Calls for Proportional Representation are like the old U.S. slogan "no taxation without representation". it is just in line with the "sense of fair play" that the British once prided themselves on as possessing.
The U.S. insurrectionists/patriots were not demanding power but merely representation -- although power would naturally follow if numbers were enough.
STV Action on facebook makes something like the same point in "Make votes matter..." (Jan 2, 2018).
Its criticism of our non-proportional voting system strengthens calls for any form of PR.
"Make votes matter..." says "It’s not only that so many votes don’t matter in the sense that they don’t contribute to the election of an MP or the choice of Government.
It also makes these problems: "Under the present system used to elect the HofC in the UK [and used in Canada to elect all legislators], Many voters are “represented” by MPs they didn’t vote for. Even in a very safe seat, where 70% voted for the winner, a large minority (30%) of voters are not represented by someone with political views like their own. In N E Fife, more than two-thirds of voters voted against the winner, who now “represents” them!"
(Canadian examples from the 2019 federal election include ridings scattered across the country:
Egmont (PEI) where 60 percent of voters voted against the winner, who now “represents” them!
Cape Breton (Nova Scotia) where 61 percent of voters voted against the winner, who now “represents” them!
Cumberland-Colchester (Nova Scotia) where 63 percent of voters voted against the winner, who now “represents” them!
Sydney-Victoria (Nova Scotia) where an astounding 69 percent of voters voted against the winner, who now “represents” them!
Fredericton New Brunswick where 66 percent of voters voted against the winner, who now “represents” them!
Rimouski..., Quebec where 62 percent of voters voted against the winner, who now “represents” them!!
Beauport..., Quebec where almost 70 percent of voters voted against the winner, who now “represents” them!
Bay of Quinte, Ontario where 61 percent of voters voted against the winner, who now “represents” them!
Niagara Fall, Ontario where 65 percent of voters voted against the winner, who now “represents” them!
Charleswood, Manitoba where 59 percent of voters voted against the winner, who now “represents” them!
Desnethe, Saskatchewan where 58 percent of voters voted against the winner, who now “represents” them!
Edmonton Centre, Alberta where 59 percent of voters voted against the winner, who now “represents” them!
Skeena BC where 59 percent of voters voted against the winner, who now “represents” them!
South Okanagan, BC where 64 percent of voters voted against the winner, who now “represents” them!
Burnaby North, BC where more than 64 percent of voters voted against the winner, who now “represents” them!
Coquitlam, BC where more than 65 percent of voters voted against the winner, who now “represents” them!
Port Moody, BC where more than 69 percent of voters voted against the winner, who now “represents” them!
NWT where 60 percent of voters voted against the winner, who now “represents” them!
Yukon where more than 66 percent of voters voted against the winner, who now “represents” them!
As well, "Make Votes Matter.." points to these effects of using a non-proportional system: • "the party leaders, workers and funds are concentrated mainly on marginal constituencies. Only the opinions of voters in marginal constituencies matter. The rest of us don’t count. • Even in a marginal constituency, there is a very limited choice of candidates; usually the one candidate the Conservative Party selected and the one candidate the Labour Party selected, although some supporters may have preferred a woman to a man (or vice versa) or a candidate from a different wing of the party. • It’s impossible to vote against a particular candidate (e.g a bad constituency MP or one with different views from one’s own on a non-party issue) without also voting against the party. [this is because in single-seat district each party just runs one candidate. for one thing there is no reason to do, as there is only one seat to win, and for another it would split the vote. • Constituents have only one MP to approach with their problems. They either approach that one or no-one. Tory voters have to approach Labour MPs, Remain voters have to approach Brexit MPs, women have to approach male MPs and so on." "Make votes matter..." (STV Action) goes on to say "It doesn’t have to be like this: • If you merge a few constituencies (say, five) together and elect five MPs together, voters have a choice of which to approach with their problems. [this is benefit of any PR system that uses multi-member districts or regions.] • If those five MPs are elected by a party proportional voting system, they will come from more than one party, so most voters should be able to identify with at least one of them and approach that one with any problems." [again, this is benefit of any PR system that uses multi-member districts or regions.] =============
PR systems with open-list (no party list) give more liberty to votes. party slates with multiple candidates let voters vote against a particular candidate without voting against the party, and to vote for a party and still have a choice of the specific candidate. thus the same voting that produces proportionality of representation may lead to more choice to voters, higher satisfaction and usually higher voter turn-out.
Thanks for reading.
===============================
Comments