Comments on: Getting specific on PR

By: The Sharpener » Blog Archive » Dumps and deliberations

The Sharpener » Blog Archive » Dumps and deliberations — Wed, 03 May 2006 07:26:21 +0000

[…] I prefer a proportional representation system like open-list PR or a preference voting system like STV. However, as suggested by theorists of deliberative democracy, we do need more (and different) voter engagement. Desperately. Citizens’ Assemblies, like the one used to study electoral reform in British Columbia, and Participatory Budgeting used in Porto Alegre, are just the start. Among developed democracies, Canada is leading the way, though at least one of my local mayoral candidates is starting to get the point. […]

By: The Sharpener » Forget Germany

The Sharpener » Forget Germany — Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:46:54 +0000

[…] suggesting a perfectly proportional system for the UK. Both AV+ and the system I suggested here in June would deliver majorities on large pluralities, as would the Single Transferable Vote. The Jamaica, […]

By: The Sharpener » Should Tories love PR?

The Sharpener » Should Tories love PR? — Thu, 09 Jun 2005 22:05:45 +0000

[…] Better than any of these, whoever replaces Michael Howard as leader might like to consider this system, open-list PR, discussed here recently. There’s no preferential votes. No run-offs. No gaming […]

By: Jarndyce

Jarndyce — Fri, 20 May 2005 10:03:35 +0000

I agree with Phil on this. Nobody's suggesting that an ideal electoral system can be designed, just a much, much better one than now. There have to be inputs other than 100% proportionality of representation, for sure; culture, history, practicality, governability, and so on. Right now we seem to be stuck in a system that is very hard to defend on any other grounds than: 'we've always done it this way', it 'produces majorities', and the mystical 'stable government'. Red D: actually, I disagree. Labour would need very few transfers from UKIP to achieve a quota, which might well effect their choice of candidate, interestingly. Plus, it's impossible to say what the impact of a popular local MP able to collect votes from all over would be, or of parties over- or under-estimating their likely vote and fielding too many/too few candidates, or of unused votes from a whole bunch of minor parties I didn't list in my table. I stick by my assertion in the piece: what might happen under STV is informed guesswork, but it's still basically guessing.

By: Red Deathy

Red Deathy — Fri, 20 May 2005 08:17:19 +0000

I wouldn’t think it would be that hard to estimate STV results.

Looking at your Cornwall seat, the Droop quota for that election would be 41,936 votes so Labour wouldn’t get a seat, and my bet is that would go 3 lib dem 2 Tory (Tories just shy of two quotas, so they wouldn’t need many transfers from Labour, even if the bulk went to the Lib-Dems).

You can do this because the experience, certainly of Malta, is that people tend to be party loyal…

By: Phil

Phil — Fri, 20 May 2005 08:03:57 +0000

once you have accepted that change is possible, how do you go about finding a system that is fair, but not too fair, and has the simplicity, transparency and universal acceptance needed to survive?

I’m not sure how big a problem this is. The Italian experience (post-1993) does suggest that, once you’ve started making changes to the electoral system, the tweaking – and the cries of injustice – can go on for years if not decades. Then again, none of the Italian election results – or the resulting governments – have been challenged as invalid (the courts were involved in 2001, briefly and in a way which didn’t affect the overall result; in any case, the problem was the way the political parties ‘gamed’ the system rather than the system itself). The system hasn’t been delegitimated, in other words – it’s just been lined up for another round of tweaking. I think that’s a tolerable prospect, even if the exaggerated hopes raised in the process are likely to get a bit tedious – “now we’re going to get it right!”…

By: Third Avenue

Third Avenue — Thu, 19 May 2005 18:12:36 +0000

I’ll admit to being slightly agnostic on PR, but willing to be convinced.

I like the way you have re-christened PR ‘fair votes’ – but isn’t this slighlty disingenuous? What you are talking about, surely, is ‘fairer votes’, for neither you nor any other serious observer is arguing for a purely proportionate system.

And therein lies the rub. If you go for a system that is less than 100% proportionate, you will always get someone who loses out. So the pressure for change will be always with you – small parties will always emerge who feel justifiably cheated that their representatives are not in the Commons. At the moment, such claims can be countered by the fact that FPTP is the system we’ve always had, and the sheer inertia and conservatism of the country. But once you have accepted that change is possible, how do you go about finding a system that is fair, but not too fair, and has the simplicity, transparency and universal acceptance needed to survive?