You’re absolutely right about the ‘constituency link’ – it really is sentimental garbage, especially when you remember how few MPs actually have their genuine main residence in the constituency they’re supposed to be representing.

I would add a further refinement to the rules, and debar anyone from a candidacy for a ward or constituency unless they have had their sole/main residence in that ward/constituency for a minimum of three years prior to the date of the poll. That way we could stop the carpetbaggers and the Parachuted Regiment making a mockery of that very constituency link that the advocates of ‘keep things as they are’ are so precious about.

Agreed. AV isn’t proportional. Party lists and AV plus give power to the parties. STV gives power to the voters, which is where it should be.

Craig, in your view is a referendum fair (or constitutionally required) to move to a new voting system? I would support its introduction without a referendum, but suspect that opponents would cry foul.

Craig,

you say “Under AV you get to note a second choice on your ballot paper”. The Electoral Reform Society say you get to rank as many candidates as you wish. At a guess, I’d say that this would eventually make a big difference to how people would vote. Do you know exactly what is on offer to the Lib Dems from the Big Two parties?

I, too, strongly favour STV. I agree about the irrelevance of the ‘constituency link’. I’d also like more than one MP to appeal to.

But since reading comments from Amk on the previous thread, I’m starting to think that a true offer of true AV could be worth accepting, so long as there were strong protections against political interference with the boundaries. If it came to a referendum, I think AV would be more likely to gain popularity than STV, simply because it looks fairly similar to the current system. I also think that the big parties are unlikely to put an offer STV on the table.

If STV is adopted, I suspect a lot of politicians may change their names to Aardvark.

Thanks Craig – my first insight into voting systems! Cheers Clark for the suggestion.

Not mentioned by Craig is that under STV a constituent who needed to talk to their MP could choose the one they felt most comfortable with. A trade unionist may not be compelled to see a Tory as may be the case now.

I posted more in the last thread and am not copying it over.

The only problem I can see with STV is that neither big party is offering it.

I’ve linked to the Condorcet site below for reference.

@Clark – the speed with which Brown offered “voting reform” to the Lib Dems suggested to me that the Lib Dems could largely dictate which form of PR they were in favour of. The only trouble is, of course, getting it through Parliament without Conservative help.

I’m unclear about one particular aspect of STV. How are the excess votes reallocated, and which votes are judged to be excess? Supposing a candidate needs 25% of the vote but receives 70%, which 25% of the votes cast are judged to be his, and which are passed on? Surely since the second preferences expressed on the ballots vary, this has a major impact on who comes second, third, fourth and so on. Is there some precise system of reallocating?

Jon,

Labour had already committed to a referendum on the electoral system (AV I think), but they removed the legislation from the ‘pending’ list in the ‘wash-up process’ that follows the announcement of a general election.

“How are the excess votes reallocated, and which votes are judged to be excess? Supposing a candidate needs 25% of the vote but receives 70%, which 25% of the votes cast are judged to be his, and which are passed on?”

(S)He keeps a fraction of each individual vote (enough to maintain the winning level, same fraction for each vote), and the rest of each vote is redistributed.

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

Jon,

I am generally not in favour of refenda.

It seems I’ve been describing the STV variant used in Ireland – which is probably the one we’d use anyway. See the above Wikipedia link for more exciting options.

AV would mean an end to tactical voting, which would be a massive benefit in my opinion.

How many people don’t vote for the party (or parties) they *really* want because they want to vote for the safer (but worse) party in order to prevent the really bad party getting in? I’d say a lot.

AV+ or full PR seem unlikely. AV on its own would be a massive improvement and appears to be possible.

Anyone offering just a referendum, though, should be ignored. The Tories are already saying that they’ll campaign against electoral reform should a referendum be introduced, and you can bet that Murdoch & friends will do their bit to put fear and confusion into people on the matter. A referendum on this issue is no different to just saying “no” and not worth a damn. In fact, it’d put the cause back, not forwards, as they could then say the public were asked and said no.

I really don’t understand why everything else that government does, including some downright dodgy laws nobody in their right minds would have supported, can be pushed through without any kind of referendum and yet electoral reform supposedly cannot be as well.

AV seems like a no-brainer to me, in terms of making voting fairer, and the only purpose of a referendum would be to trick people into thinking it was somehow dangerous and into saying “no” to it, maintaining the status quo which so greatly benefits the Tory party.

Everyone keeps harping on about “the national interest” and “what the public wants” but it’s transparent that they’re talking about their own private interests. It is not in the national interest to keep this deeply unfair FPTP system which disenfranchises the majority of the electorate.

Perhaps AV would not be fair either (no system really is), but it would be a hell of a lot fairer than what we have right now. I hope we can at least take that step in the right direction and that we don’t squander the chance, nor get tricked by empty promises.

I agree with this post up to a point, although I don’t think that it solves the question of how we get to having STV.

I am also opposed to AV, but I don’t have the problem with the top up or additional member system in the same way as Craig, I don’t find its outcomes “horrible” in the London Assembly (nor in Scotland & Wales, so far as i can tell).

Therefore, although I think it is an inferior system to STV, I would definitely settle for it if it was the only form of PR that I could get (I think we could move quickly to AV+ on the basis that this was the Jenkins Commission’s recommendation.)

(Pedantic point: it’s not AV+top up in London, it’s FPTP in the individual constituencies plus top up – and I think that’s also the case in Scotland & Wales too – the system is usually called AMS)

Second pedantic point, you do keep a constituency link in STV, but at the scale of a larger constituency. That’s really not a problem as the would be the size of a county, or a big city, which is the normal form of civic identity anyway (“I’m a Brummie”, “I’m a Man of Kent”, “I’m a South Londoner”, “I’m a Cornishman”) rather than the absurd constituencies with their shifting boundaries we have now. (Who on earth says “I’m Brent East, we don’t want your Brent North sort round ‘ere, this seat is for local people”. Oh whoops, in the boundary review I’ve been shifted from Brent East to Brent Central and I haven’t even moved house!

This scenario made me LOL:

http://fistfulofeuros.net/afoe/governments-and-parties/reverse-ferret-scenario/

“tends to promote a flight to mediocrity – it puts a premium on being unobjectionable rather than exciting or different.”

For the election of an executive an electoral system that tends to elect the centre is no bad thing. Politics is about compromise.

For a legislature though you want a broad range of voices to be heard in the chamber.

Point taken, and one I had forgotten.

“Only the expenses scandal caused any signficant proportion of the electorate to be able to name their own MP.”

I apologise for being critical but this is the sort of patronising put-down that one might expect an FO toff to make. As a lower middle class voter, I can only think of two people among dozens of friends, neighbours and relations of any voting age who would not know the name of their own MP. When I moved to a new area many years ago, it was the cleaner temporarily left over from the previous elderly owners who told me all about the MP, including his apt but unflattering nickname. Recognition doubtless depends on the newness of the MP and the voter but please do not underestimate ordinary folk. I am sure you mean well but perhaps you are confusing voters with the third of registered adults who do not vote.

Nick Clegg should hold out for full PR from whoever of the two main parties.

He can give them whatever else in the meantime in exchange.

PR is the Holy Grail. It’s PR which will ensure democracy in this country in the future; a future that has been the essence of Liberals for years.

Let us down on this and there’s no point in voting for you in the future.

You have it all in your hands Nick.

Oh yeah, and while I’m at it.

Let’s get rid of authoritarian media.

Why should unnacountable organisations have the power to broadcast their opinion to the exclusion of others?

Is this a fascist state or what?

Let’s just get rid of them.

It’s worth noting that STV as practised in the Republic of Ireland has not only strengthened the constituency link, it has arguably resulted in a clientelist system of public representation. So much so that there are many voices calling for it to be abandoned.

That’s not to say I’m not a supporter (I still think it the best option on balance), but it’s by no means a panacea.

“The most quoted disadvantages of STV are the loss of the link between an MP and their small constituency, and the encouragement to the BNP.”

Well, the problem I have with PR in general is that it actually strengthens party-systems and “party-loyalties”.

If, for example, Craig Murray ran on a Lib Dem platform in constituency X under the present system and proved so popular he was voted in then he’d be an MP. But if he fell out with the Lib Dems on some issue he’d probably not be deselected unless he committed some grave act. Even if he were he could still get voted in by his constituents if they liked him.

Now, if PR comes along then MPs could be selected by the parties according to how arselicky they are. Those who fall out with the party heirachy just get moved to the bottom of the list whereas those who are seen as party loyalists get moved up. We’d end up with a reshuffling of the political class whereby who gets elected to office will depend on who they know in the parties.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to have two elected chambers? One on a PR basis and one on a constituency basis?

Thanks be to Gord. He has left his mark on this country in the form of trillions of pounds of lovely, secure, government usurious debt to the bankers and they have given him permission now to stand down and join the ranks of old leaders like the odious Ashdown and tedious John Major, who served the Zio-bankers’ interests before them.

They keep asking for stable government when they mean, a stable economy, that can settle down and allow the banks to draw their blood from UK plc. Only it’s not just one litre, but every last drop they need. The voting system is irrelevant, because whoever gets in power is duly blackmailed to serve the bankers’ needs. ‘ We need a little signature on a United Nations proposal to knock out the industrial heart of Iran, before we give our M.P.s that is , from the friends of Israel cross-party, permission to back your budget, Mr sweet-nothings Prime Minister of the UK Rainbow Party-Coalition. We are sure you will agree. ‘

Yesterday saw Gordon Brown signing his pension contract, while the Zio-BBC sweetly presented it as Brown sacrificing himself for the benefit of his country. The Beeb told us that the little libdems had single-handedly cut off the double headed giant’s heads off i.e. David Cameron and Gordon Brown, in one Jack the Giant Killer stroke. When we all know that Nick Clegg is just a warm-up, stand-up comic before the main performance starts.

They main item on the bill of entertainment is a coalition of the two nasty Davids. David Miliband as head of New Labour, serving the Zio-banker lobby, David Cameron serving the establishment colonial, Franco-phobe, Islamo-loathe, old Tories. What part of any voting system would have the slightest effect on this country, when they so blatantly manipulate the existing electoral result, to achieve what suits them, the grey suits of this country? Obviously the one we’re not going to get, – PR. Not for the first time, a plague on all their houses, I say, because they are not, either of them, going to give us the British public what we so obviously deserve and need.

Ah wait! I was thinking of the party list system. My mistake!

There is a useful analysis of voting systems in a recent report, Choosing an Electoral System (http://www.britac.ac.uk/templates/asset-relay.cfm?frmAssetFileID=9194), produced by the British Academy.

@ Grahams 1.08am

Completely agree with you.

I have always known who my MP is and their agenda is.

In the European elections 2009, I had no idea who the candidates were apart from their party affiliation. They were just names on a list.

There are always shades to every colour.

‘In total, 72 Members of the European Parliament were elected from the United Kingdom using proportional representation. (This figure would have been 73 if the Lisbon Treaty had entered into force by June 2009.) England, Scotland and Wales used the D’Hondt method of PR, whilst Northern Ireland used Single Transferable Vote (STV).’ Wikipedia

Yet more slaughter is reported. Another 14 people are vapourized. 18 were similarly killed at the weekend.

Is it being discussed in the MSM at the moment? No. Is the war in Afghanistan/Pakistan being discussed in the party horse trading? No.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8674104.stm

STV has to be the system adopted, or leave it alone. It’s not worth the trouble of changing from FPTP.

But still, one shouldn’t assume this is a cure-all. It isn’t. A truly democratic society requires democratic citizens, and that process is altogether more difficult to achieve.

I am in sympathy with Anno’s post, but that said, where do you go from there?

Now I know a bit more about the different systems it seems clear that STV is the way to go. Labour, it seems have promised a referendum on it.

I wonder if others agree with me that this would however result in a massive change to our political system.

There would be far far more of the kind of horsetrading we are seeing this week.

It would be the norm, and apparently the Great British Public are already getting narked with it, or is that just the media stirring up trouble?

However for my money the advantage is that politicians actually have to come out and say what they really think which I think is a massive gain.

Oh dear. That Adam Boulton turns out to be a very disappointed little Tory boy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gkHwU4DRA8&feature=player_embedded

And he totally loses it again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NWAkxKQLQs&feature=player_embedded

Rather exposes the fascistic nature of Sky, even as it pretends to be different to its American scumbag Faux News.

Ofcom really needs to have a look at the behaviour of this clown. It’s already well known that Dave has promised to dilute Ofcom powers to ensure that SKy can become even more like Faux News.

We must not let that happen!

angrysoba

But you don’t get that party list system under STV, as the post makes clear.

http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1273560005.html

Right on Rhisiart! A Celt speaks.

The STV as practised in Ireland has led to clientelism and ‘parish pump’ politics, probably because of the high number of representatives relative to population.

There is fierce competition between TDs (MPs) sharing a constituency and their constituency work mostly consists of helping constituents bypass bureaucracy.

There are some tweaks now proposed like forcing TDs to clock in,so they have to spend time at debates rather than going to funerals, envelope-openings etc.

We’re also cursed with a two centre-right party hegemony that’s a relic of our war of independence. Hopefully the answer will be simply a more civic-minded, clued-in, and pissed-off electorate, and a third party who refuses to go into coalition.

No electoral system is perfect in practise, and people here have been suggesting the party list system, or the Tasmanian STV.

Hi Craig,

Australia has AV for it’s lower house (houses if you include the states), and it works very well. A ballot that numbers all candidates in order of preference is a much richer expression of a voter’s wishes than a tick in a box. “Minor” parties have more sway because major parties explicitly court their preferences. This influence can extend to deals around “preference swaps” on how-to-vote cards. If only for eliminating tactical voting, AV is worth it. As a system it’s more representative, even if it leaves you with major parties governing “on their own”.

Advocates of proportional representation seem to feel proportionality is an end in itself, no further justification needed. However with democracies looking increasingly flat-footed next to China, I really can’t see that this is a good time to dilute the prerogative enjoyed by the government of the moment. I’d appreciate some discussion on this point.

I believe the real genius of the Australian system is in combining an AV lower house, producing the executive, with a proportional (elected!) upper house. In this way, the electorate can give a strong mandate to a “clear winner” party via majorities in both houses. Or, just as often, the electorate can give the governing party a “hostile” senate, or lords in your case, requiring it to operate in consensual or coalition mode, appropriate to it’s level of support. I’m sorry but FPTP and an unelected upper chamber is just an embarassment.

The final lesson from the antipodes, from our botched republic referendum, is that a government will find a way of burying a constitutional change it doesn’t like, even if that change has 75% popular support. The Tories have no divine right to rule. The long disenfranchised lib-dems are entitled to get the best deal from whoever. Labour will support a level of electoral reform that is worth having. Diego Garcia is unfortunate, but let’s get on with it.

Strength to your arm

Simon

Why the libdems are so concerned about a new voting system beats me. They should be more concerned about the voting process ie the corruption and fraud going on. No point in having a new system if the foundations are rotten.

Firstly postal votes should he halted.

STV was and maybe still is the system used at my university student union many years ago. It has it merits to be sure when dealing with a few thousand voters.

I just wonder though how the electoral system would cope with its complicated administration with 40,000 or so papers to be counted for each seat and the votes distributed and if this would lead to further electoral fraud or just plain human error.

To be accurate, a computerised system may need to be adopted although very stringent safeguards would need to be put in place. The process should be taken away from the local councils as we have seen some of which proved to be incompetent in their administration of the vote just taken. Ideally you should be able to vote from your computer and this could be achieved with accuacy and without fraud as long as appropriate systems were put in place with severe penalties for fraud.

Parky

The Irish manage it.

I’m not saying that STV is impossible, but is there a political will for it in the UK? We live in an illusory democracy with the general election something of an exercise reluctantly carried out by the establishment to mollify the public.

And of course the Irish are a republic as is Germany and maybe that has more to do with it.

No need to apologise for the multi-member constituencies produced by proper STV: we should trumpet their advantages. Almost everybody – at least 85% and usually about 97% – is represented by an MP they voted for. Constituencies would be real natural communities, consistent with local government boundaries, and virtually never re-drawn; because a rise or fall in population only requires the number of MPs for a seat to be increased or decreased, and that adjustment can be made at every election, not just every 10 years or so. The present system of FPTP with a boundary commission results in nearly all constituency boundaries criss-crossing Local authority borders, breaking up natural communities, giving constituencies with no real identity; and it even fails to achieve its avowed aim of equal electorates, since the maximum discrepancy in modern elections reaches the biggest constituency having 5 times the electorate of the amallest, whereas under STV the greatest discrepancy would be about 5:4.

On the constituency link a multi-member constituency allows constituents to choose which MP they want to go to for help – and if they get no satisfaction from the first one they go to they have several others they can go to.

So constituents are far better off in terms of “the constituency link” under PR than they would be under AV or FPTP

I’m interested in Simon’s post.

It is interesting how many old warhorses – Kenneth Baker, Heseltine, John Reed – and some young ones – have been coming out with their died in the wool opposition to pr. I suppose the basis of this is that they feel threatened by the resurgence of a third party and they feel Britain should have a government which can always make a decision.

In my view this probably goes back to the vision of Britain as a dominant world power ever since the beginnings of the party system about 1688.

Simon talks about the need to have a coherent voice to speak to the likes of China.

But world power or not decisions these days are incredibly complex, with an incredibly well-informed global political system and it is probably still more important to take the right decision than a quick one.

I suppose the likelihood is we’ll get av before pr and we get a gradual entry to all this.

One other point. The current model of ‘adversarial’ politics really dates from Disraeli who was the first prime minister to obviously manipulate the electorate and parliament to get what he wanted. He famously allied his Tory party with left wing Whigs to get the second reform bill through, ending up with a much more radical bill than anyone had expected. But more importantly he and other politicians, after the said reform bill, realised they had to couch all their statements with the ear of the electorate in mind whereas previously politics had basically been a gentlemen’s club.

To do this politicians found the two party system with its arcane gameplaying convenient.

Perhaps now we need to be just a bit more grown up than that.

It’s quite surreal to watch the Welsh Assembly live on Channel 81 Freeview carrying on with their business as normal whilst the Whitehall farce continues ad nauseam.

They are discussing dementia care!

FPTP/PR/AV, whatever.

Too late in the day for all that…We are about to go down the plughole, and all you lot can do is talk about PR.

Get real.

All this comes to late to help now.

Yes, getting a representative electoral system is only one side of the problem, the other is having a well informed electorate. The corporate media is a major problem in this, though I have little idea what to do about it.

I am gross and perverted, I’m obsessed and deranged,

I have existed for years but very little has changed,

I’m the tool of the government and industry too,

For I am destined to rule and regulate you,

I may seem vile and pernicious but you can’t look away,

I make you think I’m delicious with the stuff that I say,

I’m the Best You Can Get,

Have you guessed me yet?

I’m the slime oozing out from your TV set!

You will obey me when I lead you,

And eat the garbage that I feed you,

Until the day that we don’t need you,

Don’t call for help, no one will heed you,

Your mind is totally controlled,

It has been stuffed into my mold,

And you will do as you are told,

Until the rights to you are sold.

“That’s Right Folks Don’t Touch That Dial!”

Frank Zappa, 1973

Yes, the Mothers of Invention – or was that Alistair Campbell and Peter Mandelson?

The ghastly porker Adam Boulton (he should diet) having nearly burst his boiler twice yesterday, once with Campbell and then with Bradshaw, is now guietly preening himself and glowing with pride at a job well done as his master’s wish seems to be coming true.ie Cameron as PM.

STV is what to go for, and you must go for it first time. If any of the numerous pseudo-proportional fudges is adopted at this stage it will kill the topic for another century. PR? Oh, been there, done that, box ticked.

STV also not only allows the voter to rank his preferences, it allows him to select among several different candidates for the same party – so that a seat can be safe for a party, but not guaranteed safe for any carefully groomed moron advanced by that party (think Douglas Alexander). STV gives most discrimination to the voter – you can even vote for an individual you like even though you disapprove of his party.

To those asking how a transferred vote is actually transferred, come back to me when I’ve not been drinking the wine that really ought to have gone into the sauce (Chilean Merlot – tolerable). The Irish way is not the best – it’s not even bloody sensible.

All PR systems have faults – but that’s a bit like saying that there’s no such thing as a perfect woman and therefore we should shun them all.

Just responding to Doug, I certainly didn’t mean to suggest the UK needs a coherent voice to speak _to_ China. To speak to China, be in Europe. Decisiveness, though, can be a real problem for democracies, and it’s not clear to me how the STV crowd view this issue. China obviously has no problem with decisiveness, hence my unfortunate comparison. Do proportionally representative coalition style governments deal better with complex modern issues, or do they avoid dealing with them and play blame games? How would this play out in the UK, anyone?

One clear requirement for healthy democracies is churn, and churn requires swinging voters, the more the better. FPTP and AV, favouring clear winners, make it clear who you have to vote against if you want change. Would PR systems like STV favour more tribal voting? In this regard, AV is clearly better than FPTP, in that people are less tribal with their 2nd preferences, so swinging preferences can and frequently do decide elections. Another big factor, underlined in Norwich North, is the quality of individual representatives. Voters might vote for the teenage footsoldiers of their party of tribal allegiance, but in casting their 2nd preferences, they are much more likely to be swayed by a CV, a strong local profile, and grey hair. The overall quality of representatives will benefit.

I’m still keen to hear from the STV crowd what’s so great about proportionality in the lower house of a bicameral system. I suspect that you are pumping any system that will get a better deal for your (minority) tribal interest.

Simon

Well what’s great about proportionality is that it means every vote counts equally and people can vote for the candidate or party they agree with most, not just the one they disagree with least among those likely to win.

Under FPTP or AV then unless you voted for the candidate that ends up with the majority of votes in that constituency (or often the largest minority under FPTP), your vote goes in the bin unrepresented.

That distorts how people vote and makes them vote negatively for bad against worse instead of positively for who they agree with most.

Under STV PR almost every vote will count and be represented.

That means it’s more democratic and it does away with all the “safe seats” where voting for anyone but the party holding it is a waste of time under FPTP/AV.

You’re saying people are saying proportionality is better in itself. So it is. It’s more democratic and lets people vote positively.

So why should it need other criteria to justify it? It’s like saying people arguing for democracy’s only argument is that it’s democratic and not a dictatorship – but has no other benefits.

I’m not convinced that it’s that beneficial to have an elected upper chamber – unless we get a constitution that requires political parties to allow party members votes’ to have the final (and only) say on candidate selection and policy making.

If we get an elected upper chamber which is controlled by the party leaders and their place-men and women, the way the House of Commons is just now, then you’ll get either a rubber stamp (if the same party controls both houses) or deadlock with nothing happening (if the two are controlled by different parties).

You could solve that by either a written constitution including requirements for internal democracy in all parties, or by having upper house representatives elected for 10 or 20 or 25 years so they weren’t subject to pressure from party leaders.

Having said all that Nick Clegg has gone into a coalition on the basis of a referendum on the Alternative Vote, so there’s no chance of getting P.R for UK elections for another 5 years – and every possibility Scotland will vote for the SNP and other smaller pro-independence parties next year (and if not then then in 2016 if the Conservatives win the next General election).

Having failed to avoid another Conservative government by voting Labour, going for Independence is the only other option (though its possible too many Scots will be afraid Scotland couldn’t make it on it’s own unless the recession has ended)