Hi all,

I’ve been thinking about the pros and cons of proportional representation (PR) versus first-past-the-post (FPTP) systems, and one issue keeps coming up that I’d like to get your perspective on.

In large countries where populations are concentrated in a few big cities, PR systems can weaken the direct link between voters and a single local representative. Unlike FPTP, where each constituency elects one MP who directly represents that community.

FPTP allows voters to elect an MP who is accountable to their specific community and can be voted out if they don’t perform well. This local accountability and clear geographic representation seems as a major advantage.

So my question to the Fair Vote community is: how do you weigh this trade-off? Is the potential weakening of local representation in PR an acceptable downside given the gains in proportionality and inclusiveness? Or do you think there are ways to design PR systems that preserve strong local representation while also improving proportionality?

Would love to hear your thoughts and any examples or experiences you might share.

Thanks!

  • observantTrapezium@lemmy.ca
    3·
    12 days ago

    This might be a good compromise: https://www.fairvote.ca/rural-urban-proportional/

    Here in downtown Toronto, ridings are tiny (in terms of area) and the borders are pretty arbitrary, with people on the same street sometimes represented by different MPs and MPPs. It’s honestly a bit ridiculous, myself and two friends who live within a couple of minutes walk have two MPPs and three MPs! (Federal and provincial borders are different this year) I’d really be much happier if the whole city becomes one multi-member riding. With Rural-Urban Proportional, rural areas keep local representation kinda like now (FPTP) but get the benefits of proportionality from the regional top-up. I think it’s a reasonable, if not perfect.