They're not officially tied to leadership but when it comes down to it I would say a large amount of people (possibly a majority) vote based on who they do or don't want as the Prime Minister rather than who to represent them in parliament.

Though as you say, a separately elected leader could easily result in the winner not being from the same party as the major party in the commons.

A local/regional/county form of PR would definitely be the best option. A national list would totally ruin any idea of local representation. Possibly split into lists of 20 or 30 MPs per region. This would definitely result in UKIP MPs and quite possibly BNP MPs which I wouldn't like, but that would be democracy in action. If people want these parties elected they should be.

I think your issue with parties you'd like to support not standing would definitely change if a form of PR came in. If for example a 30 MP list system came in per region they wouldn't need to put 30 candidates forward, just a couple to make sure that if they did get enough votes to win a seat or two they'd secure them fine. It could easily mean a small party puts forward a candidate per region and wins a couple of seats rather than 650 candidates and winning nothing.

Going off the 2010 election a national straight PR system would have given these results in MPs (2010 actual result):

Conservative -234 (306)
Labour - 188 (258)
Lib Dem - 150 (57)
UKIP - 20 (0)
BNP - 12 (0)
Green - 6 (1)
SNP - 11 (6)

I always knew the Lib Dems got screwed with FPTP but I didn't realise they did so well in 2010 in terms of popular vote.

I tried to edit that post but Beehive is giving an error.

Forgot to add, with PR we'd be pretty much guaranteed a hung parliament and coalitions.

By not tied to leadership I mean we don't have to hold an election for a change of leadership. If a leader is ineffective, then the party can ditch her/him and and carry on. The party is more important than the leader (as it should be).

Of course some people will based on personality, that's inevitable and fine. But a presidential system makes that the only criterion and, well, just has no up-side.

I wouldn't want regional PR (depending on what you mean). I don't vote for who I want to represent my locality (I don't think that has any meaning any more, tbh). I vote for who I want to run the country and I think that's how it should be. I think everyone should vote, with no constituencies, for the party that they think should run the country and then a best-fit statistical model should be created and managed (by an independent body) which divides the country up into islands of voting-tendancy and fits the available MPs to those islands. Which is not an insoluable problem these days.

I don't think a PR system would've resulted in those numbers in the last election - people would've voted very differently knowing it was PR. But yeah, you're just illustrating that FPTP favours the big parties as it does of course.

I don't mind coalitions. I only mind when they result in my vote becoming the diametrical opposite of what I voted for :C

*of course some people will vote

(can't edit either)

I just calculated votes per party/(total votes/MPs) so it was just a crude calculation.

It could mean people voting more so for smaller parties because they know their vote is worth more.

As for a local PR system I mean split the country up into maybe 20 or 30 MP sized regions and each region votes based on a list put forward by parties for that region. I'd rather that than a national PR system where MPs are then allocated regions after election. Saying that, it's not like there's as many MPs as there used to be who are actually from their constituency so many people aren't really locally represented anyway these days.

I hate the very concept of party lists. I don't like political parties much to start with, and having a bunch of un-elected MPs in the House who are inevitably party hacks who probably couldn't get elected otherwise, accountable to the party only grates so much. Which is why I prefer STV - at least then everyone is elected outright. 

I read that post with my mouth open in genuine shock, I had no idea anyone could/would think like that

I tend towards the party that represents my position as best as possible, but the leader makes a HUGE difference - for me and everyone I've ever talked with about things like this

Take Blair, I would NOT have voted for any party led by him, it wouldn't have mattered if it was Lab, Tory, Lib-Dem, Green, or the "give Jon £1M a year" party. I knew the guy was a liar and a con-man from day one.

There's only one party that counts: M-O-N-E-Y. The rest is window dressing.

Is that not immensely selfish?

Wait, no, I misunderstood. You meant it in the sense of 'aligns with my views' rather than (necessarily) 'makes things better for me'.

I don't think I voted for Blair, I think I've pretty much always voted Lib Dem. But if the choice were between warmongering Blair and backstabbing Clegg, I'd probably choose Blair. Not sure what that says about me -_-

I probably would've voted for Blair before the war stuff though. I don't believe he did much bad (compared to other PMs) besides the war (though that was of course a big deal) and think, that aside, he/the Labour govt. did a lot of good.

Everybody should vote for the party that they think will make things better for them. That way, the party that makes things better for the largest number of people will win.

Of course, I don't believe in altruism (either as a principle or a thing that actually exists).

Yeah, cos fuck minorities.

If you haven't yet, read The Price of Altruism.  It's a very good book about George Price, a theoretical biologist who demonstrated the functional role of altruism within evolutionary theory.  It's a remarkable, tragic story.

I'm increasingly cynical as I get older and as a result, tend to find voting for the biggies a waste of time and generally use my vote as a protest and vote for a minimal party like the Greens or something.

I suppose at the simplest level, I have vague memories of childhood under the conservatives and life being a struggle, then being under Labour and life being a bit easier (only for the economy to go tits up) and then this essentially Conservative government failing to fix it in any meaningful way, although I appreciate the quite hard-line they are taking on benefit cheats and so on.

Colour me undecided I guess, but I have no faith in Labour being able to 'fix' the economy since they're the pillocks who buggered it up in the first place (I know, I know, worldwide problem in all reality, but the Germans aren't doing so bad).

I guess (being a cynic), a lot of people will remember erroneously that life was pretty good under Labour (like using all your pension fund in the first two years to have a whale of a time, and fuck the consequences for the remaining 10+ years of your life), and is kinda crappy under Conservative rule and Labour will likely gain a lot of ground because of this.

I should answer your question really, instead of rambling this way and that...

I generally vote the same in local and general elections, and of late have voted for minority parties as a protest as I have no faith in the biggies. I always vote for the party as opposed to the individual.

Minorities are fucked, though, in a democracy. That's just the way it works. If there's a choice available that will be better for all the minorities, and all the minorities vote that way, then that choice will win. But you can't vote on behalf of other people, because you don't know what they want.

But you can surely vote based on what you feel will be better for the country overall? 

How am I supposed to know what will be best for the country overall? I don't even know what's best for the people next door.

Probably fewer nuns on your garden trampoline.

Probably. And why would I vote for that? It would be madness.

Would naked nuns get your vote?