the Con-Lib coalition, but this would be a regular experience under proportional representation). Drawbacks - Not representative of the population who has voted for the carnival. You only need to win surrounded by your constituency to win a seat. This could mean a percentage of speak 30% would win you a seat for example. 20% of people who voted for the second largest delegation would be disregarded.

PR - Benefits - More Representative of all parties. Liberal Democrats would benefit, as they other seem to get a superior percentage of the vote than what is shown by the number of seats they gain/hold. Therefore some might say it is more democratic as it is representing the view of more people. Disadvantages: Very difficult for any party to procure an overall majority in westminster, which leads to party grouping together and backing down on some of their policy plans. Makes politics more homogeneous.

Hope this helps. Source(s): Politics student. First previous the post, probably.

I'd prefer neither - whichever part gets most votes should be 'in' completely, in both central and local senate.

When a local government is run by 'the opposition', there are arguments and blame both ways for everything that go wrong, high council tax, poor services, you entitle it.

If only one party have any influence for the duration of a government, they have no excuse and not a soul else to blame if they mess up, and no one else to take credit if they handle to get it right.
I would vote for PR.

I'm not going to explain why as I think the previous answers' slot on 'positives for PR' answered it for me.

And in the referendum next year I will vote for AV. It's not PR but it's a start and slightly fairer than FPTP.
Ha; intuitively I think first past the post is polite enough, simple enough, and it keep the nutters out. See what happens when you have PR decide everything? Two BNP EU MP's. Which I'm sure they're still claiming wasn't a protest vote.

Something I imagine a lot of individuals are going to agree with; which is going to give Nick Clegg's flagship policy a bit of a shock when he get his referendum foisted on us all.
I think PR would lead to indecisiveness and eventually the establishment of more committees wasting time and money whilst the nation struggles. I would close to to see more evenly balanced constituencies with something resembling the same amount of voters in respectively one.
There is nil so fundamentally wrong with first past the post that I can see.

Related Questions: