We, the public, are simply not used to them. The politicians from the two big parties, and the press that support them, don't like them because they prefer to be sole party in power.

Also I have the feeling (but no real knowledge) that parliamentary systems here are really built for single parties. Britain has been a de facto two party democracy for much of its history. Even before the modern political parties were formed, parliament consisted of the Government and the Opposition

Canada has a mirror of the English system of government (Westminster Parliamentary system). Our government has been operating with a "hung parliament" (we call it a minority government) since 2004 and things have been fine. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives have led the government. It's actually kind of a good thing because it forces the leading party to consider ideas from other parties while crafting legislation. With a majority, a government can rule how it wants for 5 years.

The other thing is, the leading party doesn't necessarily have to join with one single party to govern (ie: a coalition). They can draw votes from different parties for different legislation, as long as they have a majority of the votes.

One other thing, it makes politics a lot more exciting because a snap election can be called at a moment's notice if the government loses the confidence of the house (by simply being defeated in a non-confidence motion or having a majority of the house vote against the government on an important piece of fiscal legislation like the budget or the Speech From the Throne).

I'm certainly not horrified by the prospect of a hung parliament, but the things you say here are exactly why the main parties are so terrified of the idea. For a Lib dem like myself though it represents the first opportunity to wield real influence for decades, and in our wildest dreams might even create a move towards proportional representation... Are people largely happy with first past the post in Canada?

Also, hung parliament doesn't necessarily mean a minority government, as a coalition can form a majority

You only have to compare the national vote % to the number of seats (so far) to see how ridiculous the system is for modern politics. Yes, labour and the tories are ahead, but by rather slim percentages - and yet Lib Dems haven't even secured enough seats to form a coalition govt with either party

Con: 291 seats, 36.0% of the vote
Labour: 251 seats, 29.3% of the vote
Liberal Democrat 52 seats, 22.9% of the vote

In this whacko system you can have 49% of the vote and no seats in parliament - think this sounds crazy? In Canada this almost happened some 20 years ago: Conservatives had a quite decent percentage of the votes but ended up with I believe 1 seat in Parliament.....

Yeah, it's nuts. And with the two major parties in britain more or less indistingishable anyway, and with neither having any intention of allowing the duopoly to be threatened, it's no wonder people are largely disillusioned and disengaged with politics here.

have a look at http://www.labservative.com/

I hope people in Canada are not happy with the first past the post system. But, like in Britain, this rarely comes up for debate unless an event occurs which highlights FPTPs extreme shortcomings. The Green Party here receives about 10% of the nationwide vote but has never won a single seat. Yet, a party can win a majority with just over 40% of the vote while the other parties combined represent 60% of the electorate.

The Province of Ontario put together a commission on electoral reform and the commission advised that the province should change to a Mixed Member Proportional system. This question was put to a referendum during the 2007 provincial election:

Which electoral system should Ontario use to elect members to the provincial legislature?

- The existing electoral system (First-Past-the-Post)
- The alternative electoral system proposed by the Citizens’ Assembly (Mixed Member Proportional)

63.1% of people voted to maintain the existing system, mainly because they didn't know anything about MMP and didn't want to change the status quo.

Hopefully the electorate finally realizes we don't have anything close to proportional representation and choose to do something about it because the current system is clearly broken.

I think it's time someone stood up for First Past The Post. I actually like being able to go out and vote for my MP. What I want from democracy is the ability to choose the person who will stand up in parliament and defend my local issues. So what if the third place party with 1 in 5 of national votes don't get many seats? Frankly I don't give a damn. So what if minority parties like the BNP get no seats despite having a few hundred thousand votes? A damned good thing if I'm being honest.

PR may have a place in the house of Lords where it can't do any damage and might actually do some good, but I'll be damned if I'm to give up my right to elect my choice of MP for my area for the sake of appeasing minority parties.

Good point Oct. We do need electoral reform, but to just say that a straight nation-wide PR system would solve everything fails to recognise the fact that a lot of people like the fact that, at present, they directly elect a named person, not a party, to repesent them.

In Canada the minority government (hung Parliament) situation is a little easier. We have 5 parties with enough votes to sustain the conservative government. The main opposition party (The Liberals) are fractured and members are voting against their own legislative proposals.

In the UK there is only 1 other party with enough support to sustain the government.

My own opinion on the ideal government formation is a combination. In Canada we have about 370 seats. Make 270 of those seats tradition first past the post riding seats, riding will get a little bigger but not greatly so. Make the remaining 100 seats on percentage votes. [liberals get 30% of the vote the get an additional 30 seats from a party list]. By convention the leaders would run on the list and not in any individual seat. This would help minor parties get a small presence in the house and be able to demonstrate to Canadians/Britons if they should get a larger presence in subsequent elections.

Joey

There are systems that combine both aspects in various ways, no? In fact, isn't MMP one of these? At present, people vote for an individual, or for a party, according to their inclination, but the system makes no distinction. In MMP, if I understand it correctly, you vote for the individual and the party separately

MMP is actually exactly what Joey described and, like I said above, is the one Ontario tried to implement. Your dead on as well hopsy.

To address the above Ontario election, the proportion part of it was silly. It was a 'top up' system where the list members were only given to parties that got less regular seats then there riding wins. That is why I voted against it would in a way penalize parties that are successful in getting local candidates in.

And to Octavious, it's great that you don't care what the minority has to say, but a good democracy should care. It doesn't mean that the minority is correct, or does it mean their ideas will be implemented.

Conjuring up images of crazy fringe parties getting a say in how the country is run is a way that people against electoral reform try to scare people into maintaining the status quo. Germany and New Zealand both use MMP to elect their representatives and I don't see those countries being over run with radicals.

+1 cujo - using fringe parties as an argument against representation is effectively an argument against democracy. Let's face it, idiots vote in all kinds of idiots year after year in govts the world over, but if you believe in democracy then you have to accept that.

Thanks hopsy. MMP also includes a threshold percentage which means that a party needs to win, say at least 5% of the vote, to be considered viable and able to qualify for list members.

Gordon Brown just said that if Clegg chooses to speak to him about working together, they will discuss electoral reform.

That's encouraging, but Clegg has said he backs the Tories to form a govt :(

@cujo8400
I do indeed care what the minority has to say, which I why I am quite willing to let them have the chance via PR to occupy whatever seats they have coming in the Lords, so they have an even better chance to say it than they enjoy at the moment. But I will not willingly sacrifice my right to vote for my local MP to give them a leg up into the Commons that they have not earned.

@hopsyturvy - its almost as if they agree with democrasy :O

There are major flaws with either system as we've said. The ones that don't tend to get pointed out as much are the issues with PR - most notably lack of accountability. One of the key elements of this election has been the perceived local voting - where people actually got back to voting for their MP to represent them (as the system intended) rather than voting on a national scale.
Where to go from here? Well firstly we have far too many seats! However, I just wonder what would happen if you did cut back? Constituencies would get larger, and as a result the MP would be less closely affiliated with them anyway - would this be a way towards PR in itself.
It is quite telling that through tactical canvasing and targetting the green's now have an MP, but the BNP and UKIP do not - despite having double and triple the number of votes. Now I'm not saying I agree with the BNP, but (as noted earlier in thread) in a democracy everyone's opinion matters.

Contrasting to this, I have heard it argued that were we to move to PR *fewer* people would vote for some of these minor parties, because the do so currently as a protest vote and do not actually want to elect someone with such extreme views

Hm, I see your point - MPs do not always vote along party lines, so people pay attention to how their MP votes as well as what their party promises (and delivers, or not). MMP systems don't do away with the local MPs, but maybe people feel less engages with the 'extra' MPs. What about larger constituencies but multiple MPs per constiuency?

What's it actally like in countries that have PR in place? Anyone have experience of that?

I was expecting

.. a lot more for the BNP, why everybody talk about them since they even are the third more successful party party.

You join the debates, how can you choose MP but on his party or on his face. You can be sure anyway he will vote a different way than you would. Of course you can know his opinion on the general issues etc... but not on stupid laws concerning internet etc...

The BNP are not the third most successful party, Chamois. They haven't won a single seat at this election. And a good thing too. Fucking Nazis.

@Hopsy: That's what happens in the Euro elections.
@Cham/Jam: By seats the BNP remain on 0. However, were the nation entirely PR they would have 12 seats and would be the 5th party in British politics. Indeed, I would exect them to get more than this in a PR government, because currently they do not stand in every seat. (order: Con,Lab,Lib,UKIP,BNP,SNP,Green,misc)

I think that FPTP is a great system, here in America anyway. For federalist states, FPTP is a necessity. I vote for a person to represent the interests of my district. When I go to the polls, I vote for a Senator or Representative that will not only serve the country's interests, but the interests of my state or district as well. By moving to PR, we would lose that form of representation. Since Britain is largely unitary, this isn't so much of an issue, but I still don't like the lack of accountability in a PR system. And mixing systems can get highly confusing for voters, most of whom have no idea how government works anyway.