What PR would have given

Germany has three fairly large parties, so no matter what the election result, a combination of two of them can usually be guaranteed a majority. Occasionally they have brought a smaller party in, but usually it is not necessary because When a government consists of two big parties they are more or less on an equal basis in the colalition

In 2010 when the Liberal joined coalition with the Conservatives toform the government, because there were only 42 LD's, their clout was limited. They were thrown a few scraps and then just seen as voting fodder.

In 2010 the Liberal Democrats won 23% of the vote which should have resulted in 150 seats under PR. Under FPTP only 57 were elected ( not 42 but still far too few)

The composition of German coalitions since 1949 is quite interesting:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Federal_Republic_of_Germany_governments

Merkel's current government is a coalition between the CDU/CSU (conservatives) and the SPD, which is a social democratic party broadly similar to the right wing of the Labour Party.

Coalitions have given Germany a remarkable amount of strength and stability (take note Mrs M ).

Here is a projection of the votes for each party under PR. Obviously there is a fair amount of speculation regarding the system used but it does show how much more evenly seats would have been allocated and the possibilities of various coalitions.

www.indy100.com/article/uk-election-map-proportional-representation-system-2017-conservative-labour-7784956

That would give the LibDems another headache Varian.

There is no way a PR result can be postulated for this election, as PR systems differ from each other.

Luckygirl what you say is right because under PR people would vote differently. However the only figures we have as those from the general election. Those show just how unfair FPTP is to all parties except the Conservatives. A pure PR system is probably not right for the UK because of regional parties like the SNP, Plaid Cymru, DUP etc. We would need separate PR areas for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. There does need to be a means of allocating MP's to areas other than FPTP. This is possible with a little thought.

The bottom line is that FPTP is totally undemocratic.

How come so many of us can agree that is true but can't see a way to get rid of FPTP?

I am really undecided about fptp, I can see that is stops people voting with their true intentions but it does deliver a local, accountable elected representative. It also delivers clear leadership most of the time, but is that a good thing? If we had another system then who would govern at local level?

I voted for AV when it was floored.

Something needs to change but what?

If we had another system then who would govern at local level?

Why would having PR make any difference at local level? Local government is not tied to national government.

No, but we elect an MP, who represents us in parliament, theoretically.

The system I would like would keep election in NI, Scotland and Wales separate from England. Reduce the number of constituencies by 30%. Each larger constituency to have an MP elected on a FPTP basis. But each ballot to show all national parties some with no actual candidate in particular areas. After the vote added up everything vote for each party in all constituencies in each of the 4 areas.

Then work out how many seats each party would have got under a total PR system, subtract the number attained by the FPTP vote to give a figure of the number make up members for each party. Where a party already has more than their PR share the other parties have their make up quotas raised pro-rata to make up numbers. Then each party has a number of make up candidates. Finally select the make up members from the top loosers in the main ballot.