One only has to look at the EU Parliament or continental parliaments to see how PR can be abused by political insiders to effectively insulate them from the people they are supposed to represent. The list-system is particularly dangerous in effectively protecting the senior politicians who set the political agenda for their party from being replaced through the ballot box.

Personally I think two steps have been responsible for the degraded state of our democracy in Britain, both of which were ironically introduced to in the name of democracy.

1. The first mistake was to transfer the executive power of the monarch to the leader of the majority in the House of Commons, a step which destroyed the separation of executive and legislative power in this country. This step increased the powers of the Whip who can deny British MPs “promotion” to executive office in the cabinet, a position which legislators would be barred from in presidential democracies. It would have been better if the British monarchy had been replaced by an elected executive separate from parliament such that parliament could really hold the government to account rather than being its tool.

2. The second retrograde step was Lloyd George’s decision to downgrade the power of the Lords by replacing its power to amend with the lesser power of delay. This again effectively increased the power of the leader of the majority in the Commons. It would have been better to leave the amending power of the 2nd chamber in place but elect that body instead.

The reform I would like to see today would be to elect the House of Lords, perhaps two-years after the Commons by a first-past-the-post system. In order for our 2nd-chamber to truly function as the "anchor of democracy" an elected Lords should have reinforced power to ratify international treaties, amend/block (and not merely delay) legislation introduced in the Commons that has not appeared in the manifesto of the party commanding the majority there, and the power to amend/block (and not uselessly scrutinise) draft EU legislation, in partnership with the 2nd chambers of the legislatures of other EU member-states.

Personally, I'm in favour or totting up all the votes in the general election and using these to assign seats in a 2nd chamber.

The 1st chamber is then to produce legislation, the 2nd chamber can then approve it. But, it should have to take a majority in the 2nd chamber to send back legslation after (say) 3 reviews. There should be no ability to force stuff through the 2nd chamber.

I think that would produce a working primary chamber that can produce legislation, but the 2nd chamber would have to form a large block to stop legislation.

IANACL (I am not a constutional lawyer)

We humourless, stodgy, decadent, soft, condescending people are in a total muddle. Parliament is being bypassed every day. Look on the TV – the Commons is always empty. The Ministers rarely turn up. Votes are fiddled by the Whips

If every vote counts in the FPTP system why do politicians make far more effort in 'marginals'?

Easy, because their vote really does count – unlike many other constituencies where the incumbent is in a 'safe' seat.

I really don't see why the association between MP and voter is so important to you. I'm sure you would put in as much effort to a constituent who didn't vote for you should your assistance be required.

The most important thing in a democracy is that it reflects the wishes of the majority. The current system does not, in any shape or form, reflect the majority wish at a national level.

Far more people voted against a Labour government in 2005 yet we are saddled with, not only a Labour government, but one with a sizeable majority. That is why an FPTP vote invariably doesn't count.

Anyway, thanks again for your reply.

Reply: PR means a movement to extremes, and a conspiracy by the political parties against the electors. Politicians make the decisions after the election, ditching their promises and forming unlikely coalitions. Parties control candidates, and electors find it difficult to get a representative to take them seriously.

Reply: Every vote does count in a First Past the Post system, and counts fairly if each constituency has the same number of voters. It preserves the link between MP and electors which is broken badly if you have Top up lists or the like, which transfers power from voters to political parties.

By "some PR systems" do you include the one we are using for London?

How do Lib Dems get to vote twice? Did the totals for Ken or Boris go up by two every time a Lib Dem voted?

This time round, it was clear that either Ken or Boris was going to win. The 2nd preference system means that every Londoner can both a) vote for the party they most want to win, and b) also choose which of Ken or Boris they would prefer. Allowing a) gives you a good view of the political understandings and concerns of Londoners – which I hope would be useful data to any politician. But in order to get the final result acceptable to the greatest number of Londoners, you want as many people to do b) as possible.

A single vote system would force people to choose between doing a) and doing b). So the logic of your position, in arguing for a single vote, if you accept that the only way people can influence the outcome is by saying which of Ken or Boris they prefer (i.e. b), is that no-one should ever vote for anyone apart from the Conservatives or Labour. As a Conservative politician, I can see why you would want to argue that, but I'm not sure it's the best thing for a healthy democracy.

Gerv

Reply: I think it wrong that a minority get two votes whereas the majority only get the one effective vote in the London mayoral system. As a Conservative I accept that there are places and contests where my party is not in the top two (e.g. Scottish/Welsh elections in Labour/Nationalist areas). I don't see why Conservatives should there have two votes. It is our job to become mroe popular there, or recognise we are not what that part of the public wants.