Discussion Thread: Introduce a proportional voting system for Westminster elections

This is an archived discussion thread for the "Introduce a proportional voting system for Westminster elections" voting page. Voting, and this discussion thread, have now closed.   

drgeoffreymseeff 1 month ago

8 people liked this.
Democracy is as much about minimising the dissatisfaction of the minority as maximising the satisfaction of the majority - particularly where the "majority" can be significantly less than 50%. An effective PR system will ensure decision making that reflects the interests of significant minorities as well as those of the majority. In turn legislation is sustainable, will not require be subject to amendment the moment an opposition party gets a chance and civilians are happy to accept the rule of law (c/f the Poll Tax, which would never have seen light of day under PR). For me that is strong government!.

David Butcher 1 month ago

1 person liked this.
Proportional representation is a fairer more democratic system

Philip Stewart 1 month ago

nickcondon and 32 more liked this.
I am voting for the single transferable vote, not for proportional representation. The latter weakens or destroys the link between MP and constituent and gives disproportionate power and influence to small minorities - witness Israel, where the religious parties have for decades upheld right-wing governments. Proportional representation would give seats in Parliament to the BNP and such-like.

Alan Hall 1 month ago in reply to Philip Stewart
 
nickcondon and 19 more liked this.
The single transferable vote, as in Ireland, is the best form of proportional representation. A minimum quota (say 5% or 10%) of the total poll could be a compulsory requirement for any party to be represented in parliament.
We certainly do not want the party list system as is used at present by England, Scotland and Wales for elections to the European Parliament.

Alan_Rayner 1 month ago in reply to Alan Hall
 
nickcondon and 9 more liked this.
Please do not set a quota for a party.
That would institutionalise them.
Let the voters decide with STV - irrespective of party!

William MacDougall 3 weeks ago in reply to Alan_Rayner 

4 people liked this.
The current first-past-the-post system institutionalises parties, PR would not as there is always the threat of breaking away and starting a new party, a threat not credible under the current system.

Alan_Rayner 3 weeks ago in reply to William MacDougall

3 people liked this.
The first part of the above comment is true. Sadly the second is not as the term PR
means "proportional representation" and the question arises - proportions of what? In
most PR systems the answer is "proportional to support for a PARTY"!

Thus PR institutionalises parties even more than the current system. This is especially
so with systems such as AV+ and AMS and (worst of all) the List systems.

Hence, I find myself voting against proportional representation - even though I regard the
Fair Votes issue to be one of the most important currently facing us.

The Alternative Vote (without the Jenkins Plus!) is a reasonable interim step towards 
Fair Votes - even though it is probably less proportional than FPTP. What it does do
is get the public used to 1,2,3 preference voting AND it introduces the vital concept
of transferability of votes - making the next step easier (but not EASY by any means!).

Alan Rayner

William MacDougall 2 weeks ago in reply to Alan_Rayner

1 person liked this.
Yes PR does mean representation of parties in proportion to votes. But if it is relatively easy to set up a group with distinctive ideas or personalities then the party managers have little power. It is only when that is difficult that they become all powerful.

Andrew Tempest 1 month ago in reply to Alan Hall 

MauriceFrank and 1 more liked this.
STV is not PR.
The LIB Dems support STV because they think they would pick up a lot of second or third preference votes, and therefore get more seats than they would under PR

Ross Stalker 1 month ago in reply to Andrew Tempest
 
2 people liked this.
STV is PR, because it involves multi-member constituencies. I'm not sure what system you're thinking of, but having transfers in the voting system does not make it non-PR. If you want to argue about the merits of transferable voting that's a different issue from PR. There are PR and non-PR versions of transferable voting.

johnniemoore 1 month ago in reply to Andrew Tempest
1 person liked this.
Andrew I don't want to get too technical but what you're describing would be an issue with the Alternative Vote, a transferable vote in single member constituencies. STV is based on multi-member constituencies and would be proportional - that's how it works out in countries that use it. There are subtleties of course as you can't say the number 1 on an order of preference is the exact equivalent of a single X under our current system.

padav 2 weeks ago in reply to Alan Hall

3 people liked this.
• @Flag

I'm a little uncertain about the basis of your motivation in criticising STV as an alternative voting method to FPTP.

From the outset you make a grossly inaccurate statement "Under STV, it is probable that more seats are safe" but in your next comment you appear to warm towards the merits of STV as "the best form of proportional representation"

Under STV it is highly unlikely (unless two member seats are adopted) that any single multi-member constituency across the UK would return a clean slate of candidates from any single party. Therefore in purely practical every single constituency would become marginal to some degree. This factual circumstance flies in the face of your initial, utterly erroneous and misleading statement.

However I concur with your assertion that STV represents "the best form of proportional representation" but this inherent superiority stems in large part from the fact that STV is not primarily a proportional system, rather it belongs to the sub-species better known as "Preferential Voting". STV bequeaths us proportionality as a by-product due to its use of multi-member constituencies. AV does of course belong to the same "Preferential" family but crucially lacks the all important added feature of proportionality simply because it retains single member constituencies.

So if we want real choice and through that choice, an truly empowered electorate, we must first focus on Preference voting as our desired route. If we want fairness in electoral outcomes, Proportionality must be our watchword. Fortunately there is but one system that displays both of these beneficial properties - if common sense and rationality prevails our choice is narrowed to one single outcome it has to be STV!
So the debate itself is flawed from the outset. What we should be discussing are the merits/flaws of non-preferential voting systems against those which are preferential in nature

padav 2 weeks ago in reply to padav
Obviously not quite got the hang of this site yet - my comment refers is in reply to @wh

wh 2 weeks ago in reply to padav
 
1 person liked this.
padav (as I believe you intended to reply to me)

My comments were designed to puncture some of the idealism of STV-supporters in the light of practical experience. I have voted under STV at various times for 30 years. My former idealism about STV has changed radically. There seems to be an assumption that if there are five seats in a constituency, then each major party will put up five candidates - it simply won't happen, unless they already hold four of them comfortably, in which case the other parties will put up one or at most two candidates each.

| From the outset you make a grossly inaccurate statement "Under STV, it is probable that 
| more seats are safe"

Note the use of the word "probable" - my assertion is safer than your suggestion that it is "grossly inaccurate." It also depends what you mean by "safe." In the present environment of the expenses scandal, it may be a disadvantage to be an incumbent (even if clean), but usually it is the high profile sitting members who are safe and the the potential newcomer who will lose out if there aren't enough votes. But, yes there is a chance for Fred Bloggs MP that he will be the one who loses out - technically unsafe but probably safe.

There are pros and cons. Perhaps I will discuss the advantages when I have time. There are other cons as well. I was merely discussing the question of "safe seats".

bill_gedim 1 month ago in reply to Philip Stewart
 
Alan_Rayner and 7 more liked this.
You are absolutely right. But how on earth do we persuade serious campaigners for STV (like the Electoral Reform Society) to stop calling it PR? PR seems inevitably to involve party lists, and to give even more excessive power to the parties. If we ask for PR we risk getting a system as dreadful as that used for the European Parliament. I want full STV, but I'd much rather have simple AV than any system based on party lists.

Alan_Rayner 1 month ago in reply to bill_gedim 

nickcondon and 3 more liked this.
Back in 1880 there was a body called the Proportional Representation Society. It was
a predecessor of the Electroral Reform Society.

Perhaps the answer to the question posed lies in the history of the ERS. It must
have agreed to the name change at some point and perhaps the same principles
as used then could be applied in the current context.

JulianTisi 4 days ago in reply to bill_gedim
Bill - PR is a concept, not a system as such. STV is one method of achieving proportionality and list systems are another method. I agree that the regional closed list system they used for the Euro elections was awful and thankfully no-one is seriously suggesting it for use in general elections. In my opinion STV is the best of systems, giving the most choice to the voter, reducing the power of the party and improving the constituency link by abolishing safe seats and introducing local competitions between the 3 or 4 MP's in a constituency.

Alan_Rayner 1 month ago in reply to Philip Stewart
 
5 people liked this.
The Knesset is whole-country proportional (120 seats in one constituency). No-one is
suggesting that here.

STV in five-member seats gives a threshold of around 15% to gain representation in a
fairly wide area (such as a small county). However, its greatest value is that it gives
the power to the people for them to decide - not only between parties, but also which
candidate within a party.

bill_gedim 1 month ago in reply to Alan_Rayner

3 people liked this.
Better than just "which candidate within a party"! If a party has more candidates than there are seats then the electorate choose between them, even if that party gets 100% of the vote. This is much better than the current call for "primaries" to help the party choose.

Alan_Rayner 1 month ago in reply to bill_gedim

bill_gedim and 6 more liked this.
One of the beauties of STV is that it CAN be used in that way - but it does not need to be!

Currently the Conservative party has a lesser propensity to select women as they need
to choose a SINGLE person in each seat. With STV there is an incentive to maximise
the vote and so it is quite likely that both men and women will be selected (and both
could be elected with around 35% of the vote in a five-seat constituency). However the
choice is up to the voter. Some voters may choose to give top preferences only to women
- irrespective of party - and STV allows their preferences to be expressed. Indeed their
votes may result in electing a woman in preference to a man - it all depends upon the
electors, rather than a party selection committee!

What is more, multiple candidates from one party will not split the vote. They will draw
in more varied support for the party - but will need to persuade their supporters to use
their later preferences as recommended. Other than in "hopeless" seats, it will become
the norm for parties to have two or three candidates in a constituency.

Another important aspect will be to have Conservatives representing inner urban areas
and Labour members representing rural areas. Part of the current malaise is based on
the non-understanding of parts of the UK not well represented by a party. Gone are the
days of Labour members in North Norfolk or Conservatives in Liverpool. There are still
supporters of those parties in those areas - but they are not represented in parliament.
STV has the power to remedy that defect and to bring back a greater comprehension
of the whole country, not just the areas where marginal seats occur.

ellisfield 1 month ago in reply to Philip Stewart
 
nickcondon and 9 more liked this.
PR will not help the BNP - we have the BNP because people do not have a voice under the present system. If under the present system bringing the troops home was your top priority who would you vote for? The main parties are all commited to fighting so you only have the BNP (who have a troops home policy) to vote for. Under PR you would have the option of an old Labour anti war party as the big parties would split down (no need for a broad common policy) and you could influence the directon of each party as (for example) an old labour and new labour candidate could stand for the same seatGerard Harrison 1 month ago

MauriceFrank and 7 more liked this.
Israel is always quoted as an example, (usually by opponents of change), of what happens when using PR. The system used in Israel is just one form of PR and not one I would support.

Ireland has multi-member constituencies thus retaining the link between MPs and their voters. Personally, I would choose the German system which is similar to that used in Scotland for elections to the Scottish parliament.

Incidentally, it is often stated that PR makes it difficult for a party to obtain an overall majority. If a party receives mote than 50% of the vote, it is possible, although quite rare. Until the 1980s single party majority government was quite common in Ireland where PR has always been used.

Surely the distribution of parliamentary seats should reflect how the nation voted rather than produce a majority of seats for a party commanding a minority of the vote!

Alan_Rayner 1 month ago in reply to Gerard Harrison

4 people liked this.
The German system is a variant of AMS (Additional Member System) - with a 50% factor,
in that 50% are elected by FPTP and 50% are "top-up". This means that those who are
disatisfied with the constituency result have to rely upon the party's choice (via the top-up
list) as to who is elected. 

As stated, Ireland avoids that. Their system (STV) allows the electors to choose and
does not award the decision making to the parties. Getting a high position on a party
list breeds as much arrogance as a safe seat and, arguably, binds the MP to the
party more strongly.

Paul Warren 1 month ago in reply to Gerard Harrison

2 people liked this.

I agree with Gerard's point. But let's not assume that a majority government is a necessarily good thing. There's been far too much strong government for my liking. Let's have some long-term thought on simplifying law and minimising government interference in our day-to-day lives. I'm beginning to come round to the US system of 3-way separation of powers between legislation, judicature and executives.

William MacDougall 3 weeks ago in reply to Gerard Harrison

1 person liked this.
It is a myth that first-past-the-post always produces majority government. In fact for much of it's history Britain has had coalition government: with Irish parties in the 19th C and the 1980s, and with "National" governments 1914-1945. Canada has also had coalition government under FTP for much of its history. Not surprising in a system which strengthens regional parties.

gardener 1 month ago

5 people liked this.
I don't like the idea of more than 1 MP per larger constituency. This is how MEPs work and I feel no connection to my MEP at all as a result.
I agree that we need some form of proportional representation, but not this form thank you. Apart from party politics, some people do vote for the specific person, so a system that reflected the votes cast across the whole country would make an even greater disconnect. I haven't studied the pros and cons of the various forms of PR but a transferrable vote seems the simplest system

Alan_Rayner 1 month ago in reply to gardener
 
5 people liked this.
Any former of single member constituency system will leave
up to 49% dissatisfied - and with first past the post this could
be up to 70% dissatisfied with the winner getting 30% (or even
less in a few isolated cases).

MEPs are elected as seventy or so for the whole country. With
at least five hundred MPs and a standard of five MPs elected for
each constituency the size would be manageable - eg somewhere
the size of Wiltshire or Cornwall would be one constituency but a
county like Essex would be divided.

Only a system with a transferable vote (eg AV or STV) allows the voter to
support a person rather than a party AND not be subject to the mechnaics
of wasted votes or split votes.

Vote for transferability - and against party-based proportionality.

Ross Stalker 1 month ago in reply to gardener
 
1 person liked this.
Under multi-member STV, voters still cast votes for individual people. The result isn't adjusted to reflect the country as a whole, it's still the result from that constituency that determines who the MPs are. It's roughly proportional for the whole country because it's proportional within each constituency.

Here in Scotland we have STV for council elections and we don't feel disconnected from our councillors. We're disconnected from our MEPs because they represent larger areas and spend much less on publicity, and because we voted for them using a party list system.

johnhearnshaw 1 month ago

MauriceFrank and 8 more liked this.
I have always lived in a "safe" seat constituency. Either a labour one or a conservative one. I feel so stupid when I go to vote now-as my vote makes the slightest difference to the result.It a forgone conclusion- Our MP is ONLY ever accountable to the party machine-NOT to his constituents.THEY can`t remove him- only the PARTY can. As a result- he doesn`t really give a damn about the individuals in his constituency. NEITHER do the party leaders-they NEVER come her because they know-like I do-that the election result here is a forgone conclusion. It is only a handful of seats that will make any difference-and they are the ones that get any attention from our political parties.

blingmun 1 month ago in reply to johnhearnshaw

planethubris and 4 more liked this.
johnhearnshaw wrote: "Our MP is ONLY ever accountable to the party machine-NOT to his constituents."

Surely this is an argument in favour of giving constituents power of recall. Even ultra loyal Labourites would have faced by-elections over the Iraq War. Whips would tell MPs to vote for Blair's dodgy dossier or you'll lose your safe seat in three years' time. To this, the MP would reply: "There'll be a petition in place by tomorrow, a by-election within a month and I'll be slung out of Parliament within 8 weeks". Constituents 1, Whips 0. On top of that, no Iraq War.

Alan_Rayner 1 month ago in reply to blingmun
 
1 person liked this.
Recall is NOT the answer.
Get it right first time.
Let the electors choose to support at least one MP from the
group of five or so elected for a multi-member constituency.

When over 80% can see that someone whom they support is elected
there will be much more satisfaction with politics and the system.

Paul Warren 1 month ago in reply to Alan_Rayner

3 people liked this.
The problem with that is that people generally don't have very good critical skills. When a politician says "It is not our intention to allow the rate of unemploymen to continue to rise" they hear "we have a plan to reduce unemployment pver the next year". By the time the next election comes around, they've forgotten what was promised. Even worse they've forgotten what the "biggest" opposition party did last time it was in power.
We need recall as a sharp tool to insure electors against the proposition that "MPs are representatives of the voters, not their delegates" (in their own words).

Alan_Rayner 1 month ago in reply to Paul Warren
 
5 people liked this.
Why should the electors need insurance on that issue.
It is a cornerstone of our democracy that MPs are representatives and not
delegates - just as much as local councillors are.
If anything we should be protected from those who try to put MPs in the role
of delegate, mandated to a specific line, rather than regarding them as
competent people well able to review the merits of the matter (including
giving due weight to the party line).
The difficulty with the present system is that MPs often give UNdue weight to
their party line where there is a conflict with the interests of their constituents.
Let's have representatives rather than party delegates.

Paul Warren 1 month ago in reply to Alan_Rayner
The quotation is used in the opposite sense : that MPs have a mandate, but they can use it to do whatever they (or their party) likes, and are not bound to the wishes of their electorate.

Alan_Rayner 1 month ago in reply to Paul Warren
 
1 person liked this.
Exactly - they should not be so bound!
They are representatives not delegates.
Edmund Burke realised that as long ago as 1738.
We imperil our democracy if we abnegate that principle.

Alan F Stevenson 1 month ago in reply to Alan_Rayner
Edmund Burke was a reactionary ar5ehole - scuse my Klingon - and never even claimed to be in favour of democracy. Surely you can come up with a better poster boy than that.

Alan F Stevenson 1 month ago in reply to Alan_Rayner

3 people liked this.
Representative democracy - where the people delegate, yes delegate, the power that is rightfully theirs to full-time politicians - has its merits, in that many people simply don't have the patience to inform themselves on every issue that gets legislated on. But there is *no* good reason why those who claim to be representatives of the people should be independant of those they claim to represent.

Alan_Rayner 1 month ago in reply to Alan F Stevenson

4 people liked this.
Actually there IS such a good reason - the very one expounded a few words earlier.
The basis of economic theory is specialism. Most of us do not build our own houses
or make our own shoes - we make use of specialists and use our own specialisms
to earn the medium of exchange (money) in order to purchase those services and,
indirectly, the skillsets associated with them.

Similarly we need specialists in governing and representing the people. The duty of the
citizen is to choose the person whom she/he considers best fitted to address the issues
of the day (week/month/year/decade/century) and to promote an appropriate response.

We elect such people for a term of up to five years and we need to trust them to get on
and do the job in a similar manner to how we trust other professionals. There is an old
adage about keeping a canine creature and then attempting to issue canine noises oneself.

Of course our MPs should never be totally divorced from their electorate. However, they must
retain an independence of mind and should no more be governed by the electorate than they
should act at the behest of party whips.

In my view the offer of the prospect of a government job as a reward for voting in favour of
the government line should be considered an illegal financial inducement - but that is a
different matter to the voting system (although implementing STV would certainly enhance
the independence of MPs from the over-arching government machine. We might even get
the Leader of the House responsible to the House rather than to the government!

Alan F Stevenson 1 month ago in reply to Alan_Rayner
 
1 person liked this.
"The basis of economic theory is specialism. Most of us do not build our own houses
or make our own shoes - we make use of specialists and use our own specialisms
to earn the medium of exchange (money) in order to purchase those services and,
indirectly, the skillsets associated with them.

Similarly we need specialists in governing and representing the people. The duty of the
citizen is to choose the person whom she/he considers best fitted to address the issues
of the day (week/month/year/decade/century) and to promote an appropriate response."
And I already conceded that the delegation of power to full-time politicians can be useful in that sense. But those politicians MUST STILL BE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE. If there were no cobblers who would sell you wearable shoes for a price you could afford, you wouldn't put up with it, you'd steal shoes or you'd make your own.

Alan_Rayner 1 month ago in reply to Alan F Stevenson
 
2 people liked this.
In economic terms one would defer to the Market (or nowadays one might be tempted
to "Compare the Meerkat". Our ancestors did not go through all that strife just so that
we can abstain from voting! (Although they would defend our right to do so, perhaps).

Back in the 1840s the Chartists put forward six demands. Five of them have been met - in
full or in substantial part. The one that has not been fulfilled is "annual elections".

We can see from the USA example of the House of Representatives that having a short
term assembly can lead to short term thinking. There is a need for longer-range planning
in any context. The length of franchise for the Train Operating Companies is a case in
point. Chiltern have been willing to invest as their franchise is long enough. Conversely
National Express were no willing to invest on similar terms. Which would we prefer to be
our local TOC?

In politics there is now a worldwide consensus that four/five years is an appropriate term
of office for politicians. The French presidential term was reduced from seven to five years
and the British local government term was increased from three to four years as part of the
reforms implemented in 1974.The European Parliament has five years as its term.

We need to give our politicians a long enough mandate to be able to take a medium to long
term view. Proponents of some forms of House of Lords reform speak of a fifteen year term
for elected representatives. It is difficult to determine the right balance.

However we need to trust that MPs in the aggregate will behave sensibly. Whilst one or
two might be tempted to appear in a television show like Big Brother and gain some ridicule
rather than respect, the majority will not. Whilst we may criticise MPs over the expenses
issues, the vast majority were complying with the then rules - and culture! Very few (single
figures?) were deliberately heinous, venal or reckless.

Having a system like STV where we have (in the main) multiple MPs representing our own
geographical area minimises the effect of the few who might go off the rails (including such
circumstances as those surrounding the former member for Strangford).

There is no need for a recall system. To have such would be an insidious fetter on the
nearly eight hundred year old right of members of parliament to go about their lawful
parliamentary business. We do have a parliamentary Standards and Privileges committee
and we should put our trust in that - undoubtedly guided by IPSA where appropriate.

Recall is potentially mischievous and, even at best, a distraction from the genuine work
that MPs are elected to undertake. Any who fail can be replaced at the next election by
a clone of Martin Bell - if we can find any such paragons!

Hexhamhornet 1 week ago in reply to Alan_Rayner
Your comments are very reflective of the need for more Independent candidates to stand, who do not have to toe a party line but are able to vote with their conscience in tact as they represent the greatest need for their constituency. The trouble with all the forms of PR that are currently being promoted is that it will in effect make the Independent candidate redundant. However with first past the post the independents still can have a voice. This is why I favour two elected Houses, one being elected on a PR principle and the other first past the post. I would keep the national government as a fptp parliament and the second chamber, which would replace the House of Lords, as a PR elected House. Also I would not have the two houses elected at the same time, but each House would sit for a 5 year term and their elections would be 30 months apart. This will allow continuity, but also half way through a term of government it would give the electorate to have a chance to vote for change. If the second House then became under control of the opposition it would mean that the government would have to be more thoughtful in what it tries to promote whereas if both Houses were under government party control then it would reflect that the electorate were happy with how the country was being run.

It would also be interesting to test the merits of the two systems, both as an acceptable way to elect members but also to see which (if either) draws a larger percentage of the electorate out to vote. The current system has its failings and is not made better by having an unelected House that seems to represent nobody.

Alan_Rayner 1 week ago in reply to Hexhamhornet
> Comments have been reflective of the need for more Independent 
> candidates to stand, who do not have to toe a party line.

Exactly - but there is the paradox that a House with everyone being 
"Independent" could be quite chaotic in governmental terms. Thus we
do need parties - but they should not predominate as at present.

Party loyalty MUST extend to supporting a motion of confidence in the
party as government BUT it need not extend to support on any individual
issues. The principle of support could possibly be extended to things like
a balanced budget or other issues which affect directly ability to govern
(as opposed to ability to ram through particular proposals).

What is vital is a mechanism whereby the "flavour" of a party can emerge
in response to the wishes of the electorate. The classic example of this
is the internal tension within the Conservative party on European issues.
With STV the electorate has the choice of Eurosceptics and Europhiles
and the "balance" within the parliamentary party would be on the basis
of the judgment of the electors rather than who has control of selection
meetings in constituency parties in "safe" seats. The same process
applies across all issues (eg Welfare Reform in the Labour party where
Frank Field's views could be tested against others). Just because people
have different views on some issues does not mean that they need to be 
in a different party - and just because they are in the same party does not
mean that they must adopt a uniform view on every policy. The way in which
parties in 1975 allowed their members to campaign on either side in the
Europe referendum is a good example of how freedom from party rule could 
work in practice. The sad thing is having to go back 40 years for the example!

> The trouble with all the forms of PR that are currently being promoted is that 
> it will in effect make the Independent candidate redundant. 

Not so! MOST of the PR suggestions would make it more DIFFICULT for the
Independent. Only occasionally do we get results such as Tatton in 1997 or
Wyre Forest in 2001 where there is a groundswell of support for a candidate
with a truly Independent label. However that does not remove the need for
such people. Both Martin Bell and Richard Taylor have made distinguished
contributions to the House - as did Dick Taverne from Lincoln in the past.

Again, one must come back to allowing the electorate to decide. STV does
just that. Electors can choose to vote 1-Taylor, 2-Tory or 1-Tory,2-Taylor on
an individual basis depending upon whether they regard the state of hospital
facilities in Kidderminster to be more important than the Tory manifesto. With
AV or STV their vote can be transferred if their first preference does not win.
Under FPTP those voting for Taylor were risking "letting Labour in" if they put
an 'X' by Taylor. However such was the clamour in the area that Taylor won.
A similar scenario applies to Green supporters in Brighton Pavilion. Should
they vote Green and risk letting in New Labour or Tory OR should they vote
for the least hated of the major parties - resulting in a reduced Green vote.
Whilst Richard Taylor won through, the Brighton Greens have yet to do so.
Transferability of votes cuts through this nightmare - which is why we MUST
support the AV principle, even though it is not as good as STV and could lead
to greater distortion in the overall result than does FPTP. 

> However with first past the post the independents still can have a voice.

Only in rare instances where a constituency is galvanised by a single issue.
In Wales is was Peter Law (since deceased) who resisted a directive from the
central Labour party. In Tatton it was reaction to Tory sleaze. In Wyre Forest
it was the Kidderminster Hospital closure. We need independence of mind -
not just single issue politics!

> This is why I favour two elected Houses, one being elected on a PR principle
> and the other first past the post. 

This would be worse than the existing system. The House of Lords is a revising
chamber. As such it needs a wide spread of expertise and opinion - something
that no wholly elected chamber can provide. The post-1999 composition of the
House has served us well. Admittedly there are patronage issues regarding
life peers and there is a need (currently being addressed) to allow Peers to
resign but broadly the House serves us better than would a wholly elected one.

The two pillars of strength in our democratic system are: the Select Committee
system and the House of Lords. The latter's value is precisely because it is NOT
elected. It can take an independent view, call the Commons to account - but know
that eventually it must concede to the views of the legitimately elected House. We
must not have TWO legitimately elected Houses!

> Elections 30 months apart would allow continuity, but also half way through a 
> term of government would give the electorate a chance to vote for change. 

Absolute chaos on the legitimacy front!
Even now there is a context that the Labour government is clinging on to
power based on an election nearly five years ago. Consider the uproar if
a hundred metres down the corridor there were another chamber elected
more recently who could claim (accurately) to represent more closely the
will of the people - even if it has emasculated powers.
Election of the House of the Lords would be a serious mistake!!

> The current system has its failings and is not made better by having an 
> unelected House that seems to represent nobody.

I would suggest the exact opposite. It really IS made better for just the
reason quoted. It is clearly subservient to the House of Commons (via
the 1911 Parliament Act) but it does a very useful job in ensuring that
the work of the Commons is scrutinised and that relevant issues are
brought to the surface rather than being submerged below the political
jousting from the green benches. Comparing the standards of behaviour
on the red benches with those on the green ones demonstrates this.

+++

Whilst these ideas are interesting, they are likely to make matters worse
and so I would urge a deeper, more radical look at what is really needed
in our democratic processes.

a) A House of Commons that truly represents the electorate
b) A House of Commons that is not dominated by party interests.
c) A House of Commons that is able, effectively, to hold the
Government/Executive to account.
d) A revising chamber that is broadly independent of entrenched
party political interests.
e) A wide diversity of Select Committees able to delve deeply into
matters of public concern.

So far we have (e) and a significant part of (d). We have yet to achieve
(a), (b), (c) - other than the minor tinkering about the edges. A change
to STV would be the greatest fillip to achieving (a) and (b) and would 
make a significant contribution to (c).

James Gilmour 1 week ago in reply to Hexhamhornet
You wrote:
" The trouble with all the forms of PR that are currently being promoted is that it will in effect make the Independent candidate redundant."

This assertion is wrong so far as STV-PR is concerned. At the 2002 general election to the Dáil Éireann, 13 Independent ("Non-Party") candidates were elected among the 166 members (TDs). At the 2007 general election, when the voting pattern changed, five Independents were returned.

David Hine 1 week ago in reply to Hexhamhornet
HH, I am hoping that Anthony Tuffin is going to provide some comparative statistics on the merits of FPTP and STV as a method of electing independents, at the top of this forum. Should make interesting reading. 

You don't seem to see the same catch 22 with fully electing both Houses as I do. Two different forms of election for the two Houses, party A wins the majority of seats in the Commons and B vice versa the Lords, but the Lords election had a markedly higher voter turnout.Which vote was the more legitimate? Arguably the latter, so who now has primacy? A Written Constitution might say the Commons has primacy but wouldn't it bring it into disrepute? This might be particularly so if the elections are spaced out as you indicate.Personally I think all hell would break out.
I am not in favour of holding separate elections for the two Houses anyway because in the more likely event one party wins both Houses the Lords would be regarded as a rubber stamp.

F2PTP is an attempt to address this situation and offers the increased continuity you seek. I mooted somewhere on this forum a statutory multiple-choice Declaration which all candidates would have to complete before standing. It would have a number of questions on all areas of policy and the answers independently assessed to give a composite rating such as 'centre right' plus what I called an eccentricity factor.
In that way although the electorate cannot decide party lists there would be some external pressure not to select candidates who had no eccentricities, because they would be viewed as yes men and potentially attract fewer votes. I consider this a better option than a fruitless attempt to banish Parties which would inevitably form even if you used sortition (1597 J. KING On Jonas (1618) 120 For so doth Tully define Sortition, that it is nothing else but hap-hazard OED) as advocated by others on this site. I can also easily demonstrate why sortition is undemocratic in all but theory. Cheers

Hexhamhornet 1 week ago in reply to David Hine
David, I would not have the two Houses have elections at the same time. The House with Primacy would be the Commons, and I would have it sit for a 5 year fixed term. The Second House would then have the equivalent of mid-term elections. If the electorate are happy with the Government then they will gain control in both Houses, if not then the 2nd House would be able to have some sway over policy and so the Government could not ride roughshot over Parliament. There are pitfalls and Catch 22s to every system but the current system certainly needs to be more representative of the people. Also if more people were made to feel that their vote counted then they would get more involved, and this would reduce the number of extreme party successes - by nature the British electorate tend to be middle of the road, which is why the three major parties are all trying to get the vote from the middle ground. As regards the governing party being able to rubber stamp policies if they have control of both Houses, well it has often happened, but with mid-term elections the electorate hasthe power to stop that.David Hine 6 days ago in reply to Hexhamhornet

HH, Would a continuous series of mid-term elections induce voter fatigue and be potentially extremely disruptive of ongoing parliamentary business and leave continuity dependent on the election result? That is aside from the circumstances I described where all hell would break loose. That is because, if as you say your Commons is guaranteed primacy, then even though your Lords is now fully elected it has gained no real power or any good reason not to react like that. You know our yah-boo politicians.
In F2PTP primacy is obvious because the Commons is full of winners and the Lords the second placers, yet they both get to share real power on a time basis according to votes cast. Importantly the primacy does bestow the purse strings. I am still theorising how to use the remainder of the votes cast, but they could be used to dictate the proportion of time both Houses would have to dedicate to free votes.It would be possible to grant minority parties and independents a statutory share in this activity.The rationale is always to encourage consensual politics through the fair division of power. David

johnhearnshaw 1 month ago

MauriceFrank and 23 more liked this.
In over 40 years my vote has never counted for anything-because I have always lived in "safe" seats. These seats are largely ignored by political parties and politicians because the MP`s for them are virtually "there for life" I feel so stupid when I vote now-because I know that all politicians and political parties hold me in contempt. They know my vote has absolutely no influence on the result of the election-it is merely a forgone conclusion. My MP doesn`t give a damn about his constituents-his only allegiance is to the Party-because it is only THEY who can lose him this seat.The party knows it too-thats why they can unduly influence his opinions and his actions-he owes his total allegiance to THEM-not to us-who he SHOULD be representing. I have been waiting over 40 years for an end to this iniquitous system-it is totally undemocartic-and leaves the majority of voters with no means of influencing the way they are governed. Proportional representation-ANY FORM-has just got to be a better way. As a perfect example of what I mean-just look at the way the idea of "fair votes" has been consistently rubbished and ignored by the 2 parties who have run our politics for 100 years!

AW Tanner 1 month ago
 
3 people liked this.
I just wonder if this would help get rid of stifling party politics, where the Executive promotes even the most inept MP, simply because he has been a dutiful party hack. Would this change?

Anthony Tuffin 1 month ago in reply to AW Tanner

1 person liked this.
Although it would nlot change under mosst forms of PR, it would change under the Single Transferable Vote which lets voters, not parties, choose MPs.

Alan_Rayner 1 month ago in reply to AW Tanner
 
3 people liked this.
Yes - with STV which gives true power to the voters.
Of course, the voters have to use that power, by realising that the MP is inept
and discerning which of the other candidates are not inept.

That is why we must oppose AMS, AV+ and other systems which divvy up the
seats using party lists or similar party controls.

john matthissen 1 month ago in reply to Alan_Rayner
 
1 person liked this.
AMS is a good system, and there is no reason why the "top-up" MPs should not come from Open Lists i.e. where the voters decide who is at the top of the list.

Alan_Rayner 1 month ago in reply to john matthissen
Whilst it is clear that Open Lists are better than Closed Lists the fundamental objection
is not ameliorated by their Open or Closed status. It is the very existence of Lists that
are controlled by the parties as to presence on the list (even if not the ordering).

With AMS the elector is required to choose a party to be supported - and then (with
an Open List) may choose which party delegate to support. In some systems this
choice may be more subtle in that the selection of an individual is then recorded as
a vote for the party on whose list the individual appears.

AMS would be fine if there were just a SINGLE list containing all the individuals seeking
to be "top-up" members and the elector could vote for the individuals. The d'Hondt rules 
could then be applied to determine who is elected (ie every candidate would be a party
- but this could be achieved by having a list for every individual candidate, and stopping
the practice of having more than one candidate on a list. ).

However to be fair there would need to be sets of randomly ordered ballot papers so that
the individuals would be listed in a different sequence in at least ten variations - ensuring
that each elector would get a randomly sequenced ballot paper.

This could be done by printing ten pads of ballot papers each with a different final digit on
the sequence number. The poll clerk would then need to take one ballot paper from each
pad before repeating the cycling of the pads for the next ten electors.

Indeed, this principle could be applied for any electoral system.

Reverting to AMS, it must be remembered that most versions of Open Lists apply
the d'Hondt quota to the highest candidate on the party selection and that this
sequence of election is varied only if a particular individual polls exceptionally well
so as to exceed the current quota being used on that party list.

All that sort of nonsense could be avoided by using STV - giving power back to the
people and taking party control out of the loop entirely.

William MacDougall 3 weeks ago in reply to Alan_Rayner
I doubt that open lists would be a better form of PR, as they would encourage populism and discourage cooperation within parties. But people are mistaken in thinking PR strengthens parties; it doesn't. In Israel, France, Ireland and most PR countries setting up new parties is relatively easy, so existing party managers have little power. In Britain today if a small group manages to seize control of a party (as the Cameroons have done with the Tories, or New Labour did with Labour) then it is very difficult to dislodge.

Alan_Rayner 3 weeks ago in reply to William MacDougall
Open Lists are the best of a bad bunch.
A party has a function - to draw together a collection of people who share
some common ideas and who support a team to become the government.

This should not mean "My party right or wrong" and it should be encouraged
for supporters of the team to engage with all or any ideas. Their sole binding
commitment should be to support the government on a motion of confidence
- and their reward will be participation in electing the members of the team.

Israel in the Knesset has a one-country-one-constituency system whereby less
than 1% of the national electorate is required in order to gain representation. This
can lead to diffusion as every nuance of policy seeks separate expression. France
does not have this diffusion as their system depends upon team building and it is
only on major differences of policy that party splits occur (the UDF/RPR separation
in the past was an example). It is our current system that keeps Blairites and Brownites
within the same party and fails to allow the electorate a clear choice between these two
strands and to present a clear balance of support between them so that the will of the
people is clear. What should Brownites in Norwich South do? What should Blairites in
Blackburn do? We are at the behest of the selection committees in a couple of hundred
consitutencies and the motivation or lack of it for MPs to get a pay increase by becoming
part of the "payroll" vote in Parliament. Party managers have an easier time early in the
rule of a party - as MPs are new and keen - but later in the cycle they know the form and
are more inclined to heed their original motivations for seking entry to parliament, which in
most cases is a genuine wish to "make a difference" for the benefit of the community.

A genuinely representative system (like STV) will allow the people to decide the balance of
views within the party - not the party managers or the local selection committees. Indeed,
STV encourages the spread of voter appeal (eg both women and men candidates and people
from differing wings of the party) to form a broad team at the hustings.

On the seizure of control, one should remember that these were popular events at the
time. Blair deserved to win in 1997 (and there was some good legislation in the 1997-2001
period) but in 2005 it is arguable that he should not have been re-elected and that it was
the voting system that retained him in his premiership. With AV (and moreover a TRADITION
of transferable votes - which may take a while a develop) there would have been scope for
Indpendents and others to have succeeded - rather than being cowed by the "wasted vote"
argument which saw such things as 22% of the Brighton Pavillion electors voting for a
Green candidate and not having a single Green MP elected anywhere (since the HALF MP
arrangement with Plaid Cymru in West Wales has expired).

If the electorate know that they can vote with their hearts for their first choice and use
their head to choose later preferences between those whom they suspect to be the
front runners, the result will be a truer representation than one where everybody is just
voting for the front runner least disliked in order to prevent the one most disliked. Without
transferability of votes, even a 50-55% vote is unlikely TRULY to satisfy a majority as they
are already dissatisfied by having to voting X for someone not truly liked.

feyeleanor 1 month ago
Proportional representation misses the real point: there are too few MPs in the UK to adequately represent the interests of 60 million people. Rather than change the voting system we should increase the number of MPs and reestablish the bond between representative and constituent.

CTerry 1 month ago in reply to feyeleanor
 
3 people liked this.
Actually as a political scientist, I think you'd find that the consensus is that, if anything, Britain has far TOO MANY politicians. Currently the ratio is 1 MP per 70,000 people. That is VERY high by any standard. A lecturer of mine reckons that you could slash the number of MPs by 200 without making any real difference to the running of the country. Inflating the number of MPs won't change anything. It will just mean MPs have less to do. They will still be quintessentially unaccountable.

If you want to localise power and decision making it would be better to devolve power downwards to local councils, or to regional devolved assemblies.

feyeleanor 1 month ago in reply to CTerry
I'm well aware of consensus opinion on this matter, but as a physicist and computer scientist I have much less interest in that than in the structure of systems.

The real problem we face is the conflation of Parliament and Government such that a body which is intended to be a limitation on the power of the executive has become nothing more than its rubber stamp.

The answer to that is to strengthen the link between constituent and representative whilst weakening the link between representative and government. One easy way to achieve that is to have many more representatives than there are government posts available and smaller constituencies where the representative is just that.

CTerry 1 month ago in reply to feyeleanor
That won't do that. It'll just create even more safe seats. In fact more constituencies will make it even easier for party machines to keep control of specific constituencies. Voters, I'm afraid, are actually reliably predictable beasts on the whole, and even within a constituency you get areas that lean strongly in favour of one party or another. This makes it even easier for parties to win seats, as competitive seats would be rarer, and could be won with less money. The larger amount of constituencies would also make it far easier for careerist politicians to find a safe seat in which to land in, and creating a far wider berth for the kind of party machine loving, moralless arsewipe which you wish to prevent. I am afraid you have it backwards.

feyeleanor 1 month ago in reply to CTerry
Taking your argument to its logical conclusion we might as well all be part of a single constituency and then award all seats proportionally to established political parties. Then we could at least all feel equally as disenfranchised by the lack of a local representative for whom we personally voted.

As for the safe seat issue, the only system of representation which would remove that would be selection by random ballot from amongst the residents of a constituency in a similar manner to jury service. Otherwise it will always be the case that demographics favour certain political opinions in particular constituencies. So long as the elected representative performs their duty to represent all of their constituents this native imbalance doesn't matter.

CTerry 1 month ago in reply to feyeleanor

Alan_Rayner and 1 more liked this.
No. STV would deal with both problems. The Single Transferable Vote allows you to rank candidates in a multi-member constituency (in Britain's case probably equivalent to 4 or 5 members at a county or city level generally). In STV there are no safe seats, as candidates must fight not only other parties, but for the votes of their party supporters, to be ranked above them. 

This also highly localises politics. In Ireland where STV is used it has sometimes been accused of localising politics TOO much as MPs try and pay so much attention to their constituents in order to guarantee re-election. 

STV creates proportionality. It also elects more independents (Ireland has the most independents in its legislature of any political system I can think of). It removes safe seats.

STV is not perfect. No electoral system is perfect (in fact there is a famous piece of work called Arrow's Theorem that proves that every single electoral system actually breaks some basic part of the democratic principle). However it is undoubtedly the system that represents people the best and that leaves politicians the most accountable. I suggest you look at STV.

STV was actually created with Britain in mind too. We would have had it for 80 years by now had the (Tory controlled) House of Lords not blocked the Liberal/Labour motion in the Commons to introduce it.

Edward Vickerman 1 month ago in reply to CTerry
80 years ago the MPs did not regard their position as a job, relying on some other source for income . It is not the House of Lords but the House of Commons which will be so against altering the status quo. How can its members be persuaded to vote themselves out of employment? This problem faces any attempt to change the system and will be worse with a new parliament than it would have been with the present one, where so many members are not seekjing re-election.

John Wood 1 month ago in reply to feyeleanor
 
1 person liked this.
Actually I proposed that the House of Lords should be replaced with a chamber chosen on the jury system. I think it would be really good, and bring in a whole variety of views that never get represented by our politicians.
ModerateFlag

Alan_Rayner 1 month ago in reply to feyeleanor
I like the first two paragraphs and the first sentence of the last one - Excellent.

Then the effect is spoiled by requesting smaller constituencies.
This assumes that constituencies are homogenous.

Consider a party which has 26% of the national vote in a three-party system.
If that vote is spread evenly it will win probably no seats.
However if its support as split as 51% of the vote in 51% of the seats and none
elsewhere it will gain an overall majority.

That is why SNP and Plaid Cymru gain seats, their support is geographically concentrated.
Meanwhile the Liberals in the 1950s and 1960s got less than ten seats despite having a
significant level of support across the country.

The answer is not to atomise the constituencies but to allow the minorities in various
seats to coalesce so as to warrant an MP. The STV system does this BUT the coming
together is based on voter interests (expressed as preferences) rather than at the behest
of a party or indeed any other kind of leader.

feyeleanor 1 month ago in reply to Alan_Rayner
I personally care very little about whether political parties are served well by the electoral system and much more about whether or not my local representative is both accountable to me and available to work on my behalf should it be necessary.

Smaller constituencies would dilute the power of central party organisations to dictate local candidates, reduce the available funds with which they could fight each constituency election, make representatives both more accountable to their constituents and better recognised amongst them, and create a large pool of representatives in Parliament who would have little prospect of a government job and hence be less amenable to the continued pressure of party whips.

There would also be much greater opportunity for independents to get elected as well as for new parties to establish themselves in response to changes in public opinion.

The Single Transferrable Vote may well be able to deliver similar benefits, and I agree that the Irish example has at least proven its ability to make politics 'interesting'. But that alone is not enough to make it superior to our existing system were the level of representation adjusted appropriately.

Alan_Rayner 1 month ago in reply to CTerry
The difficulty with reducing the number of MPs is the ratio within parliament of the
"payroll" vote to the non-payroll one. When the government can command the loyalty
of 122 MPs by giving them jobs the chances of a successful independently minded
motion succeeding are reduced as the overall number of MPs is reduced. (eg if there
were only 240 MPs the government would always win, with 646 there is a chance of the
government being defeated).

The other factor is constituency work. Some 80% of the work of an MP is NOT based
on party allegiance but is a genuine attempt to assist constituents (at least that figure
can apply to assiduous MPs). Reducing the number of MPs would reduce the availability
of having a "champion" in parliament.

Having STV would increase the chances of finding a champion. It is likely that at least
one of the five MPs in one's area would take an interest in a subject. Under the current
system one has only one's o