PR and its discontents
36% of 61%, that’s all it took. 22% of voters have chosen a government to rule untrammelled over the rest of us for the next 5 years. I guess that right after an unfair election probably isn’t the time to start talking about electoral reform. No, it was time to start talking about it thirty years ago, when three-party politics returned and the ability of our decrepit electoral system to translate votes into representation began to derail. The benefits of some form of PR are obvious: the will of the people translated into a form more manageable than referendum-based democracy. There is no criterion for a just electoral system that takes precedence over that.
Sure, there are one or two problems. There is no perfect electoral system  and plenty of non-starters to replace FPTP (first-past-the-post). But most of the objections are myth and mischief.
Myth #1: PR systems are too complex for voters to understand
Supporters laud the simplicity of FPTP: one cross in one box for one MP to represent one seat. Sure, it’s simple. Or simplistic  this is a government we’re choosing, not a washing powder. Should simplicity be the sole criterion? Of course not. Under a system of PR, it wouldn’t be crucial for every voter to understand the D’Hondt or Sainte-Lague divisors, just to know broadly that casting a vote for their candidate and/or party would count towards final representation in national decision-making. You can’t say that about FPTP. And, on one level, PR systems work more simply than FPTP. A recent academic study found that 14% of UK voters planted their Xs tactically in 2001. The complex regional swings of last week suggest the same again. PR would make that unnecessary.
To go one stage further and suggest that people are too stupid for the full participation that PR implies isn’t anyway an argument for FPTP. It’s an argument for technocratic dictatorship.
Myth #2: PR systems take away the link between constituent and MP
A common myth based on one form of extreme PR  the national (closed) list form. Voters tick a box for a party, that party gets the proportional amount of seats in parliament, perfect (or near-perfect) proportionality is the result. Centralized parties under this system wield all the power  whether you get elected or not depends on how far down the party list you are.
Straw man alert: nobody sane is suggesting this for the UK. Sensibly designed, regional multi-member constituencies sacrifice a bit of overall proportionality at national level for plenty of local representation. PR systems such as open-list and PR-STV actually produce more incentives for your MP to serve local interests. They take power away from party hierarchies and put the choice of candidates in voters’ hands. Right now, a Tory voter, say, is offered one Tory candidate in his or her constituency  take him or leave him. Studies estimate that only 1–2% of votes are cast on personal issues. Deserting deeply-felt party allegiance is a big ask just because you don’t like the cut of a man’s jib. Under open-list PR and PR-STV in multi-member constituencies, that same Tory voter probably has choice of partisan representation. It’s like having a primary and an election rolled into one.
Once elected, your MP has an incentive to work hard for the community, knowing that he can’t rely on even pure partisan support next time around. There remains plenty of political space for mavericks like Peter Law, Reg Keys and Richard Taylor to thrive: 13 independent candidates were elected in Ireland in 2002. Well-designed open systems provide opportunities to kick out odious candidates, too. We wouldn’t lose our Portillo and Hamilton moments.
Myth #3: PR systems encourage extremist parties
There are two simple ways round this. The first, like Germany, is to have a threshold above which a party must score nationally (or regionally) to ensure representation in parliament. Germany’s is set at 5%. The far right are excluded. The second is a system of preference voting like PR-STV, which naturally excludes extremists. Unless, of course, there is a legion of Lib Dems thinking: “Well, if the beardie tree-hugger doesn’t get in, I hope it’s the skinhead. I’ll put my second choice mark for the BNPâ€Â.
In countries where the far right is more heavily supported, like France, an electoral system ought to include not artificially exclude them, anyway. Either co-opting will moderate them, or elected office gives them plenty rope to skewer themselves on the national stage. Take your pick.
Myth #4: PR systems ensure consensualism, fragmentation, centre-left coalitions, etc., etc.
These are all part of the same argument: that PR ensures a certain outcome. However, the same argument is used for all sorts of guaranteed outcomes. In fact, PR systems do no more than ensure that the will of the people is broadly represented in parliament. It entrenches centre-left government if the majority of the voters are centre-left. PR didn’t stop Aznar coming to power in Spain, or Berlusconi in Italy, or National in New Zealand. It didn’t stop them “kicking the rascals out†in two of those. In the case of the UK, if PR were installed today, the probable outcome would be a Lab-Lib coalition. However, I see no reason why over time a free-market move by the Lib Dems precludes a coalition with the Tories, or why a sudden anti-European shift in the electorate (caused, say, by the collapse of the euro) would even rule out a Tory-UKIP government.
Political fragmentation is another accusation: if we have PR we’ll end up with 10 parties and ungovernability. “Just look at Italy!â€Â, they cry. But Italy’s political culture was strewn with faultlines long before PR came along. How about we look at Spain  a system of PR with near two-partyism, certainly two distinct poles? Or Malta? PR-STV there has produced an almost perfect two-party system. The opposite bogeyman is that we end up with unresponsive consensualism, like Holland or Belgium. Coalition is permanent and technocratic. But, again, political culture is what matters. Both are heavily corporatist countries. Interest-balancing and deal-making permeate every level of the polity. The UK doesn’t have that tradition and there’s no reason to expect it would be an outcome of PR here.
If you are persuaded by the need for a just electoral system in the UK, go and sign our petition. You might also like these links. Oh, and I haven’t even started on the advantages of PR yet (maybe not just for third parties). Another time.
It would be a lot more effective for you and Nosemonkey to be sending people to this petition:
http://www.makemyvotecount.org.uk/php/bin/readarticle.php?articlecode=code:editreader.php
Splitters!
Great post – I can’t think of any way to improve it without trebling its length (although perhaps the point about preferential voting systems tending to reward centre parties should be engaged with more as a potential disadvantage). The point about differing political cultures is very important, & tends to be overlooked.
Technical note: the links in the last paragraph are fooped – one of them has a ” appended, the other two consist of the Sharpener address plus a trailing “.
PR is the single most important technical reform that would really make politics more engaging, democratic and increase turn out.
Imagine that, on election day, no matter where you lived, you could cast a vote, knowing it meant something, it had equal weight.
Forget messing around with postal votes….
PR would be genuinely remarkable and positive.
Robin – the scuppered link in the last par was to MMVC. Now fixed (thanks Phil). What the heck, sign ’em both. I have. Why take one petition into the shower when you can sign both and go?
Phil – on STV and centrism: of course, if you have bigger constituencies, there’s much more chance of getting your favourite extremist elected. It’s a tradeoff with localism. And, though it might systemically do so, it needn’t necessarily tend to centrism on a vote-by-vote basis. If you’re Veritas or nothing else, there’s no need to put anything more than your top choice. Not that I’m saying you are a Veritas man.
Benjamin – bang on. Turnout is especially important. The evidence that PR systems tend to much higher turnout is pretty conclusive. Get those petitions signed.
Good stuff, sir – very good stuff.
And as for the dual petitions, the Electoral Reform Society is an organisation with a prominent politician (Robin Cook) at its head. I don’t know, but I was worried it may have a hidden agenda.
The new one was set up by one solitary voter with no agenda beyond being annoyed with FPTP. It’s not even advocating any specific new system – just saying that the current one is rubbish.
Stephen Pollard’s argument against PR is quite indisputable:
‘Yet Mr Kennedy and his fellow PR supporters now have the gall to claim that the result of the election demonstrates the need for PR, because Labour has achieved a parliamentary majority without a majority of the votes cast  a leap of logic so breathtaking as to be self-evidently nonsensical.’
See – it’s self-evidently nonsensical. Case closed.
I did spot Pollard’s towering intellectual contribution to the PR debate. A Milky Bar to anyone who can explain WTF his argument is.
It’s the Blair tactic. Let’s move on, people.
“In the case of the UK, if PR were installed today, the probable outcome would be a Lab-Lib coalition. However, I see no reason why over time a free-market move by the Lib Dems precludes a coalition with the Tories”
Isn’t this just the problem. Within reason no matter how we cast our votes, the Government would be the same, with the Liberals calling the shots. Something 89% of the electorate doesn’t want.
Do we really want this? I agree we need more reasonably sized/shaped constituencies, but the current system doesn’t work all that badly. The call “for PR” is very alluring, yet simplistic. Show me any other system of voting and I’ll show you a litany of problems. I’d rather potential problems we are used to, than potential new ones to which we aren’t.
I really am concerned that the poor condition of our national parties may bump us toward a PR system as a knee jerk response. I don’t think it’s the answer though – the problem is not the system but those using it.
Pollard’s argument can be refuted thus:
1. Pollard is self-evidently nonsensical
2. therefore, on every point on which I disagree with him, he is wrong and I am right
Pollard canniot dispute the logic of this argument, since it is the logic he uses himself
That’s a very static view of politics, though, Edward. Your “LDs as the all-powerful pivot party” theory is exactly what critics of PR said about the FDP in Germany when I studied this as a student. They haven’t been in government since the late 1990s.
There’s no way of knowing in advance what impact PR would have on the party system. The likely increased turnout would probably bring 10-15% of new voters into the system for a start. Who knows how they would vote? Anyway, I think your surmise that the LDs would “call the shots” is a very English way of looking at coalition government. They would be unlikely to have any more power than their size would allow them. Perhaps as a condition for joining a government they would get their way on, say, ID cards, but would have to trade that off against following Lab or Tory policy elsewhere? Anyway, there’s no reason why a coalition of the right between Tories and a strongly anti-Euro party (a ‘better UKIP’) would be the result. Or a Tory-Labour coalition to keep out the Libs? Or the LDs becoming the biggest party and trawling around for partners on the left or right? Who knows how much the Greens would be able to advance? All these political creeds are still born in FPTP. And whether you agree with them or not, a democracy isn’t working if legitimate voices are drowned out.
Anyway, I don’t see how the system “doesn’t work all that badly” at the moment. 36% of those who voted are enfranchised; the rest of us are shouting from the sidelines. Pinochet and Franco had more support than that.
Edward: Within reason no matter how we cast our votes, the Government would be the same, with the Liberals calling the shots. Something 89% of the electorate doesn’t want.
I don’t think that follows. I can imagine a Lab-Con coalition. According to Chris Lightfoot’s political survey, Labour are situated between the Lib Dems and the Conservatives, so they are the “real” center party.
re: your petition, for the UK goverment to accept an online pettion as real, you need to collect names and postscodes, otherwise they’ll just ignore it, unfortunately.
Make Votes Count are having a public meeting on Wednesday evening (will blog the details when I have them, but keep the evening free) – I’m planning to go along to see what sort of people they are. Assuming they’re OK (they seem to be from their blog & webiste), it seems sensible to focus our efforts rather than duplicate them…
I have loads to say about all this, but am short of time right now, will look at it all in detail tomorrow.
About our petition tho – It is run by Make Votes Count, not the Electoral Reform Society – they are part of the coalition. Robin Cook is the President of MVC, but supporters and directors are cross-party.
MVC does not campaign for any specific system (ERS does – they want STV). We just campaign for a change, or at least a referendum on a change.
I understand what you are trying to do with the petition, and I can’t really object to it that vociferously, but I do think we could do better by putting all the efforts into the one petition – I can’t see the advantage of having two separate ones.
Jarndyce – it may be a static view but it’s also a very realistic view which tallies correctly with the current political state of affairs. There is more evidence for my view than any other.
Phil – using the analysis of many PR proponents on this blog 89% of the electorate doesn’t support the LibDems being in Government. I don’t think it’s possible, even if we accept as given the marvellous impact of a PR system on voting patterns, to come up with a realistic modelling of this election under a PR system in which the Liberals don’t hold the balance of power. Just look at Scotland! Blair himself said he had “common cause” with Kennedy and the Liberals.
Paul – I think it’s very dangerous just to campaign in a negative way against the current system without an alternative. It would be much better to put your money where your mouth is and say what this utopian system is.
Proper PR would break up the party system. Many of the factions within the main two parties would decide that they had more of a chance to have an impact on government by being parties in their own right in a coalition rather than a mute partner in a large party. Even the Lib Dems wouldn’t be immune (anecdotally, I’d stop voting for them and instead start voting for the Greens) and if they ever were to be the minor figure in a FPTP coalition then I wouldn’t be surprised if they actually gave up on PR (as their support would fracture/desert pretty damn quick).
Simstim: there’s no evidence at all that PR would break up the party system in a country with established political front lines. It’s the old “look at Italy” argument and it completely ignores political culture.
Edward: I just don’t follow your reasoning at all. There is no party that a majority supports being in government, so what’s the solution? To have no government at all? To impose one artificially – the ‘least worst’ solution? What a thin and depressing view of democratic participation.
Democracy is a system of government that is supposed to reflect the will of the people. That is the very minimum it should achieve. Ours doesn’t manage that – which is why not one newly democtatizing country I know of has chosen the Westminster model. I suspect the real reason conservatives (small and large C) don’t support electoral reform is because they (erroneously, I think) believe it will shut them out of power for eternity, and that this fact makes the contribution it might make to politial life in Britain a secondary concern.
The current system does represent the will of the people. The party more people want to run the country than any other is in Government. The party representative whom the greatest number of people want to be their local representative in each constituency is their representative.
I just don’t follow your reasoning at all. There is no party that a majority supports being in government, so what’s the solution? To have no government at all? To impose one artificially – the ‘least worst’ solution? What a thin and depressing view of democratic participation.
To have the one that the largest number of people do want!
You say the aim is to reflect the will of the people, but that is largely a truism. We all agree on that. The argument is over what way we choose for that will to be represented. Every system in which everyone has a vote reflects a will. They just reflect different aspects of it in different ways. In order to be convinced of any one system we need to see all the reflections of the will that it would bring, and see them all justified as getting rid of the reflection which has served us for so long.
Nobody seems to have suggested what system would better reflect the will of the people. I just don’t think it’s enough to bash the current system – we need to see what the ‘better’ alternative is and work out whether it is better or not.
I am not expressing this view in a self-interested manner; the current system gives the Tories a great mountain to climb. I’m merely expounding a classically Tory approach based on the cautionary principle.
Coalitions formed under PR are democratic and logical.
The largest party picks a junior partner to govern the country. But that junior party does not call the shots, although it has some influence.
That situation – a coalition – is much fairer and more reflective of public opinion than a party with a minority of the vote ruling alone. In Scotland for example, the ruling coalition(Lab/Lib Dems) is closer to Scotland’s political centre of gravity than say if one party ruled the place. More voices are heard in govt, and there is more diversity in the Scottish parliament too.
That’s not “chaos”.
Its grown up, democratic politics.
Edward: I agree that we need to come up with some reasonable alternatives to FPTP. It’s something I hope to write about again soon. But your argument that things are working well at the moment I can’t accept. Collpasing voter turnout, the effective disenfranchisement of absolutely anyone (left or right) in constituencies with unmovable partisan majorities, the chase to the centre, to grab one extra vote from that median voter in “Middle England” – all these are caused by trying to squeeze an effective 3 party system into FPTP. It just doesn’t work, and I hesitate even to call it democracy. I could have some sympathy with the conservative position if there was evidence of improvement (say, that turnout had climbed anywhere near European levels, or that people genuinely didn’t care – but they do, just look at turnout in marginals vs. turnout in safe seats). The decay of our polity will continue until we give the majority of voters a voice again.
And on a technical point: your defence of allowing the ‘least worst’ to win (i.e. the one more people don’t oppose than any other) isn’t anyway an argument for FPTP, but for the AV. AV is in no way a fair alternative to FPTP, but at least the winners under that system govern with consent, even if only tacit.
Benjamin – I agree. I can’t understand the British aversion to coalition. It’s an (admittedly imperfect) way of using proxies (the parties) to find common ground between two distinct threads of opinion among voters. People in the UK are obsessed with the junior partner ‘calling the shots’. Critics said that the FDP would eternally call the shots in Germany. They haven’t sat in government for nearly 10 years now. It’s grown up politics, not the infantile mud-slinging we have now.
Jarndyce: I think political fronts are fracturing already. Look at the leadership elections on both sides, and the Lib Dem’s no-holds-barred policy review. All three parties are accepting that we live in different times. The battles of the 70’s and 80’s are all but over. PR, if it came in tomorrow, would certainly split the Tories in two, and would certainly split the Libs in two. Labour may hold together, but there would certainly be defections.
Not that that’s a bad thing – just an admission that changing the system would change the way the game is played. My view is that people know how to game the FPTP system now to get a government they like the look of – Thursday’s election is a good empirical confirmation of that – I posted on my own blog at the start of the campaign that predictions from polls were pointless, because what the public wanted was a Labour government with a reduced majority, and that’s what they were going to get. If we changed to PR, people would just learn to game the system in different ways. Not that that’s bad, again, but I think it partly neglects the argument that everyone’s vote counts equally. Trivially, mathematically, it does, but in reality, it really wouldn’t. Democracy is all about the wisdom of crowds. How you distill that wisdom is pretty unimportant.
And anyway, a tiny minority of voters do call the shots in Britain – those residents of highly marginal constituencies who lack party allegiance but do vote. The campaign this year was focused on them with laser-guided precision.
Think about it: a minority live in marginals, of which a further minority are uncommitted, of which a further tiny minority will actually vote (assuming party adherents are more likely to vote, which seems fair).
Given a couple of similarly sized opposing parties on the spectrum, the marginal (in the economic sense) voters swing it.
I think there’s a strong case to dissolve the blocs. The Labour Party, for example, looks increasingly like Curzon’s description of the Indian Congress – a ramshackle coalition of interests. There are socialists, social democrats, and Christian Democrat-like Blairites. But that’s not all – there is a distinct libertarian/authoritarian divide and a European/Eurosceptic one too, none of which necessarily map on those three groups.
The Tories have the great European split, but also a strong split on liberty, which might resolve into an economic conservative party and a traditionalist rump-Tory faction competing with UKIP (or even absorbing it).
Even the Liberals have a potential fissure between the soft-left and Orange Bookers. I think it’s best to get these things out in the open, rather than whipping them into submission.
righty, hello people.
Not going to say as much as I indicated I might, given I have done nothing but write about the topic for about 2 months now, but there are obviously some points that need addressing.
Edward – we act as a coalition for a whole bunch of groups that support electoral reform. If we were to come down specifically for one system, we would not be acting as the umbrella for these groups any more. Our main objective is to force this discussion to actually happen – inform the people of the gross failings of fptp in our current political climate and force the government to do something about the popular discontent that thus arrises.
As for ‘most people voted for labour so they win – anything else would mean lib dems would hold the power’ is palpably nonsense, as benjamin and jarndyce have already intimated – this is grown-up politics, not petit, shameless pandering to the voters in the marginals. PR would go a long way to eroding tactical voting, negative campaigning, disillusionment, apathy, unrepresentative and unaccountable govt etc etc.
The system is in a right mess and needs to be changed. That much, most people can agree on – and that is what we are here for – to bring the people that do agree on this together.
Edward
“I’d rather potential problems we are used to, than potential new ones to which we aren’t.”
Me
I’d rather a few potential problems that we aren’t used to than a whole host of realised genuine problems which we are. But maybe that’s just me.
Pingback: Make My Vote Count
Paul – I am glad you are working so hard and campaigning as too few people take an interest in the world around them. There is a delicious irony, however, that you can’t put forward one clear alternative due to the fact you are trying to keep together a coalition of different views within the ERS umbrella ambit!
Jarndyce – Collpasing voter turnout, the effective disenfranchisement of absolutely anyone (left or right) in constituencies with unmovable partisan majorities, the chase to the centre, to grab one extra vote from that median voter in “Middle England†– all these are caused by trying to squeeze an effective 3 party system into FPTP. It just doesn’t work, and I hesitate even to call it democracy. I could have some sympathy with the conservative position if there was evidence of improvement (say, that turnout had climbed anywhere near European levels, or that people genuinely didn’t care – but they do, just look at turnout in marginals vs. turnout in safe seats). The decay of our polity will continue until we give the majority of voters a voice again.
My point is that I suspect we are kidding ourselves if we say the problems perceived with the political process are down to the voting system. That is not a cure-all.
Secondly, you say everyone except those in the most marginal seats is disenfranchised. Let’s dissect this claim. Surrey has been mentioned before as an example of the impact of an, as of yet undefined, PR system. First seat which comes to mind is Surrey East. You say people are disenfranchised, yet, there the winner, Peter Ainsworth, got 27,569 votes, a majority of nearly 16,000. Nonetheless, turnout was only 66.6%. The potential number of voters is c. 74,000, yet 25,000 didn’t vote. You assert, it’s because they couldn’t have any impact on the result, yet, just over half that number voting for one of the two minor parties could have defeated the Tory. I would hardly say that the electorate in that constituency don’t have a say.
You also refer to the “chase to the centre”, but any application of rational choice theory suggests that in a three party system the race to the centre breaks down, and you have a much more random interaction between the parties. This effect will decrease with any onset of a three party realty.
The fact is sending messages to Governments in Germany, for example, is much harder than under our current system. Look at the last German election (I think – apologies if I misremember). Schroeder loses seats, the Christian Democrats have more, yet because his Green coalition partners got a few seats more, Schroeder stays leader. How is that better representation?
And on a technical point: your defence of allowing the ‘least worst’ to win (i.e. the one more people don’t oppose than any other) isn’t anyway an argument for FPTP, but for the AV. AV is in no way a fair alternative to FPTP, but at least the winners under that system govern with consent, even if only tacit.
Sorry – you’re right but I actually meant the electoral system itself was the “least worst”.
Benjamin – just saying “under PR” isn’t good enough. We need specifics. Just running down any one system without a comparison is the easiest thing in the world.
Edward, I’m going to post again, at the weekend I think, on PR (and getting specific). But to respond on a couple quickly:
1. I’m not saying it’s a cure-all. I’m saying it’s a start. Forms of PR that enable you to choose between candidates of the same party, for example, force engagement with politics much more than FPTP, so they start a process.
2. I’m not saying that suddenly enfranchising everyone with PR will produce voter turnouts of 100%, so I’m sure your Surrey example was just mischief. It’s indisputable that, on average, turnout is higher in marginals. If that’s not voters participating when they feel they can bring about change, I’d be interested to hear what you thought it was.
3. My exact point on the 3 party system is that it will be still born, along with all the other fringe politics (anti-EU non-Toryism i.e. UKIP, Green politics, Respect – whatever that might be), without fair representation. If you want people to engage, you have to give them a voice. The two tired and idea-less old parties don’t speak for the majority anymore. The crush for the median swing voter will continue and turnout will fall again.
4. The government in Germany has the assent of just over 50% of the people, if you include PDS votes; only just under with SPD-Greens alone. The CDU-CSU managed around 40% and lost, and anyway have fewer seats than just the SPD on its own. More Germans were satisfied with the Red-Green alliance than not. How is that unfair or unresponsive government? When was the last time a British government had that level of assent? Macmillan, I believe.
Can we at least agree that it’s all been downhill since the early 18th century? I blame Robert Harley myself…
Jarndyce,
Part of the problem is that people don’t vote for coalitions. I could envisage a system where you vote for a specific candidate, a party, and also vote on who you would be happy for your party to work with, being fair in some sense – but you may as well go down the Swiss route and have democracy-by-perpetual-referendum once the system gets that complex…
Andrew: but in countries where PR is used, most voters have a good idea of the likely coalition partners before they vote. Obviously it does go wrong occasionally. Off the top of my head, I believe a junior party in New Zealand jumped unexpectedly after their first PR election. They got taken to the cleaners by the electorate next time round. That’s proper politics.
What concerns you, I think, is that somehow by taking on PR we will import the kind of political culture they have in places like Belgium, Holland: a never ending merry-go-round of unresponsive coalition. That I think is almost purely cultural (specifically corporatism, not helped by a form of PR – effectively closed list – that isn’t suitable here, or indeed almost anywhere). Most countries using PR don’t work in that way. Grand coalitions that answer to nobody are fairly rare. Our party system more closely resembles, say, Spain, or NZ, or Germany. Governments alternate in a healthy fashion.
(BTW, who the hell was Robert Harley?)
What concerns you, I think, is that somehow by taking on PR we will import the kind of political culture they have in places like Belgium, Holland: a never ending merry-go-round of unresponsive coalition. […]Most countries using PR don’t work in that way. Grand coalitions that answer to nobody are fairly rare.
This was very much the pattern in First Republic Italy – there were minor but real departures from the model until the 1980s, when it was brought to grotesquely complete realisation. Two points: that model had very, very specific cultural determinants (specifically, a large Communist Party which was permanently excluded from central government); and it didn’t last. (The current system is ‘mixed’, i.e. a bit more proportional than AV+; stories that the Italians have “abandoned PR” should be taken with a bucketload of salt.)
Agreed – they haven’t abandoned PR at all. All they’ve done is switch to a less pure form to try and tame their political culture (already wild long before PR came along), corrupted in part by the intentional exclusion of the PCI you’re talking about. A very specific case that doesn’t apply to the PR debate in the UK.
1st Earl of Oxford and Mortimer. Whig splitter and patron of Defoe, Swift and Pope who went on to lead the Tories in the final years of Queen Anne, massively polarising the party system in parliament in the process via a series of dirty trick campaigns against Robert Walpole.
Have you had that read for libel? We probably can’t afford the legal fees, you know.
Very briefly, turnout rose at this election. It did not fall at all. Second, the coalition Government does not have support of 50% of the public in Germany: the two parties which comprise it may do. It is mischievous to suggest it is anything other than a compromise of the people’s will. The difference I suspect, is that I would rather see an unambiguous compromise of the people’s will than a varying and unsure one through coalitions about which the electorate knows nothing. At the moment we at least see the shape of coalitions internalised in parties and know what the decision-making structure will be.
turnout rose – yeah, only just from a massive record low to 2 percentage points higher, despite a MASSIVE increase in postal voting. You seriously can’t be using that to make any sort of point.
Similarly with the Italians – Italians and governance have never got on well. Britain deals with things like that a bit better cos we don’t have the nice weather/women to distract us.
And not landing on a specific type of PR just yet really isn’t a problem: at the mo, something is wrong, it needs changing, we could come up with a number of ways of making it better, but it’s massively complicated and there’s no need to waste time until the govt seriously looks into it, then we come up with something marvellous, the public vote on it and viva la revolution.
Simple, really.
Pingback: doctorvee » 2PR
What concerns you, I think, is that somehow by taking on PR we will import the kind of political culture they have in places like Belgium, Holland
Partly, but what really concerns me is that the right, and really the Tory party, have a big enough mountain to climb without having to account for a new electoral system as well. That’s not much of an argument against PR, but it’s a hell of a motivation.
But, Andrew, what if by coalition with a real ‘liberal’ party you could shut the LEFT out of power for a generation?
That offends my sense of fair play.
I’m perverse like that.
Even is coming out in favour of PR today. The end of the world is nigh.
That comment should have had this link:
http://telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/05/11/do1101.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/05/11/ixopinion.html
to the Torygraph.
Jarndyce:
“so what’s the solution? To have no government at all?”
Well, yes, that does lead us to the only moral solution, yes. The use of brute force, on which Govt power ultimately rests, is immoral. Thus govt should be highly limited, minimal, in order to reduce that immorality.
As any and every way of electing a government is unfair, and in order to reduce unfairness in life, we should have the minimum government possible, meaning that the unfairness of he electoral system is minimised in its effects.
In short, libertarianism is the only moral option.
I hope we can count on your vote in the new PR based system?
I used to oppose FPTP because it’s undemocratic. These days, I support it because it’s an effective check on untramelled democracy. That’s kind of a half-full-half-empty thing, really, isn’t it?
Under PR, a regional threshold would be a good replacement for the check provided by FPTP. 5% nationally, as in Germany, is too low. More like 7% per constituency would be better, I think. Parties should have to prove they can appeal to a cross-section of society, not just a niche.
If you’re going to have STV, voters should be limited to two choices — maybe three, if the third choice is given very low weighting, as if they were, say, sixth. Allowing people to nominate their eleventh-favourite just distorts democracy, and lets voters off the hook of having to make a decision.
Personally, I think the best possible and most urgent reform to the electoral system would be to reintroduce the old rule that when an MP is appointed to the Cabinet, they immediately have to stand for reelection in their constituency. Give the people a say over who’s in government, not just who’s in Parliament. Tricky to see how that could be done under PR, but I’m sure it’s not impossible.
Oh, and let’s have some way of removing political influence from boundary changes, please. Fix the boundaries permanently, and introduce weighting based on population, or something.
Tim: glad to hear you’ll be running a PR electoral system in your new minimal state, anyway. Needless to say, if libertarianism as a viable political philosophy is ever going to gain followers, it won’t be under FPTP rules. I couldn’t possibly reveal if I’d vote for you or not, though. It’s a secret ballot after all.
S2: on thresholds, you don’t actually need them in regional systems, as sensible constituency sizes impose an effective threshold on their own. There is a formula for working these things out, but I can’t remember it. Only on national list PR and national top-up systems like AMS is a threshold useful. I doubt very much either would be right for the UK. On limiting choices in PR-STV, I have to say I’ve never thought about that. Bear in mind, again, though that unless constituencies are massive (extremely unlikely), the chances of getting down much below choice 3 are small. Any sensible system of PR would exclude parties with little or no support naturally, without imposing additional rules. Nobody’s suggesting some sort of Israel system where a couple of fragments from the outskirts of the system hold everyone else to ransom.
And I’m not sure what the issue is with boundary changes. The UK system is basically non-political (compared to, say, the US). I think the main problem is that they are slow, and therefore when they introduce electoral boundaries based on the last census, it’s almost time for the next one.
The number of votes needed to be elected under STV depends on constituency size, but as a percentage it’s effectively 100/(number of positions to be elected+1) so in a constituency electing 6 MPs you’d need to be getting 14.3% of the vote to be elected.
As for constituencies, my solution under an STV system would be for them to follow existing county and city boundaries where possible and then when they’re set, the only alteration that should be needed is an occasional reallocation of the number of members elected per constituency to reflect population changes.
Thanks Nick. I knew there was a formula. As I thought, properly designed and sized constituencies exclude the fringe on their own, without the addition of extra rules.
Boundaries: I think that’s sensible. Personally, I prefer local/regional open lists, which do away with preferential voting altogether and take the power away from party bosses. STV would be a close second, as it does roughly the same, just with choice voting. Realistically, though, it might be AV+ or nothing. In which case, I’ll happily support AV+. Gradualism is fine with me. Decaying electoral systems aren’t overthrown in a day, etc etc.
Nick – that’s pretty close to my solution. County/Borough splits, number of members varying according to population, and end up with Commons seats being a bit like the US electoral college – only where the number of seats per area is split on party lines approximately in line with the share of the vote.
To use the US comparison again, it’d be like if, in 2000, Florida’s 27 electoral college votes had been split 14/13 between the Republicans and Democrats. Though who’d get the extra one I have no idea…
Oh – I should add that I reckon go for party lists, but with the electorate able to give order of preference to each party’s candidates.
So say everyone got 3 choices, you could vote for 3 candidates from the same party in order of preference, and via some kind of mathematical formula that I can’t for the life of me work out, that would translate into 1st, 2nd and 3rd choice candidates etc. for each party – but based on the constituents’ choice, not the party’s.
So you could choose to vote for a Glenda Jackson over an Alan Milburn, or vice versa, giving the party a better indication of which aspect of the party it is that the electorate favours at the same time. This, of course, assumes a rather high level of political awareness amongst the electorate, but I reckon that may often be underestimated…
> on thresholds, you don’t actually need them in regional systems, as sensible constituency sizes impose an effective threshold on their own.
Agreed. I was thinking of Germany’s Funf Pro Cent Klause. I think what I meant was that, if we’re stupid or unfortunate enough to end up with a national PR system, we would still need a regional threshold, not a national one.
> boundary changes. The UK system is basically non-political (compared to, say, the US).
I’m not sure what you mean here. State and county boundaries are fixed, aren’t they?
> would translate into 1st, 2nd and 3rd choice candidates etc. for each party – but based on the constituents’ choice, not the party’s.
Not sure about that one. I can see the appeal, but that’s just not what a party is, is it? Who gets elected should be dependent on the electorate, but who rises within the ranks of a party should be up to the party.
The… strength of first past the post is that by producing governments with clear majorities, it enables a proper “contract” to be established between parties and their electors through their manifestos. For all the hyperbolic (and usually inaccurate) charges of “lying” that are thrown around at elections, parties and their leaders are careful and precise about what is promised in their manifesto, because, if elected, that document is the programme for which the country has voted and on which the government will be judged. But in PR systems with minority governments, it is often manifesto commitments that are the first casualty. The real manifesto is not the one put before the people in advance of the election, but the coalition programme negotiated behind closed doors after the election. I know which I think more democratic.
Pingback: Make My Vote Count
Hey, Jack, how many straw men can you fit in one Guardian article? I guess about the same number it takes to change a light bulb. I thought your tirade about the Israeli system was particularly relevant, given that just about everyone is suggesting that as a suitable alternative. Like, erm,…, well, like everyone. I thought your manifesto gag was the best, though: I seem to recall you promising a referendum on PR in your 1997 manifesto? Maybe I’m mistaken. The thing is, Jack, if it’s strong government you really want above anything else, why bother with voting at all? Technocratic dictatorship is so much better at establishing a firm contract with the people.
S2: on the 5% thing – yes, if we do end up with a system that needs a threshold we should have one. I doubt we’d go that route, though. And, no, Congressional districts get reapportioned all the time, and the committees that do the work are very politicised. In fact, the reapportionment has got to such a stage now that a huge chunk of House seats are basically unwinnable by one party. At the last House elections about a fifth weren’t even contested by the other.
A couple of other points against PR:
The one case where PR doesn’t squeeze small parties is where they are geographically located. Two examples – There was considerable animosity in Scotland under Thatcher for England apparently continuously enforcing Toryism on Scotland (in fact Thatcher never got above 42%) & the reverse is now appearing in England. When Abraham Lincoln was elected it was by achieving an FTPT victory in most northen states & virtually no votes in the south (I believe he got 40% overall). The dangers of division this produces are obvious.
Another problem is that, because the system is so dependent on very small swings it would be quite possible to have gone from a market driven Thatcherite majority to a “nationalise the commanding heights” Foot government (he got as few vote as Blair just got) or indeed in present circumstances a 3 way choice, all of them with absolute power & deeply unpopular. a certain amount of continuity of policy is no bad thing.
At the risk of sounding awfully “Third Way” isn’t there a medium between the two?
By electing MPs on a FPTP system, we preserve what is probably the most significant advantage of FPTP over PR, that the individual voter feels that there is a single MP accountable to him (and vice versa) and whom he can approach with various grievances.
By electing members of the House of Lords on a regional-PR basis, the legislative function of Parliament can be achieved more proportionately.
The irreducible problem is that Parliament has two functions: representative and legislative, whereby “representative” I mean that he can represent the concerns of his constituents to Parliament. The dilemma is that FPTP has a stronger element of the former, whilst PR has an arguably “fairer” version of the latter. PR-advocates should note how few people can name their MEP (who are elected regionally by a quasi-PR system). Would it not therefore be logical to decouple the two and allow the two separate Houses to be the primary locus of the two distinct functions?
Why not have the following:
Up to every 5 years (i.e. as at present) an election for the Commons, with 400-500 larger seats on FPTP, with the difference made up by PR on a list basis (like the London Assembly for example, which seems to have worked pretty well).
My proposal for the Lords is as follows…
Every 5 years (fixed) elect half the House of Lords. Each candidate MUST stand on an Independent ticket; if they are the member of a party they must leave the party. They stand for one term only, of 10 years. You have the 5-yearly, half-House elections to ensure that short-term trends don’t overly affect the make-up of the House. Elections would be entirely by PR on a list basis. Lords would have no tie to a particular geographical constituency.
You would also include Bishops, Rabbis, Imams, etc in the Lords, in roughly the same proportions as those religions are represented nationally, and you would also include all Law Lords as at present. There would be no hereditary peers, except for the Queen, who I understand is allowed to sit in the Lords; I would also propose including the heir to the throne.
There would be no political nominees like we have at present, I think that system is demonstrably open to abuse and a bit of a failure democratically.
Finally I would propose that the minimum age for standing as a candidate for the Lords should be high, say 40 or even 50. The compensation should be considerable, say £100k, and outside interests should be restricted. This should give us a) independence and b) experience.
MPs would have no power to remove or add Lords; only other Lords should be able to sack Lords if they misbehave / don’t turn up. There would be no bi-elections.
Just my tuppence-worth; I would be interested to read what people make of this proposal, as I’ve thought it through over some time!
Pingback: The Sharpener » Getting specific on PR
Pingback: atopian.org
Pingback: The Sharpener » New Labour’s double bluff: actually quite socialist after all
Very gooood project.
Pingback: The Sharpener » Blog Archive » FPTP is ugly