With a hung parliament looming and the most likely out come being a coalition government with the Lib Dems being the king makers, what will the Lib Dems expect for their support? Gordon Brown has already offered the Alternative Vote System, which isn’t a proportional representation form of voting system and is unlikely to be […]
Continue Reading Proportional Representation : The Single Transferable Vote
All my adult life I have thought that proper proportional representation would be the fairest way to do things.
Imagine if the numbers of MPs in the House of Commons properly reflected the total votes cast for each party as listed in the table here. Such a mechanism would force MPs to work together, rather than allowing one political philosophy or another to bludgeon its way through by itself while ignoring more than 50% of the population.
“First past the post” worked once upon a time. However, in the 21st century it is no way for a proper modern inclusive democracy to act. As for the weak government argument, don’t make me laugh – it simply tends to produce a bullying government.
I therefore make a plea for co-operation.
I hope that either the Tories or Labour can come to realise the justice of this argument, and start working with the smaller political parties to give the British people a properly representative government, one that truly reflects the electorate’s wishes – after all it is us, the taxpaying electorate, who pay all the bills, so we should be heard!!!!
View Comment
Yes if we had proportional representation how many BNP MP’s would we now have :)
pI for one dont know how many BNP members there would be. It is not a reason either way for having or not having PR.
PR is PR and will represent all views, and in my opinion we should not fear peoples views. Better that they are in the open and can be challenged properly and seen by the public derectly.
View Comment
I would be interested to know the entire make-up of Parliament if we had PR this time around.
It was reported in the Telegraph there would be 30 BNP seats.
The BNP got less than 1%of the vote so that would be 6 seats maximum. So David, I think we can ignore unhelpful comment from the Telegraph, supposedly a serious newspaper.
We’ve had elected dictatorships for the last thirty years presiding over a massive decline in Britain’s ability to do anything substantial except fiddle with money and make war.
PR equals real democracy and not political dogma.
View Comment
Facts, please.
“The BNP got less than 1%of the vote so that would be 6 seats maximum.”
The BNP actually polled 1.9% of the vote, or 563,743 votes out of 29,653,638 cast.
In precise proportion, this give the BNP 12 seats minimum, out of 649.
You don’t understand proportional representation, under the PR systems we might use in Britain it would probably have resulted in 0 BNP MPs or at the very best less than 3.
BTW had the BNP had a candidate in all constituencies and they polled the same sort of % they’d have around 3.8% of the popular vote which wouldn’t be enough to gain MPs under most forms of PR.
David
View Comment
David,
It is you who does not understand PR.
Many Alternative Voting systems are commonly miscalled PR, but as you yourself admit, do not yield statistically proportional results, hence are not rationally PR.
I submit therefore, not even the most rabid LibDem cheerleader REALLY wants PR… they just want a larger slice of the cake for themselves.
View Comment
It’s impossible to say since there’s no specific proposed proportional representation system on the table right now.
Even the preferred Lib Dems single transferable vote system has multiple permutations, so to try to determine a possible result is fraught with problems.
That being said if we used the sort of systems used in other countries where there’s a cut off point for a party to gain power (minimum 10% of the 1st votes in a constituency to go to stage two) then a bit of an expert on the BNP who calls himself Vote No To BNP estimates at worst we’d have 1 or 2 BNP MPs right now because only 3 BNP candidates gained 10% of the vote in the constituency they stood in.
It could also easily be 0 BNP MPs under PR if the BNP can’t secure significantly more than 10% of the vote in constituencies after the worst performing candidates are removed and their votes are shared amongst the remaining candidates.
David
View Comment
As many as the public elect – whether we like it or not as indivduals. We have to honour the fact that some people voted for them and you cannot use your own polictical views to reflect upon a voting system!
If you have a proportional system like New Zealand adopted over a decade ago, the answer is NONE.
A proportional system with “collaboration” between parties has led my country (Italy) to years of weak governments, with no strong law being passed, with constant indecision and breaking down of alliances … is this what we really want? Having lived in Italy andhaving first experienced the result of proportional system, I don’t!!
View Comment
Before jumping into bed with the Lib-Dems and promising electoral reform in an effort to remain in Downing Street, Brown needs to talk to his mate in Canberra, one Rt. Hon. K. Rudd MP.
Australia uses a simple STV system and the Australian Labor (they can’t spell) Party has been trying to undermine it for years. Brown should ask why.
STV isn’t perfect – what system is? – but it allows electors to cast a vote against the candidate they dislike the most.
In a division with a large number of candidates, FPTP enables a widely despised candidate to make it across the line. At least STV minimises the chances of electing the most loathed nominee.
STV alone isn’t bad and doesn’t necessarily lead to continuous minority governments of any flavour: witness Australia, which rarely suffers them.
However, there are some dreadful variants on the system – and Britain doesn’t need any of them – witness the Hare-Clark (as used in Tasmania for State Elections) or Multi-Member Proportional Representation (as used in New Zealand).
Whatever your political persuasion, you can guarantee Hare-Clark or MMPR will deliver a government you hate more than the one you have. Imagine Labour being forced to work with the BNP and you have the picture. Let’s not go down this road.
View Comment
The only thing that bothers me about a proportional system being introduced in Britain is that the share of seats will be split among three parties and not two. It’s perfectly possible that the two centre-left parties could form a permanent (but unofficial) coalition that sees them both staying in power as long as they can agree on most policy. Which is more likely than either Labour or the Lib Dems agreeing to form up with the Conservatives (the only reason it’s looking like it may happen this time is because it’s the option that poses the least risk for Clegg).
And as long as both Labour and the Lib Dems can manage to maintain their core vote (one illegal war, a damaged economy and spiralling debt on their watch later, and Labour still gets 8.5 million votes…) then there would be no way to get a change and we’d effectively be living in a one-party state. That kind of situation is what leads to corruption. And it’s hardly democratic.
View Comment
Yes the core Labour vote is strong, but ask yourself why?
There’s really only one alternative and that’s the Conservatives who are perceived as rich selfish ba###rds who will screw over the less well off so they and their friends make more money.
Yep, I see Labour voters who perceive the Tories this way flocking to the alternative Conservative party!
The real alternative to Labour and Conservatives are the Lib Dems and the electorate apparently don’t want them in power either.
I generally like what Labour stand for, but there are areas I don’t like, they are trampling on our civil rights and if they stayed in power we’d keep sliding slowly down the slippery slope. With Labour and the Lib Dems in power together we’d get a general Labour approach tempered by the Lib Dems who do not support policies like ID cards.
To Conservative voters, you’ve seen how hard it is to knock the Labour vote down when pretty much everything has gone wrong for Labour. What do you think is going to happen if the Tories control the country for a while and bring in all the awful spending cuts (that Labour would have to do as well) and we got to another first past the post election with a new Labour leader (Gordon Brown can’t survive as the Labour leader now) and a feeling among the electorate the Tories have screwed us over by lying about public sector cuts etc… (the efficiency saving rubbish) while giving their rich friends a tax break! I see another Labour government whether the election is 18 months from now or over 4 years.
At least with a voting system like STV there will almost certainly always be a Lib Dem part to a Labour government to not let them trample all over our civil liberties. And at times like these a Tory/Lib Dem government that can’t completely screw over the less well off.
That is unless constituency boundaries are changed to make the current situation where Labour has their support concentrated in a way where a relatively small amount of support still results in safe seats.
As it is, it’s difficult for the Conservatives to get a decent majority in the FPTP system and even harder for the Lib Dems and much easier for Labour.
David
View Comment
David,
Your hatred of the Tories is pathological.
I could understand it if Thatcher or an extreme monetarist were standing. “Dry” Toryism can often, er, how do you put it,
.
But are you not guilty of deception in passing off the extremes of a previous generation of Conservatives as present-day reality, whilst making absolutely no attempt to do the same for the worst of Labour or Liberalism?
I do not deny your real experiences in the 1980s. But if Labour could drop Clause 4 & govern as “New Labour”, should the Tories not be given a chance to renew (even in some areas of policy, to REDEEM) themselves?
You advertise yourself as a neutral, so please be fairer.
View Comment
Most PR systems, apart from the compensatory mixed ones, distribute representation to individuaks by using territorially defined districts, just like the ones presently used under “first-past-the post” rules.The only difference is that they have two or more seats attached to them [the number assigned is known as the “district magnitude”.] The threshold for winning a seat in such a district is determined locally and depends on its district magnitude: the higher the magnitude, the lower the threshold an extremist or fringe candidate, like the BNP ones, would have to surpass in order to win a seat. A rule of thumb is: Threshold % = 1 / number of seats in the district plus 1. So, with nine seats assigned to a district such a candidate would need 10% or more of the vote cast in the district. By keeping the district magnitude relatively low, one can create local district thresholds that in most suituations effectively prevent the election of truly extremist candidates.
View Comment
This is no “PR, it reads like Prof. Gerry Mander’s diary!!!
Why, oh why, do you want “proportionality”, but only to benefit a party the strength of the LibDems?
What a way to engineer an electoral system – bring on the referendum on AV, STV or SUV, whatever; IT WILL NOT PASS!!!
We don’t want extremist people in power.
Lets imagine the BNP had a uniform share of the popular vote across the country, so every area had 5% of people voting BNP.
If there’s 650 MPs and you think 5% (or 32 MPs) should be BNP because countrywide they have 5% support, which 32 parliamentary constituencies where only 5% of the people in those areas voted BNP should have a BNP MP?
Do you not think it’s completely undemocratic to force an MP on a particular area when only 5% of the people in that area voted BNP?
If you agree with me and feel it’s not fair, how do you propose having 32 BNP MPs in a fair way to all the electorate?
This is why there are a minimum number of votes needed before a candidate can gain a seat in the good PR systems used around the world.
David
Single Transferable Vote, Proportional Representation without Extremism
This viewpoint smacks of arrogance.
Who decides who an extremist is?
If people vote for a candidate, they get to be represented by that candidate by a variety of mechanisms. One is First (or Furthest) Past The Post. Beat everyone else running in a smallish area, & represent them.
To call every alternative to this “PR” is actually misleading, since the moral argument is made on the grounds of proportionality, whereas only an altered majoritarian outcome is guaranteed. I could go further to highlight the contradictions in the logic of the Electoral Reform Society argument, but that’s for another post.
View Comment
You didn’t answer the failings of what you want, how do we get a representative number of each parties candidates under PR without undemocratically forcing the smaller parties candidates on areas where the electorate only gave them under 5% (or even 10%) of the vote?
You can argue all you like that 5% of the popular vote should give a party 5% of the MPs and in principle I’d agree. Now you turn that into a working voting system that’s democratic?
If the BNP gained 5% (actually it was 1.9% or ~3.8% if they fielded 650 candidates and they gained similar support as the 317 candidates that they fielded in 2010) of the vote share where do the 30ish BNP MPs represent? I sure as hell don’t want one where I live!
David
View Comment
David,
As I am completely against all that the BNP stand for, I would deeply regret them ever assuming a significant role in British politics or government.
It is in fact, one reason why I prefer FPTP to tinkering with the electoral system.
I suspect the British liking for a single MP to represent both their community and individual interests is too greatly valued to accept either the Labour suggestion or the Liberal system as presented here. Equally we know there are many VERY good politicians in each party who are too good to loose but may not easily appeal to voters – look at the attempts of some of the best Labour politicians in this election. They tend to get put into ‘safe’ seats but remain at risk even in multi-member constituencies, perhaps greater risk.
Nevertheless there is case for PR but with say 550 first past the post constituencies, and 100 MPs chosen by parties and listed in order of the party’s preference to achieve PR on a National basis. BUT which nation? The Conservatives have a substantial overall majority in England, and if given this opportunity the Liberals fail to use it wisely England could more often than not have a Conservative majority even with PR. A Lib-Lab pact now would I suggest be unacceptable to the English people unless only English MPs can approve the equivalent of the Scottish Government’s powers in England.
View Comment
As I understand it, the Libdems only want proportional representation for parties which get 15% or more of the national vote. In other words, they want it for themselves, but they don’t want it for anybody else! A typical half-measure! What would you expect of them? Half-hearted, wishy-washy, compromising, dithering, wavering, scared-to-go-all-the-way spineless liberalism.
For most of my lifetime the Liberals have been a tiny party, with less than 10% of the vote. When they were small, they advocated true proportional representation.
Now they are acting jumped-up and have watered down their policy to suit their rise in votes.
But how would the public really vote if we had genuine proportional representation, a system in which every vote counted and even 1% resulted in 6 MPs?
That is very uncertain. The Libdems will never take that risk.
View Comment
Where is my reply on this site?
If you want to see a really good and fair system of Proportional representation, go and look at the UKIP manifesto.
We’ve got the best, and it really is thought out. It would combine local representation with a fair number of MPs from right across the political spectrum.
View Comment
All your recent comments were marked as SPAM by WordPress. Maybe you’ve had some comments on another WordPress site marked as SPAM by the owner and Akismet (the WordPress plugin that automates SPAM removal) now recognises your email address as a SPAMMER.
Not saying you are a SPAMMER, I didn’t see anything wrong with your comments so pulled them out the SPAM folder and approved them. Akismet can also make mistakes.
If you find this happens a lot on other WordPress sites I’d change the email address you use for commenting. The email address isn’t used on a site like this anyway, it’s only important if you have to register to comment (fake email addresses work here :-)).
If your comments don’t show up right away as long as they aren’t SPAM I’ll recover them as I check the SPAM folder several times a day.
David
View Comment