Voting systems

[Tony Williams]

I thought I would start this one off for people to discuss the pros and cons of possible changes to our voting system should the election result in a well-hung parliament....

For what it's worth, I think that our first-past-the-post system was fine when 95% of the votes were cast either for the Tories or Labour, but it is producing increasingly distorted results now we have three parties all with substantial shares of the vote but achieving wildly different outcomes in terms of seat numbers.

A very good summary of the alternatives can be found on the website of the Electoral Reform Society here: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/votingsystems/systems2.htm (http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/votingsystems/systems2.htm)

There are some other alternatives: I rather liked the suggestion in a national newspaper that voters should be given the option of either voting for a candidate, or against one. The against scores for each candidate would be deducted from their positive votes to achieve a net total. That would probably get a lot more people in the polling booths >:D

Then there's the radically different delegate system, which has some features which appeal to me.

Over to you....

[smudge]

I thought I would start this one off for people to discuss the pros and cons of possible changes to our voting system should the election result in a well-hung parliament....

Then there's the radically different delegate system, which has some features which appeal to me.]

I'm not sure what 'delegate system' you have in mind Tony?
I'd favor something of that nature.
A system where communities had a spokesperson who was delegated to voice their concerns and not that of a party. Instantly recallable. Truly democratic. Perhaps even selected from the community randomly, like jury service, on expenses only, for a 6 month period. Then another selected.
For such a system to work people would need to feel engaged and get involved. Perhaps people would if they felt it made a difference and that they had a real say in the running of their community.

I expect the best we are likely to get is some form of PR. A step in the right direction perhaps.

[Tony Williams]

You're pretty close, Smudge.

What I had in mind was something like this:

1. The country is divided up into small areas, each with about 80-100 voters (numbers could be flexible to match village or street sizes). They would meet once a month (supported by an official clerk) to discuss any matters of local, regional or national interest. I would make attendance on at least 9 occasions per year compulsory, with a fine if more are missed. Each of these groups would select a delegate to represent their views to the next level.

2. The next level would consist of 80-100 delegates (therefore representing 6,400-10,000 people) which would be similar to a town council, with responsibilities and budgets for certain local issues. They would also elect a delegate to the next level.

3. The next level (you're getting the idea) would represent 500,000-1,000,000 people, therefore similar to a major local government body.

4. The final level would represent 40-100 million, so would be a national UK parliament.

In a UK context, this could form (for instance) an English Parliament (with similar arrangements for the other nations) with a separate UK Upper House with major strategic responsibilities for budget, foreign affairs & defence - which with the geographical representation having been taken care of could perhaps be elected by straight party-political proportional representation (with a cut-off of a minimum 5% of the total vote for representation to keep out the nutters).

This delegate system would have the major advantage of ensuring that everyone was fully involved in politics, not just at local level but via delegation at regional and national level too. It would have the side-benefit of reinstating a sense of society which is acknowledged as having broken down in many areas - how many of you know a lot of your neighbours? This could have benefits in dealing with local social problems, among other things.

The main argument against it which I can see is that the small numbers involved at each level could provide more potential for corruption, so measures would have to be taken to deter that as strenuously as possible.

Any observations, anyone?

[davidrodway]

good peice in recent new scientist on why no system can be entirely fair.
main problem with prop rep is no clear winner and govt then detemined by negotiation - although first past post system may now give us that same situation,
why not go for a proportionally elected commons, then a another vote , as in the USA, on who becomes prime minister (or president)?
We are not realy a democracy anyway - just an elected oligarchy. US probably come closer to democrcy, but the Swiss system seems the best of all

[asthmatic camel]

Let's vote for more politicians. In the past thirteen years, we've added the costs of a Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly to the budget deficit.

Pure genius.

[Tony Williams]

main problem with prop rep is no clear winner and govt then detemined by negotiation
That could be regarded as a solution rather than a problem. Blair only gained the support of 22% of the electorate at the last election, but that gave him the power to ignore everyone else's wishes and take us to war, for instance. Looked at objectively, what we have is a bizarre and increasingly dysfunctional system.


why not go for a proportionally elected commons, then a another vote , as in the USA, on who becomes prime minister (or president)?
Because that only works for a US-style presidential system. In a parliamentary system, the Prime Minister have to command majority support within the Parliament, or he'll just be ignored.


We are not realy a democracy anyway - just an elected oligarchy. US probably come closer to democrcy, but the Swiss system seems the best of all

Switzerland is certainly the closest to a democracy, but I disagree about the USA - that has some really strange features and is in some ways a lot less democratic than the UK.

[Tony Williams]

Let's vote for more politicians. In the past thirteen years, we've added the costs of a Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly to the budget deficit.
Given the delegation of powers down to the other UK nations and up to the EU, I can't understand why the House of Commons has to remain anything like the same size. The Tories are offering a 10% cut in numbers of MPs, but I think that should be at least 50%.

[smudge]

You're pretty close, Smudge.


In a UK context, this could form (for instance) an English Parliament (with similar arrangements for the other nations) with a separate UK Upper House with major strategic responsibilities for budget, foreign affairs & defence - which with the geographical representation having been taken care of could perhaps be elected by straight party-political proportional representation (with a cut-off of a minimum 5% of the total vote for representation to keep out the nutters).

This delegate system would have the major advantage of ensuring that everyone was fully involved in politics, not just at local level but via delegation at regional and national level too. It would have the side-benefit of reinstating a sense of society which is acknowledged as having broken down in many areas - how many of you know a lot of your neighbours? This could have benefits in dealing with local social problems, among other things.

The main argument against it which I can see is that the small numbers involved at each level could provide more potential for corruption, so measures would have to be taken to deter that as strenuously as possible.

Any observations, anyone?



I like the tier system, I see a potential problem in the level of bureaucracy it may generate.

I feel it's important to get rid of the idea of politics as a career. To establish the idea that it is a duty we all must be involved with. I'd favor a system where delegates were selected for a short (year max) term only and on expenses only, like jury service. It must be established that they are selected to represent their community's and not their own (or Party's) view.

I'm not happy with the Party system at Parliament level. I feel this is where corruption would creep in. I'd like to see a radical system with regional representatives from local federations. I envisage various boards of advisers and experts from specific fields (scientists, teachers, health workers etc). Perhaps retired people. Again, on expenses only. These boards would have deciding votes on areas of expertise and would be turned to for general advice.

All very well in theory!

[Tony Williams]

I like the tier system, I see a potential problem in the level of bureaucracy it may generate.
It's a danger, but it doesn't necessarily follow - it would replace the existing local government structures which already have lots of bureaucrats. The main additional demand would be for supporting the first-tier monthly meetings, but one officer could cover many of those groups (rather like providing admin support to school governing bodies, which is what I used to do for several schools on top of a full-time day job).


I feel it's important to get rid of the idea of politics as a career. To establish the idea that it is a duty we all must be involved with. I'd favor a system where delegates were selected for a short (year max) term only and on expenses only, like jury service. It must be established that they are selected to represent their community's and not their own (or Party's) view.
The problem with that is that the delegates would be inexperienced and ignorant of the realities of government. The consequences of that would be that the full-time officials would become far more powerful.

[asthmatic camel]

Given the delegation of powers down to the other UK nations and up to the EU, I can't understand why the House of Commons has to remain anything like the same size. The Tories are offering a 10% cut in numbers of MPs, but I think that should be at least 50%.

How many politicians do we really need? Given the whacking salaries they "earn" and the expenses they claim, can they really justify their existence? My MP claims as much for food expenses as I get to live on every month. That's on top of his generous salary and everything else the taxpayer coughs up for.

[PaulW99]

The US system is crazy. The President basically has 2 years to do his thing, after which the electorate hands over Congress to the opposition. At least the PM has up to 5 years of a parliamentary majority in the UK.

I like the system in The Netherlands. You get x% of the national vote, you get x% of the seats. It's not as chaotic as some would believe with coalitions. Every few years a far right-wing party gets a number of seats in parliament and the members are inevitably exposed as kooks and/or criminals and get turfed out at the next election.

[bindeweede]

Interesting article in the Indy.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/electoral-reform-clamour-for-change-grows-1960378.html

The STV does seem to have attractions, but I have no expert knowledge. Surely the FPTP system has had its day.

[Drop Bear]

Australia has 3 tiered system of Federal ,State and local government. We are still a parliamentary democracy and part of the British Commonwealth, with Queen Elizabeth our constitutional Head Of State.

OUR main system of voting is called 'preferential'.Voting in so far as registering and having your name crossed off on election day,is mandatory.

Today I vote against the bigger bunch of venal incompetents vying for the opportunity to fuck up my country.




The Australian electoral system has evolved over nearly 150 years of continuous democratic government, and has a number of distinctive features including compulsory voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting), preferential voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting) (known elsewhere as instant-runoff voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting)) and the use of proportional voting to elect the upper house, the Australian Senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_electoral_system#cite_note-0)



Australia uses various forms of preferential voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting) for almost all elections. Under this system, voters number the candidates on the ballot paper in the order of their preference. The preferential system was introduced in 1918, in response to the rise of the Country Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Party_of_Australia), a party representing small farmers. The Country Party split the anti-Labor vote in conservative country areas, allowing Labor candidates to win on a minority vote. The conservative government of Billy Hughes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Hughes) introduced preferential voting as a means of allowing competition between the two conservative parties without putting seats at risk. It was first used at the Corangamite by-election on 14 December 1918.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_electoral_system#cite_note-10)[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_electoral_system#cite_note-11) It had previously been introduced as a result of the work of Thomas Hare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hare_%28political_scientist%29) and Andrew Inglis Clark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Inglis_Clark) in the Tasmanian House of Assembly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmanian_House_of_Assembly).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_electoral_system

[smudge]

The problem with that is that the delegates would be inexperienced and ignorant of the realities of government. The consequences of that would be that the full-time officials would become far more powerful.

Yes, I agree that's a problem. You either have inexperienced delegates or paid full time politicians. Though flawed, I still feel the former idea has merit and the later is also undoubtably flawed. Perhaps apropriate support, cheks and balances, could be set up to compensate for the inexperience.
Any truly grass roots democratic system is going to tend to be somewhat unweildy. It's a question of priorities. Dictatorships, on the other hand, can be very descisive! There is a downside though.....;)

[Tony Williams]

The STV does seem to have attractions, but I have no expert knowledge. Surely the FPTP system has had its day.
Yes, the STV system does seem to come the closest to ticking all (or at least most) of the boxes. The description on the Electoral Reform Society's website:


How the System Works:



Each constituency would elect between 3 and 5 MPs depending on its size. Voters rank the candidates, putting a '1' for their favourite, a '2' for the next, and so on. If the voter's first choice candidate does not need their vote, either because he or she is elected without it, or because he or she has too few votes to be elected, then the vote is transferred to the voter's second choice candidate, and so on.

In this way, most of the votes help to elect a candidate and far fewer votes are wasted. An important feature of STV is that voters can choose between candidates both of their own and of other parties, and can even select candidates for reasons other than party affiliation. Thus, a voter, wishing for more women MPs could vote for a woman from their own party and then all other women candidates, whatever party they stand for.
The system is used:


in the Australian Senate, the Republic of Ireland, Tasmania, Malta and Northern Ireland for local elections and elections to the European Parliament. Arguments used in favour:

STV does more than other systems to guarantee that everyone gets their views represented in parliament and that they have a say in what is done by their elected representatives. STV is the best option for:

Putting the power in the hands of the voters.
Keeping MPs linked to the people who voted for them. Most voters can identify a representative that they personally helped to elect and can feel affinity with. Such a personal link also increases accountability.
Making parliament reflect the views of the voters.
Only a party or coalition of parties, who could attract more than 50% of the electorate could form a government. Any changes would have to be backed by a majority since public opinion is reflected fairly in elections under STV. This is far more important than that a government should be formed by only one political party.
It enables the voters to express opinions effectively. Voters can choose between candidates within parties, demonstrating support for different wings of the party. Voters can also express preferences between the abilities or other attributes, of individual candidates.
It is simple for voters to use.
There is no need for tactical voting . Voters can cast a positive vote and know that their vote will not be wasted whatever their choice is.
It produces governments that are strong and stable because they are founded on the majority support of the electorate.

Weaknesses:



The system does not produce such accuracy in proportional representation of parties as the party list or additional member systems.
It breaks the link between an individual MP and his or her constituency.
Constituencies would be 3-5 times larger than they are now but with 3-5 MPs.
MPs may have to spend an excessive amount of time dealing with constituency problems and neglect the broader issues.
There are critics who say that this system could lead to permanent coalition governments, but this would only happen if the voters as a whole want it.
It is disliked by politicians, since it would remove power from them and give it to the electors, and many MPs with safe seats would lose the security they feel now.

It's that final point that clinches it for me. If the politicians hate it....

As a matter of interest, that handy little BBC News seat calculator reveals that if all three parties each won exactly 30% of the vote, the result in seats would be likely to be:

Labour 314
Conservative 207
Lib Dems 100

How can that be defended?

[Pebble]

It's that final point that clinches it for me. If the politicians hate it....



The issue in terms of this particular type of personality contest, is the type of individual that gets position 1 - 3 on peoples preference list. It is those that work hard with the local community and that can express their pain or anger that win. In many ways you end up with a parliament that looks closer to the council results. You must accept in advance that weirdos like the BNP do particularly well under the STV system. The FPP system requires that the bulk of people in one area support a particular candidate - this creates distortions, one of which is to supress the impact of the angry minority. This impact will be balanced by the enviornmentally concerned etc, so the greens will also beneift. If you go for an STV system, be prepared to have the true diversity of british public opinion reflected in parliament.

[PaulW99]

If, as a party, you're in a position to change the voting system, you probably don't want to because that's what gave you that power in the first place.

I wonder if the Libs will seize their chance to demand changes, and what those changes will be. Can they think of a formula that will benefit a 3rd party but not a 4th, 5th or 6th party? Or do they hope they can become the 2nd party and leave things as they are?

[Tony Williams]

The issue in terms of this particular type of personality contest, is the type of individual that gets position 1 - 3 on peoples preference list. It is those that work hard with the local community and that can express their pain or anger that win. In many ways you end up with a parliament that looks closer to the council results. You must accept in advance that weirdos like the BNP do particularly well under the STV system. The FPP system requires that the bulk of people in one area support a particular candidate - this creates distortions, one of which is to supress the impact of the angry minority. This impact will be balanced by the enviornmentally concerned etc, so the greens will also beneift. If you go for an STV system, be prepared to have the true diversity of british public opinion reflected in parliament.
So it should be. If candidates get enough support from their local electorate, they should be elected. But the fact that they have a chance of being elected will place the public spotlight much more firmly on their policies and their consequences - which is only healthy.

It does wryly amuse me that both Tories and Labour bang on about fairness and the need to restore public confidence in politics while being very reluctant to deal with what is a grossly unfair voting system which effectively means that the vast majority of votes are wasted. No wonder only 60% bother to vote. There isn't any practical point in my doing so in my constituency because the candidate I favour stands no chance of being elected, so I'm really just going to be registering a protest vote.

[Tony Williams]

If, as a party, you're in a position to change the voting system, you probably don't want to because that's what gave you that power in the first place.
That's always been the problem up to now. Also, our macho politicians (of both genders) just live for the prospect of enjoying untrammelled power, and hate the thought that they might have to compromise with the views of others (you know, like the rest of us do every day...).


I wonder if the Libs will seize their chance to demand changes, and what those changes will be. Can they think of a formula that will benefit a 3rd party but not a 4th, 5th or 6th party? Or do they hope they can become the 2nd party and leave things as they are?
From what they've been saying, they'll want a pretty firm guarantee of significant electoral change before they'll enter into an agreement to support one of the other parties (they've been promised this before and it came to nothing). It is possible of course that one of the big parties will try to form a minority government without coalition - we may find out soon enough.

[Carnivore]

I'm a fan of MMP (Mixed Member Proportional representation.)

I grew up in New Zealand, with a first past the post electoral system based on the Westminster model. There were two main parties, the center-left Labour party and the center-right National party. One or other of these two parties had held power since 1935. After some truly awful FPP results in the 1970s and 80s (eg a party sweeps to a substantial parliamentary majority with substantially less votes than it's main rival, or parties which get 30% of the popular vote getting 60% of the seats in Parliament while a third party getting 20% of the popular vote was almost unrepresented,) a Royal Commission on electoral reform was set up. It reported in 1986, recommending MMP.

Both main parties were against it, as was big business. A major advertising campaign was launched to oppose (and misrepresent) it. It was the subject of referendums in 1992 and 1993 (where MMP was offered as one option among others that had not been recommended by the Royal Commission.) MMP came out on top in the referendums and was adopted by New Zealand in 1994.

Under MMP you have local electorates and local MPs who are voted for exactly as under FPP - just rather fewer of them (60 instead of 99 in the case of NZ). But voters also have another vote, the Party Vote. You vote for which local candidate you want as your electorate MP and then vote for which party you wish to see in Parliament

The number of seats in Parliament a party receives is based on the total percentage of the Party Vote it receives. If Labour wins 35% of the Party vote, it will receive 35% of the seats in Parliament.

Those seats are filled first of all by those candidates who have won their local electorate seats. If the party has some seats left over (as is usually the case,) the remainder of their Parliamentary seats are filled by people from their Party List. This is a pre published list of candidates in order who will recieve seats in Parliament only if enough people vote for their party. It is possible that a party could win more constituency seats than it's share of the Party Vote entitled it to, in that case the size of parliament would temporarily increase to accommodate the extra seats. NZ usually has 60 electorate seats and 60 List seats.

The shake up to New Zealand politics has been profound and ongoing. The first couple of MMP elections were marked by unpopular coalitions, but gradually the public have gotten the measure of the system and political parties have had to evolve rapidly.

Now it is no longer seen as necessary to prop up one of two main parties in order to have any influence on an election. "Safe" seats are much less so as people feel free to vote for whichever local constituency candidate will do the best job for their electorate without worrying too much about which party they belong to. Voters seem to be more open to using their Party Vote for 3rd or 4th or 5th or 6th parties, secure in the knowledge that as long as their choice of Party gets at least 5% of the popular vote, their vote will count and their party of choice will be represented in Parliament. The fortunes of any political party can change radically from one election to the next. Currently NZ has 122 Parliamentary seats shared by 7 political parties.

No party has ever had an absolute majority in Parliament under MMP in NZ, parties now have to come to coalition agreements in order to govern effectively. In practice, these agreements now have to be made public before any election they would affect.

The end result has been more accountability of MPs, less partisanship and more government by consensus. Some people still bemoan the old style "Strong Government" but having seen it here in the UK for the past few years, I don't miss it a bit.

[PaulW99]

I see Mandelson is already cozying up to the Lib Dems, saying he supports electoral reform.

Thanks for the NZ info, very interesting!

[chaggle]

Hi Carnivore



No party has ever had an absolute majority in Parliament under MMP in NZ, parties now have to come to coalition agreements in order to govern effectively. In practice, these agreements now have to be made public before any election they would affect.


Do you mean that potential coalitions have by law to be declared prior to the election?

[Carnivore]

Hi Carnivore



Do you mean that potential coalitions have by law to be declared prior to the election?

No. After the first MMP election in 1996 the third party (a radical centrist party running on an anti immigration platform) was in a position to choose which of the two frontrunners it would support, and spent weeks negotiating coalition deals with both before coming down on the side of the largest vote winner and forming a coalition government with them. The public was furious at the long delay in forming a government and also at the seeming self serving sliminess of the third party leader, Winston Peters. At the next election his party (New Zealand First) was repudiated at the polls, losing all it's seats except Mr Peters own constituency seat of Tauranga, where he remained a hero to the local blue haired old ladies and their cats.

After the '96 coalition fiasco the other parties began negotiating and making public potential coalition deals well before the elections in order to head off voter backlash.

(The National Party which went into coalition with NZ First won 44 seats in '96 election, dropped back to 39 seats in '99 and back to 27 seats in 2002. They are now back in power as a minority government with 58 out of 122 seats, with support agreements from 3 other small parties.)

[Tony Williams]

The NZ system does sound much fairer and more sensible than ours.


At the next election his party (New Zealand First) was repudiated at the polls, losing all it's seats except Mr Peters own constituency seat of Tauranga, where he remained a hero to the local blue haired old ladies and their cats.
I don't know about enfranchising cats, though!

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Slightly off-thread but my favourite moment last night was the complete shock almost every single person on the election shows last night had at the exit poll result. None of them could compute that it might actually be accurate because it didn't tally with the belief system they had built up over the last few weeks. A prime example of how even the politicians can't translate what is happening on the ground into seats. Looks like the exit poll was pretty accurate in the end.

Second favourite moment, was after totally dismissing the exit poll, was seeing people endlessly discuss projections being done on the results after 3 or 4 seats! ::)

[PaulW99]

Labor got 26% more votes than the Lib Dems, but they received 350% more seats.

If I was a UKIP voter I wouldn't be happy either. Nearly 1 million votes and not a single seat.

If it was truly proportional, this would be the result (out of 650 seats):
Cons 235 (actual: 306)
Lab 189 (258)
LD 150 (57)
UKIP 20 (0)
BNP 12 (0)
SNP 11 (6)
Green 7 (1)
Sinn Fein 4 (5)
Plaid Cymru 4 (3)
DUP 4 (8)
SD&L 4 (3)
Ulster Conservatives 3 (0)
English Democrats 1 (0)
etc

[newatheist]

That's always been the problem up to now. Also, our macho politicians (of both genders) just live for the prospect of enjoying untrammelled power, and hate the thought that they might have to compromise with the views of others (you know, like the rest of us do every day...).

This is the second most infuriating thing about this election so far (first is the biased media), as far as I can tell there are many countries which have almost permanent coalition governments. The British politicians are perfectly capable of doing the same.

Even though I can't say how exactly the elections to be run I definitely think it needs a change.

For people who are very angry:
http://www.takebackparliament.com/

And if anyone is planning to go let us know.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

I do wonder how much the ant-lib dem press has had to do with the result today. The Sun/Mail/Times/Telegraph have been pretty desperate over the last week, I'm not sure they've been quite so vitriolic in the past. Sure they supported a party in the past, but never seemed to implement so much of a hatchet job. Or maybe they probably did, just this time it's been based on pure self-interest.

[bindeweede]

Labor got 26% more votes than the Lib Dems, but they received 350% more seats.

If I was a UKIP voter I wouldn't be happy either. Nearly 1 million votes and not a single seat.

If it was truly proportional, this would be the result (out of 650 seats):
Cons 235 (actual: 306)
Lab 189 (258)
LD 150 (57)
UKIP 20 (0)
BNP 12 (0)
SNP 11 (6)
Green 7 (1)
Sinn Fein 4 (5)
Plaid Cymru 4 (3)
DUP 4 (8)
SD&L 4 (3)
Ulster Conservatives 3 (0)
English Democrats 1 (0)
etc

Paul,

Not trying to be awkward here, but which of Tony's "proportional" systems were you using in this example? Do you mind if I ask if you compared different systems?

[PaulW99]

Paul,

Not trying to be awkward here, but which of Tony's "proportional" systems were you using in this example? Do you mind if I ask if you compared different systems?

I was just using % of votes = % of seats, like they do in the Netherlands and Israel (or so I understand).

[bindeweede]

I was just using % of votes = % of seats, like they do in the Netherlands and Israel (or so I understand).

Paul, you replied before I could edit my post. They aren't Tony's systems, of course. They are the Electoral Reform Society's systems.

[chaggle]

One thing that can be said in defence of FPTP is that it usually produces a clear result. This time it hasn't and it's all a bit of a mess. If we used a PR system would it not be a "bit of a mess" every time?

[Tony Williams]

One thing that can be said in defence of FPTP is that it usually produces a clear result. This time it hasn't and it's all a bit of a mess. If we used a PR system would it not be a "bit of a mess" every time?
It's only a mess because our politicians have no experience of this kind of outcome and don't know how to handle it. Furthermore, in an FPTP system like ours this is an unstable situation likely to result in another election long before the five years are up, so the parties will try to position themselves to do well in that.

With any kind of more proportional representation (whichever system is chosen) it will become as rare for one party to gain overall control as a hung parliament is now. So the parties will get used to the idea that they have to share power and compromise. Some of the best-run and most successful countries in the world have a PR system - this talk of "strong government" is self-serving political BS.

What is important, though, is to prevent the system from getting clogged up by a huge host of tiny parties; having to do deals with a large number of them really would lead to instability. That's why there needs to be a cut-off of probably around 5%; in other words, as we have c.40 million voters a party would have to get the support of 2 million before getting any seats at all.

[Carnivore]

One thing that can be said in defence of FPTP is that it usually produces a clear result. This time it hasn't and it's all a bit of a mess. If we used a PR system would it not be a "bit of a mess" every time?


It depends what you mean by "bit of a mess". Certainly giving control of parliament to one party is a clear result, but if that party only received a bit more than a third of all the votes cast, it is not exactly a fair result. And if I were a Lib Dem voter I would be spitting tacks. They got nearly two thirds as many votes as the Tories did and less than a fith of the seats.

The current "all or nothing" mentality seems to lead MPs into a frenzy of childish sniping and point scoring when not in office, and riding roughshod over every opposing viewpoint when they are.

My hope is that the current crop of MPs realize that a third of the vote does not a mandate make, and decide to grow up a little bit at least for the current term of parliament. For the moment it is going to be a bit more difficult to ram through deeply unpopular legislation. Just governing the country is going to require a goodly amount of cooperation and consensus. We will have to see if our pols have it in them to offer actual leadership.

[chaggle]

It's only a mess because our politicians have no experience of this kind of outcome and don't know how to handle it. Furthermore, in an FPTP system like ours this is an unstable situation likely to result in another election long before the five years are up, so the parties will try to position themselves to do well in that.

With any kind of more proportional representation (whichever system is chosen) it will become as rare for one party to gain overall control as a hung parliament is now. So the parties will get used to the idea that they have to share power and compromise. Some of the best-run and most successful countries in the world have a PR system - this talk of "strong government" is self-serving political BS.

What is important, though, is to prevent the system from getting clogged up by a huge host of tiny parties; having to do deals with a large number of them really would lead to instability. That's why there needs to be a cut-off of probably around 5%; in other words, as we have c.40 million voters a party would have to get the support of 2 million before getting any seats at all.

And presumably a fixed term would encourage more cooperation. If you're going to be there for four years you might as well try to get on.

[Tony Williams]

The New Zealand system has been written up on the BBC news website here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8665835.stm

[PaulW99]

I agree about the 5% barrier.

Clegg is in an enviable position now, he can play off both parties to get the most concessions. The Lib Dems finally have their chance, will they really use it to get electoral reform?

[skbuncks]

Labor got 26% more votes than the Lib Dems, but they received 350% more seats.

If I was a UKIP voter I wouldn't be happy either. Nearly 1 million votes and not a single seat.

If it was truly proportional, this would be the result (out of 650 seats):
Cons 235 (actual: 306)
Lab 189 (258)
LD 150 (57)
UKIP 20 (0)
BNP 12 (0)
SNP 11 (6)
Green 7 (1)
Sinn Fein 4 (5)
Plaid Cymru 4 (3)
DUP 4 (8)
SD&L 4 (3)
Ulster Conservatives 3 (0)
English Democrats 1 (0)
etc


Paul,

Not trying to be awkward here, but which of Tony's "proportional" systems were you using in this example? Do you mind if I ask if you compared different systems?

For reference here (http://www.general-election-2010.co.uk/2010-general-election-results.html) are the results on a number of votes/percentage basis.
(seats, votes, percentage votes)

Conservative Party....306, 10,706,647, 36.1%
Labour Party.............258, 8,604,358, 29.0%
Liberal Democrats........57, 6,827,938, 23.0%
DUP............................8, 1 168,216, 0.6%
SNP............................6, 491,386, 1.7%
Sinn Féin Party.............5, 171,942, 0.6%
Plaid Cymru Party..........3, 165,394, 0.6%
SDLP...........................3, 110,970, 0.4%
Green Party..................1, 285,616, 1.0%
Alliance Party................1, 42,762, 0.1%
Other Parties.................1, 319,891, 1.1%

skb

[newatheist]

I agree about the 5% barrier.

Clegg is in an enviable position now, he can play off both parties to get the most concessions. The Lib Dems finally have their chance, will they really use it to get electoral reform?
Do they have a choice? It is as much in their own interest as the public's to get some sort of PR, they may never get the chance for several decades.

Also I'm surprised by the tory support, I had assumed that this coutry was a bit more progressive.

[bindeweede]

Some experts expect another General Election within 12 months, presumably before any system of PR can be introduced.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7691881/General-Election-2010-Britain-to-go-to-polls-again-within-12-months-experts-say.html

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Also I'm surprised by the tory support, I had assumed that this coutry was a bit more progressive.

Smoke and mirrors - what you see isn't what you get.

Besides, people don't feel they have much choice. If you're anti-labour and don't know much about lib-dems (and don't think they'll get in anyway), then I guess mostly the only option is Con. What is clear to me however is that there are huge amounts of the population that know very little about the policies of the party they are voting for, or they have a very simplified view of them (probably because the parties promote a simplified view!)

[Tony Williams]

Clegg is in an enviable position now, he can play off both parties to get the most concessions. The Lib Dems finally have their chance, will they really use it to get electoral reform?
Actually I think Clegg is in a very difficult position. If he throws his hand in with Labour (the best chance of getting electoral reform) the two parties still won't have an overall majority, and he will be reviled for supporting the failed Brown as PM. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that Brown's promised referendum on electoral methods would result in a PR system. So it would be a huge gamble.

OTOH if he links with the Tories (which would please more of the electorate) he only stands a remote chance of getting electoral reform and he knows that the Tories would call another election the moment they thought they could win.

A rock and a hard place, I think....

[Tony Williams]

For reference here (http://www.general-election-2010.co.uk/2010-general-election-results.html) are the results on a number of votes/percentage basis.
(seats, votes, percentage votes)

Conservative Party....306, 10,706,647, 36.1%
Labour Party.............258, 8,604,358, 29.0%
Liberal Democrats........57, 6,827,938, 23.0%
DUP............................8, 1 168,216, 0.6%
SNP............................6, 491,386, 1.7%
Sinn Féin Party.............5, 171,942, 0.6%
Plaid Cymru Party..........3, 165,394, 0.6%
SDLP...........................3, 110,970, 0.4%
Green Party..................1, 285,616, 1.0%
Alliance Party................1, 42,762, 0.1%
Other Parties.................1, 319,891, 1.1%

skb
Don't forget that these would not translate into the proportions you'd get in a PR system: they result from a lot of tactical voting. In PR, with every vote counting, the smaller parties would probably get a lot more support.

[smudge]

A rock and a hard place, I think....

I agree but I perceived the 'rock' and 'hard place' slightly differently.

On one hand he feels obliged to talk to the 'party with most votes' (tories), he was disparaging about the 'party in third' when he expected that that might be Labour. He now finds the Liberal support has (apparently) evaporated. Many of the votes the Liberals DID get were probably anti Tory votes. And he knows that most Liberals, on policy, have far more in common with Labour.

Propping up a Tory government (if it is perceived that way) could destroy the Liberal vote long term.

I'd say another election in a year very likely.

[smudge]

Don't forget that these would not translate into the proportions you'd get in a PR system: they result from a lot of tactical voting. In PR, with every vote counting, the smaller parties would probably get a lot more support.

Yes, I agree..
Easy to lose sight of when just looking at the figures.

[Tony Williams]

On one hand he feels obliged to talk to the 'party with most votes' (tories), he was disparaging about the 'party in third' when he expected that that might be Labour. He now finds the Liberal support has (apparently) evaporated. Many of the votes the Liberals DID get were probably anti Tory votes. And he knows that most Liberals, on policy, have far more in common with Labour.

Propping up a Tory government (if it is perceived that way) could destroy the Liberal vote long term.

I'd say another election in a year very likely.
I wouldn't argue with that, except that a lot of votes that all of the three major parties got would have been tactical, in the sense of different from what the voters really wanted.

One of the most curious aspects of this election was the lack of any clear pattern, with huge differences between constituencies in the level of swings to and from particular parties. Plus, of course, a radically different outcome in Scotland, which saw an overall swing towards Labour. That could be ominous for the future in that it strengthens the case for an English parliament, with the Lords reformed as an elected UK parliament. And an English parliament would have a massive Tory majority.

[bindeweede]

I see the Tories have offered Clegg a Referendum on the introduction of the AV system, described by The Electoral Reform Society
AV is thus not a proportional system, and can in fact be more disproportional than FPTP.

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=55

I hope Clegg tells them where to stick it.

[newatheist]

Can anyone explain to me what EXACTLY it is that Clegg wants? What is the PR he wants entail? I know I should already know this considering I actually voted.:-[

[bindeweede]

Can anyone explain to me what EXACTLY it is that Clegg wants? What is the PR he wants entail? I know I should already know this considering I actually voted.:-[

I think he is playing quite a clever game - squeezing as many concessions out of the 2 big parties as he can get away with. But decision time must be very close.


Nick Clegg, apparently, is not going to name the next prime minister close to midnight, when most sensible people are asleep. Instead it looks as if D-Day could come tomorrow.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/10/general-election-2010-live-blog

[PaulW99]

Don't forget that these would not translate into the proportions you'd get in a PR system: they result from a lot of tactical voting. In PR, with every vote counting, the smaller parties would probably get a lot more support.

True, but on the other hand there may be people who vote, say, UKIP or BNP as protest votes, and would hesitate to do so if it would actually give them some seats or power.

Looks like AV (second-preference) is going to be it. I suppose the Big Three figure it's the best for them.

[bindeweede]

I found an interesting comparison between 3 systems prepared by the ERS, based on the General Election results.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8644480.stm

Clear why the Tories don't want STV.

[Drop Bear]

A foreign perspective;


Tuesday 11May,Midday ABC (our version of the BBC) News:

Gordon Brown has announced his resignation.

Labour has begun formal talks with the Liberal democrats (after having informal talks all along)

Labour has promises immediate electoral reform ,presumably without referendum. A cynical person such as myself might see a referendum as political smoke and mirrors,designed to fail,as they usually do here

I get the impression the Liberals and Labour are more ideologically compatible than Liberals and the other shower. IF so, surely that suggests the probability of a more stable government,especially without Brown?

The perception here is that Clegg wants to replace the current 'first past the post ' system with an Australian-style system of preferential voting. Ironically,large numbers of Australians (including me) hate our system,considering it innately unfair.


In my opinion the best thing we do to ensure proportional representation is to constantly examine and modify electoral boundaries to avoid Jerrymanders,of which we have had many in the past in this country.(especially in my State).

An electoral reform will not alter the political landscape of the UK in any significant way. People en masse are innately conservative and hate reform governments

[polomint38]

I bet the returning officer for Houghton & Sunderland South doesn't want the system changed, he would have to get his crack team of balloteers up to speed with the new system. :cheesy: