The history of reform is replete with proposals for change, so it is with some trepidation that I propose yet another system: single-member proportional representation (SMPR).
All electoral systems have merits, and I did not set out to make (nor could I!) the academically ‘best’ system. Instead, I used only one criterion: maximum feasibility. I sought to design a system that would have a fighting chance of gaining a majority both in Parliament and with the people in a referendum, while also delivering true PR. The well-studied failure of the AV referendum (and general apathy to reform in general) indicated that complicated systems will suffer at the polls; AV, after all, is the first and easy step on the road to STV. SMPR is intended for: delivering truly proportional representation and being palatable.
The full details of SMPR are laid out in my white paper. In brief, every person in the country will have two MPs: a constituency MP (as today) and, a regional MP covering a single-member constituency covering an area of roughly (though this will vary by population) four of today’s constituencies. This maps conveniently onto regions; there would be, for example, an MP for Cornwall. Everyone’s ballot will feature candidates for these seats, so each person will know exactly for whom they are voting. The choice is simple, transparent, and easily understandable, and voters need check only a single box (no numbers required).
Now, we arrive at the proportional aspect, which involves the slightly unusual trick of SMPR. The votes for parties are tallied up nationally, rather than regionally, and the Saint-Lagüe quota is used to allocate additional seats to parties, taking into account the constituency seats already won. By calculating proportionality nationally, this maximises proportionality and keeps most seats relatively small and close to the people; this is known in the political science as the ‘sweet spot’ due to its desirability. The table (below) gives a rough indication of how well SMPR would justly compensate the Lib Dems for their votes, when 2019 vote counts are plugged into SMPR. (Note that as changes in electoral systems affect voting behaviour, it is likely more people would have voted Lib Dem in 2019 had PR been in place). SMPR is thus a highly proportional system involving minimal change from the existing system, which will increase its favourability among MPs (who like the current system because it got them elected) and voters (who are hostile to change).
The final point of SMPR, once seats have been allocated to parties, is to determine which of that party’s regional candidates will receive seats in Parliament. This is done quite simply: the regional candidate with the highest number of votes receives a seat, followed by the candidate with the second highest level of votes, and so on. Thus, a constituency’s voters directly influence which proportional regional member they will receive. For example, imagine a region (say, Cornwall), where there are four constituencies where the Lib Dems are (sadly!) in second place under First Past the Post. The combined high votes for the Lib Dems in those four constituencies would mean that it would be highly likely that the regional MP for Cornwall would be a Lib Dem.
I realise this system is far from perfect, which is why I submit it to LDV for discussion and consideration!
You can read my full white paper on the matter here.
* Elijah Granet is a Bar Vocational Course student at the City Law School (University of London), as well as an external PhD candidate at Universität Bayreuth in Germany.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Labour MPs revolt
Edward Street of old #dundeewestend
Tens of Thousands
A Puffin Books profile of Joan Aiken
"Could you be the one to help a care leaver?"
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
Simon R
Steve Trevethan
Peter Martin
nigel hunter
Craig Levene
98 Comments
I thought this was interesting
https://www.economist.com/christmas-specials/2021/12/18/the-mathematical-method-that-could-offer-a-fairer-way-to-vote
I have just downloaded the full paper to read.
At first glance, I find the proposal attractive for several reasons:
– Although I am a fan of STV, I recognise that very many voters have great difficulty understanding the request to number candidates in order of preference instead of putting a X against a name.
– It avoids the power given to poliitical parties by party list systems. Apart from the normal challenge of getting selected (as a constituency or regional candidate), it is the actions of voters that will determine which regional candidates become MPs, not the ranking decisions of party managers.
– It avoid multi-member constituencies, albeit at the unavoidable cost of having regional MPs alongside constituency MPs.
For too long, supporters of “perfect” electoral reform solutions have let the best be the enemy of the good. I still remember the purists who argued agains the AV referendum.
Accordingly, subject to my reading the downloaded paper, I would support this proposal becoming Party policy.
I remember David Steele once commenting that a debate on different methods of PR was “Old Liberal”. [This was at the time that “New Labour” was a popular phrase]. I’m quite proud to be Old Liberal.
I’m afraid I believe STV is the ideal system and the one we should be promoting at every opportunity. While is is not ‘pure’ PR, it is the system that maximises the power of voters to determine which candidates get elected, while delivering results that tend to be approximately proportional in practice. (Indeed, the degree of proportionality can be increased by increasing the number of candidates to be elected per constituency.)
I would also suggest that the way to advance STV is to prioritise getting it for local councils – this will allow voters to experience it, and realise its advantages, thereby making it easier to win a possible future referendum on changing the system for elections to Westminster. STV works well in Scotland for local elections and I would hope that we would see a move towards adopting it for the Scottish Parliament in the near future as STV is already supported by the SNP.
What you are proposing is a variation of the additional member system, already in use for the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments. Your system though would fail to produce proportionality if only one fifth of the seats are proprionally allocated. It woultake a much larger propotion, at least a third to produce proportionality. Take the example of Cornwall. All of the current six MP’s are conservative, one additioanl member for the whole of Cornwall might give on MP for the Lib Dems and nothing for Labour. In other places your might have to select the third or fourth placed candidate to achieve proportionality.
Additional member systems to produce two classes of MP with different workloads, it also leads political parties to play the system, as the Greens do in Scotland, and as Alex Salmond’s Alba party tried to, to win seats that the SNP couldn’t win because they had reached their quota on FPTP MP’s.
We need to promote and campaign for STV as a system which maximises voter choice while providing a far more proprtional outcome than FPTP, and more proportional than the system with only 25% of MP’s elected regionally.
The French system of ‘more than 50% or the top two go head-to-head’ is pretty simple…
What seems daft is we already have three voting systems in Wales. Long queues on May 6 last year were partly due to Covid restrictions, but also voters getting to the booths and scratching their heads over the different systems for the Senedd and the PCC elections.
One reason the AV referendum failed was because the ‘yes’ broadcasts just explained how it works (more head-scratching). While the ‘no’ broadcasts made it a referendum on Nick Clegg.
@Mohammed Amin I am grateful for your support and the points you’ve made!
@Michael Hopkins Delighted we’re reviving Old Liberal traditions
@Brad Barrows I would say two things. First, I don’t think there’s an ‘ideal’ system in all cases, but rather we have to look at each case. For example, I agree that STV works very well for local government in Scotland, and I think it would work very well for local government in England as well (especially as many wards are already multi–member, albeit under block voting). Plus, I did a politics degree, which means I automatically (like everyone else who studies electoral systems) like many aspects of STV ;). However, I think there are problems with STV, both with regards to its complexity (the Irish Times politics podcast a few years ago had a Q&A where the host, a veteran political journalist, admitted he still didn’t understand how transfers worked), and the fact that it disrupts the small constituency relationship which many in the UK really do treasure and like (and would be reluctant to change).
However, I am not trying to convince you to like any system other than STV—I think instead all I can say is that SMPR would be worth supporting because it is a realistic bridge to STV. It is much easier to change from one form of PR to another, but the difficult bridgehead is changing from FPTP to literally anything else. Again, we have to learn from the failure of the AV referendum, because AV wasn’t actually that much change (and indeed, is actually more majoritarian than FPTP). You noted, I think correctly, that STV is most likely to be implemented in Scotland, but I would submit that there was never even the slightest chance of STV being implemented for the Scottish Parliament as the first system after devolution, but might be implemented now that a form of PR has been used in Scotland for two decades. I would make the same argument for the UK as a whole: if you want STV, then your best chance of getting it is to get *any* PR system in the UK, and let the voters get habituated before moving on to STV.
@Cassie The French system is simple, but is definitely not PR!
It certainly looks interesting, though I wouldn’t fancy the workload of the regional MP and I’m not sure how neatly (outside Cornwall) the 4 MP format maps over onto established counties.
In terms of simplicity there’s nothing wrong with AV – unless you think that people are too daft to rank their preferences.
@James Fowler Yes, you couldn’t map it necessarily as neatly, although there are lots of geographically/regionally coherent groups of ~500,000. I would have agreed with you on AV if not for the referendum, which suggests to me, after reading some of the literature on why it failed, that there was something voters disliked about changing tradition. Certainly not daftness; I think instead, it’s actually a sign that voters feel protective of the traditions of British democracy and of the system, after hard fighting, of universal and equal suffrage. We can’t fault them for being ‘overprotective’ (ie protecting aspects of the system that aren’t integral to democracy), but must actually work with their preferences.
The French system doesn’t pretend to be proportional. It’s like AV spread over two weekends.
Likewise AV itself is a complication on FPTP and not a system that aims for proportionality.
This system seems attractive, and as laid out has much to recommend it, though I’d be curious to know how it would affect the size of the House of Commons, which is already 650 MPs in size – about how many seats would need to be added for proportionality to be achieved, would you say?
@John Grout the calculations in this article and my white paper presume adding no extra seats, but instead redrawing the map for a 520 seat Parliament, to which are added 130 proportional seats for the same 650 total. Mathematically, there’s no reason you couldn’t run exactly the same system with 600 total MPs, so long as ~1/5 of the total are proportional seats!
I have now read the full 17 page paper, and encourage others to do the same.
Having read it, I give the proposal my full support. I believe this should be our Party’s policy.
@Elijah Granet. Fair points, and thank you for responding. Regarding the failed referendum, I think the overwhelming problem was the timing. AV would have cruised through in 97/98 – not doing so was one of New Labour’s major strategic errors as it would have cemented the Lab 1, LD 2 (and vice versa) habit that did so much tactically to get them into government decisively.
I think your ideas are good, but there’s next to zero appetite for this kind of reform in a country mired in a state of defensive and fearful reclusiveness. Let’s hope for happier, more open times.
@James Fowler You’re right that there have been many missed opportunities (and I agree the Jenkins Commission was perhaps the closest we might have been had New Labour not reneged) and the pictures looks bleak. The past 100 years of attempts at electoral reform have had so many missed opportunities. That’s bad news, in that we don’t have PR, but it’s also some good news, because it shows that opportunities for reform *do* come along every once in a while. The goal of my system is not to suddenly change things today, or even in 2024, but rather to ensure that whenever the next opportunity comes (and I think everyone at LDV hopes that’s soon!), there is a proposal designed to maximise the chances of taking advantage of that opportunity. There are so many different marginal factors that work against reform, that the pro-PR camp—the Lib Dems, the Greens, Plaid, parts of Labour, etc,—can stand the best shot of not making this yet another of the half-dozen or so times since at least 1906 that an opportunity for reform has failed because of silly things at the margins.
I’m not currently a member of the party, but I have been and am irresistibly drawn like a moth to the flame of these discussions.
I agree with the propositions that: 1) STV is an ‘ideal’ proportional system and 2) that there are underlying assumptions around the mechanics and ‘principles’ (often reverse-engineered, as they are) of FPTP that make movement towards this ideal very difficult, and therefore a compromise between proportionality and what the British public thinks it has learnt from FPTP worth serious consideration otherwise we are stuck with the most crude voting system.
However, I think your acceptance of two kinds of MP and regional lists deviates from these pragmatic principles to an extent that even the simplicity of one-mark-in-one-box won’t resolve. It also makes any future progress towards STV more difficult.
I’ve been toying with a different system based on a sequential reweighting model, whereby constituencies are grouped in threes and voters in each group have three votes, one for each seat, with votes cast for a voter’s own seat being weighted double those cast by the same voter in the two neighbouring seats. I can explain at greater length if anyone is interested. (I haven’t explained the counting method fully in this synopsis).
This system – whilst more of a semiproportional system than you propose – would have the advantage of enshrining the principle of local representation many have learnt from FPTP, whilst holding open the door to STV in the future. It also allows independent candidates to represent all three of the seats, rather than only 50% of them as in your system.
@Richard Church. (1/2) Forgive me—I seemed to have overlooked your earlier comment. I must respectfully disagree with you on a few points. You are correct that, like the Scottish/Welsh AMS, SMPR is a variant of the mixed member system of families, as is the electoral system of say, Germany or New Zealand (although all are different in some crucial ways). Mathematically, however, you are, I regret to say, quite wrong on the proportionality of the system. As you can see in the image above, as well as in detail (with equation!) in my White Paper, my system produces a very high degree of proportionality as measured with the Gallagher Index, the standard way of measuring such disproportionality. It is a highly proportional system. As you can see from the table above (and in detail in my white paper), You wondered, reasonably, how exactly my system can be so proportional with 80% of the MPs as normal (and all MPs being single constituency representatives—avoiding your ‘two classes’ objection). The answer, as I set out in the post and in the paper, is quite simple: by calculating proportionality nationally (what in political science we would call increasing the ‘district magnitude’), it takes only a small amount of proportional adjustment (and remember, this is not parallel voting, but proportionalising the existing results—as is done in all MMPR systems). The maths really are there and clear to see.
@Richard Church (2/2) Let me give a concrete mathematical example. You bring up the comparison in proportionality to STV. As you know (and as I suspect every commenter at this wonderful website knows), STV is not inherently proportional, but tends towards proportionality, particularly if you increase the constituency size (5 is better than 3, etc). In preparing my white paper, I did compare the Gallagher Index of various polities to my calculations . I did not ultimately include a direct comparison because, for scholarly rigour, the Gallagher Index in any election is variable and dependent on factors other than just the electoral system, and for this reason, cross-national comparisons only have utility with time-series data. Nonetheless, I think it may be helpful to let you know that under applying SMPR to the 2019 election data (which again, has limitations as an approach), SMPR actually is *more proportional* than the 2016 Irish election (done under STV) and more proportional indeed than many Irish elections since independence.
I’ve said this before in the thread, but I will say it again, because I want to avoid confusion or division—SMPR is not anti-STV or constructed to exclude STV from becoming the UK’s national system. Precisely the opposite: once the UK has PR, it is easy to transition to one or another system of PR without much difficulty. The political difficulty comes in moving from FPTP to *any* form of PR. Therefore, I would respectfully submit that if you feel that STV is the best way for Britain, you should first look for the most realistic possible way to adopt any PR system in the UK, because it is unlikely that the UK would go directly from FPTP to PR (whereas it is not impossible that Scotland will go from MMPR to STV!).
Reference for Gall. Index data: https://www.tcd.ie/Political_Science/people/michael_gallagher/ElSystems/Docts/ElectionIndices.pdf
One of the key arguments that we must overcome for any form of PR is the idea that single member seats represent a community. Cornwall is a community. St. Austell & Newquay is not. The current boundary commission proposals dissociate constituencies reduce the link between constituencies and communities even further. You need to win that argument to introduce one regional MP for Cornwall and if you can do that you might as well go straight for STV and have six MPs for Cornwall. That also means that your regions don’t all have to be the same size as they would be under this system. You could have a seven member Wiltshire and a single member Isle of Wight. The electors / MPs ratio wouldn’t be exact but they would represent real communities.
If you’d like a PR system that also preserves the single-member constituency link, then an even simpler one is “vote from hat”.
1) Everyone votes for their favoured candidate in their local constituency on FPTP-style “pick one” ballot papers.
2) In each constituency, one vote from all those cast (after discarding spoilt papers) is picked at random, and the candidate on that vote is elected.
Everyone gets a local MP as now; the ballot papers are no more complex than the current ones; every vote could potentially be the crucial one which decides the seat, therefore increasing turnout; as with STV (and unlike AMS/list-type systems) independent candidates are not penalised over party candidates; there are no “safe” seats so even a candidate with 80% local support has a strong motivation to increase it further, improving responsiveness to constituents; there is no tactical voting possible – a honest vote is always the best strategy; at national level (given, as always, sufficient seats) the expectation is that each party will receive a number of MPs very closely proportional to its national vote share; the vote counting can take place extremely quickly.
With so many advantages over both FPTP and more traditional PR systems, I think it’s definitely worth considering [1]
[1] …not to actually adopt it. It just makes a good thought experiment to think about what’s *actually* valuable about a voting system and why VFH – despite its long list of advantages – isn’t appropriate, which might clarify what you really want elsewhere.
Isn’t strange that some people think that STV is too complicated for the electorate to understand! Voters have been using STV in Eire since independence and Scottish voters don’t have any problems with it for local elections either. Many trades unions use it for internal elections too. The party should stop pratting about with half baked proposals like this and go full heartedly for STV for all UK elections. It puts voters, not parties in control and, largely, ensures that voters get an MP of their persuasion. The small constituency argument is just an argument to stop PR.
@Peter Davies I am not sure on Westminster sized constituencies and communities. For example, the murders of Sir David Ames, we all saw how much the people of Southend-on-Sea saw themselves as a coherent and distinct community (deserving City status and separate from their Essex neighbours). In SMPR, this is aided by the fact that it (with the numbers given) involves a 520 seat Parliament, meaning every constituency is bigger (hence why Cornwall is 4 plurality constituencies in the model). With careful and independent drawing, I see no reason why community does not coherently break down into local matters. After all the Lib Dems are the part of Local Government, who have always done well by prioritising local issues in different communities, even quite small ones! People in the UK are rightly proud of their communities of shared and diverse identities, and I think those really do break down into small groups like St Ives as distinct from the rest of Cornwall. The Party stands for an inclusive localism (as opposed to exclusive nationalism), and I think that’s covered by the system.
As an aside I do think actually an asymmetry of representatives is a bit unfair (not fatally so), inasmuch as it means that someone in Wiltshire has seven MPs who will raise questions and press their issues in the House, whereas someone on the Isle of Weight has just one. The more MPs you have ,the more influence you have when raising constituency issues. Again, I don’t think that’s the biggest issue in any system—merely a point!
@cim Very amusing! In fact, there are quite a few political scholars—definitely not me though!—who think that sortition (randomly selecting representatives) could be a useful way to, for example, select a Citizen’s Assembly for new constitutions or to fill a second chamber or other deliberative body. I think that’s a bit daft though.
If you will forgive me for being really pedantic, your VFH system isn’t actually PR though 😉 ! If your random sample in each constituency is n=1, there’s no reason to believe aggregate would possibly be proportional, since each sample is an independent probability and constituency distributions are geographic, not random.
The big problem with this proposal is how you allocate the top-up seats.
Using the example in your paper (based on 2019 and accepting that actual votes would not have been the same under a different system) only 4 parties are entitled to top-up seats: LD/Lab/Grn/APNI.
There is a specific Northern Ireland problem – N.I. has 4 top-up seats of which APNI gets 2 – who gets the other 2? presumably Greens based on a handful of votes in N.I.?
More significantly, Labour presumably win the top-up seats in all the places where they have most votes i.e. in general where they already hold all or nearly all the constituent FPTP seats, plus some top-ups in Scotland. Greens presumably win the top-up seats where their vote is most concentrated i.e. Greater Brighton, Bristol, a couple in inner London etc. LDs then win all the other top-up seats, including over half the top-up seats in England – everywhere except the strongest Lab or Grn areas, which by definition will include areas with negligible LD strength. I am not sure that it really makes sense for someone to become the MP for (say) Barking & Havering despite their party getting ~5% and coming third or fourth in each of the constituencies there??
@Mick Taylor I certainly have never said that voters cannot understand STV. Quite the opposite: for over 100 years, STV has been explained and explained and explained to the voters at every opportunity by the Liberals/Lib Dems and the ERS. And yet, despite over 100 years of education, the voters and Parliament do not have an appetite for it, which suggests to me there is a strong attachment to the current system. If at, say, the 2029 election, Labour agrees to an LibDem coalition with a promise of an STV referendum, I regret to say that I am certain the outcome would be a loss for STV which would completely shut down the debate on proportional representation for a generation (just as the recent cannabis referendum failure in New Zealand shut down drugs reform debate for a generation). If, on the other hand, the referendum was on SMPR and it one, it would renew the debate on electoral reform and open the gates for further adjustments to the system. I think the onus is on advocates of PR to think strategically, rather than simply assume that the same set of tactics tried basically since Thomas Hare’s day will suddenly work when they haven’t for a century.
Southend-on-Sea is indeed a community. It is not a constituency. Southend West and Rochford & Southend East are the two constituencies. The districts of Rochford and Castle Point are generally focused on Southend as the major urban centre and together they would make a reasonable three member seat.
My opinion is that we need to focus on our own party’s decision making process.
We also need to work out the role of political parties if we are to agree that referendums are part of any system.
I agree that it is very strange to claim that putting a list of people in order of preference is beyond people. If it is true we need to urgently update our education system.
Actually four member but a bit small. I’d allow rather greater variations than the current system. Better to have permanent boundaries that represent real communities and just change the number of MPs as electorates change.
@Peter Davies You’re right for *this* current Parliament. However, some back of the envelope maths, I think, though, that in a 520 seat Parliament (ie model) Southend would be ~1 constituency (population / 520 gets you constituencies of average 130k people—Southend at 180 seems like it might be in the margin of variation, particularly with the ‘protected constituencies’ (Na h-Eileanan an Iar, etc) dragging down the average.
There was of course a lack of enthusiasm for the Alternative Vote referendum. Certainly at a time of financial crisis it was insane in my opinion to hold a referendum at that time.
What I would suggest as a tactic is to look towards preparing the arguments for STV in local government and seeing if resources can be found for working up a campaign for allowing referendums for STV to be organised by councils. This of course should include issues of how much the vote would cost.
We need the campaign first, otherwise we would find that there was a major well financed campaign opposing change, and no answer would be forthcoming. In my opinion this is what happened in AV referendum.
@Peter Davies You’re also right that you could have multi-member STV seats (or huge Swedish/Spanish style regional constituencies, or any other model!). I am not saying that my model is better—there have been lots of much smarter people than I coming up with electoral reform ideas and I have no special genius. The reason to prefer SMPR is simply that it is the most likely bridgehead for PR—to paraphrase Michael Collins, it might give freedom to achieve freedom (for many LibDems, STV). My point would again be that SMPR is a realistic first step on a road to STV, or to a German style system, or to federalism, or any other thing that requires first that the Lib Dems receive representation in Parliament close to their vote total, so the Party can actually accomplish the really great things it has wanted to give this country for generations.
@Peter Davies
“Better to have permanent boundaries that represent real communities and just change the number of MPs as electorates change.”
Agree.
And doesn’t the same apply to local authorities? Shouldn’t they be structured around communities also?
@Tom Harney There are two points here: one, no one is claiming that ranked choice is beyond the average person or that voters are too daft. They are not. But voters have been educated by the ERS, by the Liberals/SDP/LibDems and others for generations on STV, and yet STV seems no likelier today than it did in 1900, I regret to say. The truth is that voters are conservative and attached to the current system, so the way forward is gradual change progressing towards the ‘ideal’ system (which for most LibDems is probably STV). I can’t emphasise enough that SMPR is not anti-STV; rather, it is a pragmatic bridgehead for delivering the Party PR, which will give it the representation to demand, for example, STV.
@Tom Harney If you want an example of this in action, look to Scotland. If it weren’t for the AMS delivering experience and comfort with PR, you would never in a million years have gotten STV for local elections. Because the system was already proportional from 1999, it was possible for Labour, against a backdrop of already having PR, to allow the Lib Dems request for STV in local elections.
It’s an interesting alternative to AMS/MMP, better in some ways, worse in others; I’ll be happy to join in academic discussion of the details at another time.
But what is totally unrealistic is to think that tossing a new PR system into the debate is going to help the adoption of PR for Westminster elections. It will be much easier to get the public to accept a system that has been used in at least part of the UK than a new and untried one.
Conservatives are implacably opposed to any change from FPTP, but support within Labour for PR is increasing, and in Wales they are even moving towards replacing AMS with STV for the Senedd. The Greens, SNP and Plaid are all in favour of PR. Let’s keep the debate simple: a pro-PR majority in parliament after the next election is a real possibility.
We as a party have for long argued for STV, which combines voter choice, proportionality and local representation, while minimising wasted votes and safe seats. And it could be easily and quickly introduced – with natural constituencies such as Cornwall – see the suggestion at https://lder.org/en/page/the-single-transferable-vote
It is good for us who prefer STV to be challenged, and this is certainly a challenge. You say:
“I’ve said this before in the thread, but I will say it again, because I want to avoid confusion or division—SMPR is not anti-STV or constructed to exclude STV from becoming the UK’s national system. Precisely the opposite: once the UK has PR, it is easy to transition to one or another system of PR without much difficulty. ”
I disagree with this. As far as the voter is concerned the system is the same as FPTP; you put an X against the party you want to vote for. In that sense, AV is much closer to STV because you have to express preferences. Living in London, I am exposed to four distinct voting systems: single-member FPTP for Parliament and my London Assembly constituency; proportional list for the Assembly List; Supplementary Vote for the London Mayor; and multiple-member FPTP for my local elections. In all it is the same X (although there are two columns for the mayoral election and in my local elections I can mark as many Xs as there are places to be filled in the ward).
@Dennis Mollison I doubt most people in England, sadly, care or know much about the systems used in other parts of the UK. The point here is that if there is a pro-PR majority in Parliament—which I think everyone reading and commenting here, me certainly included wants—there has to be a coalition that gets Labour leadership not simply to agree to a referendum, but to actively endorse *a* model for PR. Otherwise, it’s the AV referendum over again, with the majority in the coalition (Labour) opposing its own referendum, and PR will be dealt a death blow in the UK. My case for SMPR—the only case!—is that it is much more likely to gain that approval.
I feel like I say this every comment, but the point of SMPR is absolutely not to try to get the LibDems to denounce STV or reject it! Quite the opposite: my case for SMPR is that if you want STV, SMPR is a bridgehead through it. If you think that in 2029, Labour can be convinced to endorse STV and really campaign for it—ie not like when they endorsed Remain but only halfheartedly campaigned for it—I must respectfully say that that is as unrealistic as every other time in the past 100+ years of electoral reform that Labour has declined to do so. This is a first step—a way to get past the hard part (PR) and then, give the Lib Dems the votes in Parliament that they deserve. With 100 seats under SMPR, the Lib Dems can start seriously demanding STV, whereas under FPTP, I regret to say I am doubtful the Party will ever have the votes to push through STV past Labour (let alone the Tories).
@Laurence Cox You’re probably right about the views of the voter with regards to the ballots, but my point is that under SMPR, the Lib Dems will be getting (this is just if the Party’s vote share doesn’t increase over the relatively low 2019 , so it’s a low estimate) 75–100 seats, which is enough to actually start having real power (unlike in even the Coalition, where the Party was too junior a partner). At that point, if Conference directs the Party to demand STV in the next coalition, the partner party (let’s say Labour) will have no choice but to agree. On the other hand, even if the next election Labour has 305 seats and the Lib Dems have 30, and the Greens 5, 30 seats is simply not enough for a junior partner to demand a radical change to the voting system. (Radical because it’s different—I hope people here know that when a Liberal says radical, we don’t mean it pejoratively!)
Thus, the transition in PR is not because voters are habituated, but rather because the Lib Dems (and to a lesser extent the Greens, Alliance, the SNP, Plaid etc) will have the power to change the system, in a way they simply can’t right now.
I have two degrees in politics, which means I instinctively like ranked-preference systems of voting (all academics do—it’s why the one place in the US to use STV is Cambridge, MA home to Harvard and MIT)! Ranked-preferences are great! But the only Parliament to vote for STV will be one where the Lib Dems enjoy strength proportionate to their votes, and that requires a bridgehead of PR first.
Elija: I don’t accept your assertion that “SMPR” would be a step towards adoption of a better PR system i.e. STV. It’s good to try and get PR onto the ms political agenda but promoting a flawed system would help to muddy the water further. Prior to the Jenkins proposals our parties were clearly committed to STV. Even the ERS seems to have been dverted
contd. diverted sometimes in recent years.
A strong selling point for STV which we should exploit is that it doesn’t entrench the power of party politics.
@ Elijah Granet. “I must respectfully say that that is as unrealistic as every other time in the past 100+ years of electoral reform that Labour has declined to do so”.
Hang on just a mo, Elijah………. As far as I know (and do correct me if I am wrong) the few Labour MPs in the H of C in 1917 supported the introduction of what was regarded then as a form of PR during all the debates and negotiations leading up to the Representation of the People Act, 1918. It was rejected (in 1917) by a majority which included a rather larger number of Liberal MP’s – and by a Government led by someone who claimed to be a Liberal Prime Minister. [1]
1. Stuart Ball (Ed)., The Advent of Democracy : The Impact of the 1918 Reform Act on British Politics, (Wiley for The Parliamentary History Yearbook Trust, 2018).
Failure to get a form of PR back in 1918 could be regarded as a bit of an own goal if it ever featured in Match of the Day.
PS. As usual I happen to agree with Professor Mollison who knows about these things, Elijah.
“A strong selling point for STV which we should exploit is that it doesn’t entrench the power of party politics.”
Which might be why tories and probably labour would remain implacably opposed to it? Both very controlling parties to whom the idea that the voter controls the order of a party’s candidates in a list might be anathema?
@elijah (ref. @cim) –
“If you will forgive me for being really pedantic..”
Sorry, you’re not being pedantic here, just wrong.
If the % votes were the same in each constituency, the numbers elected would follow a multi-nomial distribution. For a party with 40% of the vote, this would give a mean of 40 % of seats, with variability (standard deviation) of about 2 %. If more realistically the % vote varies between constituencies, the variability will be reduced: e.g., if that party got 60 % in half the seats, 20 % in the other half, it would still on average get its 40 % of seats, but the variability would reduce from about 2 % to about 1.8 % (from sqrt(156) to sqrt(130) in number of seats).
The key point here is that this variability is small compared with the distortions of FPTP. And it would get rid of safe seats – even with 90% of the vote there’d be a 1 in 10 chance of losing your seat. So I’d definitely take cim’s system in preference to our present one!
@John Payne I’m not sure what you mean by ‘flawed’ system. In my white paper, I quote Dr Alan Renwick, who might be the world’s best expert on this, as saying the more he’s studied electoral systems, the more he’s convinced there’s no universal best, but rather it depends on context. The Netherlands might like their system ( open list PR with the entire country as a single constituency), but it wouldn’t really work too well in the UK, for example.
I’m making no claims about one being best, or more flawed or less flawed. My point is about pragmatic realistic ways forward. For over 100 years, there has been an ardent campaign to educate on STV, and we still have FPTP at Westminster. The entrance of STV in Scotland was made possible only by having a PR system already in place in Scotland which gave the Lib Dems the power to demand it. I don’t see why doing more of the same thing and expecting different results is a better pathway than trying to understand how the dynamics of reform work.
The Jenkins Commission is instructive, because I think it is the closest the country came to PR; Professor Bogdanor’s view (which I endorse) is that if Blair had only had a smaller majority (and thus justification for working with the Lib Dems), it would have been implemented. Jenkins was one of the greatest Liberals and Social Democrats this country has seen, and he saw as well as anyone that a route to realistic reform had to come through gradual change, just like all of the great achievements of the Liberal Party, I would argue. The only way to effect Liberal change in this country—like installing a land value tax or STV—would be for a Liberal party to have lots of seats in Parliament, which means that the Lib Dems have to convince one of the top two parties (almost certainly Labour) to throw their weight and campaign for electoral reform. It won’t be enough to agree for a referendum—we need enthusiastic canvassing from the coalition partners to prevent a repeat of the AV referendum (because Lib Dem voters—sadly—are not enough to be 51% on their own).
@Elijah Granet
Surprisingly it does even work out as proportional, *if* the constituencies are all collecting a similar number of votes each. Take a basic two party system where ten constituencies are 51-49 splits to party A, ten are 80-20 to party A, and ten are 40-60 to party B, all constituencies having about the same number of total votes. On average, A and B will win five of the first group each, split the second group 8:2, and split the third group 4:6, for a total of 17 A to 13 B, which near exactly matches their national vote share. So long as you assume identical per-constituency turnout the expected result is highly proportional.
If there are substantial differences in the sizes of constituency turnouts which happen to correlate with voting patterns then it works less well, though the same is a source of disproportionality in any PR system which isn’t whole-nation.
We will only get one chance at PR and that is if we get rid of the Tories and get a hung Parliament. We should have insisted on legislation in 2010 as a precondition of going into government. The Tories were desperate for power and would have agreed. A minimalist compromise like this gives away the principle before we even start talking. We know STV is the right solution and we should prepare a bill ready to go if we get the opportunity. Forget referendums. Look what happened with the last two! Put it in the manifesto and then implement it. No half measures
@Mick Taylor
Agree 100%
A large part of the failure of AV in the referendum was that the electorate knew it was being suggested as second best (if that). Clegg himself had famously called it a miserable compromise. The voters need to know that we believe in what we propose.
@Cim @Dennis Mollison Fun with probability! @Cim writes: “Surprisingly it does even work out as proportional, *if* the constituencies are all collecting a similar number of votes each. ” This is the problem —that ‘if’—because constituencies are a *non-random sample* (because they aren’t drawn consistently and vary wildly in vote share).
Put it this way: if a pollster used the VFH method as a form of random sampling, their entire poll would be statistically invalid because dividing voters by constituency is a non-random sample, and therefore cannot be a random sample of the national vote. VFH is an attempt to use an opinion poll to decide an election, except it uses methodology which wouldn’t make any statistical sense as a poll!
If I’m wrong, then just start a polling company where you call one voter in each constituency and make a fortune with predicting results on that sampling method 😉
My question for @Mick Taylor @Dennis Mollison: if there is a coalition agreement after say 2024/2029, presumably with Labour, and Labour agrees to put STV to a referendum, but does not campaign for it (and I have a hard time seeing how Labour will campaign for it given the attitude to *any* PR—this is why Jenkins had to lead a commission!), do you think the Lib Dems and Greens and SNP alone will be sufficient to get to 51%? The result would be a defeat for STV, and the death of PR for a generation (compare again drugs law reform in New Zealand after the failure of the recent cannabis referendum).
Particularly on the ‘miserable little compromise’, how many of the votes against AV were, realistically, from disaffected electoral systems nerds annoyed that AV isn’t PR? There might have been a few, but I highly doubt that was any significant contingent.
I propose a compromise, which is better for all, but not what every party would choose. If you can get Labour to endorse STV, then you’re more persuasive than Ashdown and Jenkins to Blair, because the former two saw the need tor *a* compromise (though Blari had to renege because the majority he got was too large for him to tell his party he needed to compromise)
If a coalition or supply and confidence arrangement is possible after the next GE then Labour will be desperate to get into government. It needs to be made clear during the GE that the Lib Dem price is STV in all elections by way of a bill in parliament not dependent on a Referendum. All other matters can be negotiable but passing an Act for STV is not and it has to be done before any arrangement is made. We can quite legitimately point to the price we paid for the last coalition and that we are not prepared for a repeat of that. Also there us a history of Labour reneging on PR ( viz. LibLab pact) and we want to be assured of good faith. No STV no agreement to govern
Elijah,
I know you haven’t asked me but I would say that if there is a coalition or confidence and supply agreement favouring Labour after the next election it will probably be with the SNP, not the Lib Dems. This will require Labour to seriously consider a PR system as they will want an insurance policy if the SNP win an independence referendum. This might exacerbate Labour tensions about PR, or force Labour to find a system the party can compromise on.
But I can’t see Labour getting SNP agreement to a system such as you propose where there is a UK-wide proportionality calculation. I suspect it would be in the perceived self-interests of both partners to look at systems with either local proportionality in multi-member constituencies (such as STV) or some form of regional MMP (probably based on D’Hondt whilst we’re being cynical), thus entrenching regional powerbases.
My semi-proportional 3-vote 3-member semi-merged constituency system above (I think it got held up by screening) may also offer a model.
@Mick Taylor I agree with you entirely that electoral reform should be a condition of coalition—even if Labour offered say, Land Value Tax or some other dream policy, it’s not worth it.
However, it is a regrettable but extant fact that the constitutional position now is that changes to the electoral system need a referendum. I was at a Brick Court Chambers Constitution panel the other month, where Professor Bogdanor, who I think is the foremost authority on our constitution confirmed that the convention on this was essentially settled. It is simply not politically tenable for the Lib Dems, a party of the people who have a history of calling for referendums (such as on EU membership) to disregard this.
I agree that if I were deciding the constitutional settlement (heaven forbid!), I would not have allowed the precedent of the AV referendum. However, it is there, and there is no way around it, just as with EU membership, there was no path to undoing Brexit without a popular mandate.
@Matt My apologies for not having seen your earlier comment—I think it was delayed in the moderation queue! Please know that no disrespect was meant by me not responding until now.
As to your point on the SNP, it’s an interesting one, because out of pure self-interest, the SNP would be expected to not want electoral reform for Westinster (they do, as the last few elections have shown, extremely well under FPTP!). They do, though, support it at Westminster, because it is a point of ideological coherence for them. The SNP (not a party I support, I hasten to add) do have a very clear ideological template, and although they want independence for Scotland, they also want to improve the governance of the UK so long as they are in it (which is why they aren’t an abstentionist party).
This is all a prelude to saying that I am not sure if the SNP would object to a UK wide proportionality calculation, because it is very fitting with their ideology. The truth is the best answer to this is to be had would be discussion with SNP members. I haven’t contacted any SNP members or political thinkers about this, but their response would be very interesting and important to know.
If I were to hazard a guess, I think something like SMPR might be preferred by the SNP, because it retains the identity with single member constituencies (which matters for the Scottish Parliament overlap, and will not disrupt their work by creating a disjunction with Scottish Parliament seats). I don’t see why a UK wide calculation is automatically unacceptable to them, not least because the SNP have always accepted that Westminster is a UK wide Parliament (Even if they’d rather not be in it).
I would be very interested to see your system in full, but initially, it seems like a lot of complexity for not that much proportionality, which is the opposite of SMPR (simplicity+ proportionality that is at par with countries with STV or MMP or even just closed list PR). That doesn’t make it ‘bad’; all electoral systems, including FPTP, have advantages and disadvantages, and it’s a subjective judgment as to which criteria are best. In my case, I thought simplicity, preservation of FPTP’s good features, and a high degree of proportionality were best (because PR really would be a fantastic thing for this country!).
@Elijah @Mick
Prof Bogdanor may have his views, but I believe the constitutional position is that if there’s a commitment to PR in the manifesto(s) of a new government it can bring in PR.
Given the level of debate on the AV referendum, it would make much more sense to offer one after the electorate has had experience of it.. There’s a precedent there – the first European referendum came 2 years after we joined.
I think the debate you should be having is not within the LDs, but with Labour: if you can persuade them that your system is better than STV, MMP or list-PR, they may adopt it, and bring it to any post-election negotiations with other parties – hopefuly including ourselves. But I hope that we will stick with our preference for STV until we get into that negotiating room.
@Mick Taylor. Very much agree that AV should have been legislation as it was such a minor change.
Elijah Granet:
To some extent, I feel you are barking up the wrong tree here. You need to acknowledge that any alternative to FPTP will be noisily claiming that any replacement system is far too complicated; it is not so obvious that the system you advocate is simpler that STV (and certainly not simpler than AV).
Without a written constitution it seems that it is more or less de facto that a referendum is required. That being so the preferred model should be the New Zealand precedent: a referendum on dropping FPTP, followed (if successful) by a referendum on alternative replacements. Ironically, this is basically the procedure that was used for Brexit, except we were never allowed to choose what type of Brexit (creating the current potage). In the (not so likely) event of a possible coalition, we should make a referendum on dropping FPTP our prerequisite. Such a referendum would establish whether FPTP is considered inadequate by the electorate.
@Elijah @cim – “fun with probability”
You are right that, trying not to over-complicate, I was assuming equal numbers of votes in each constituency. cim’s proposal treats each constituency as of equal weighting, so the expected numbers of MPs will be proportional to the national vote with contributions weighted in that way. That may be biased towards one party rather than another – arguably weighting to make each constituency equally important is fairer than taking differential turnout into account, because turnout is typically socially biased – but I would be surprised if it makes more than a % or two’s difference to the parties’ overall vote %s – we could look at data from (e.g.) the 2019 election to test this.
With that clarification, I stand by what I said, that taking one vote at random from each constituency will give a sample with mean equal to the population mean, and standard deviation of around 2% – and that variation in party votes between constituencies will (a) not affect the mean, but (b) will reduce the standard deviation.
Best wishes, Denis (please note only one `n’)
Elijah, thanks for your comments. I do agree that any government’s policy on voting reform and proportionality is going to be shaped by tradeoffs and political choices.
In many ways I don’t want the Lib Dems to stop banging on about STV, but I am sceptical, as you are, about the ability of the UK to get to STV from FPTP in one single jump, because of the additional political and cultural baggage we have loaded onto FPTP as the system has evolved.
I agree with Denis Mollinson to an extent that if Labour adopts a clearer policy of options for reform (or even part of Labour adopts a clear policy) the shape of a future compromise may firm up.
I’m not overly attached to my system, although I think it has something to commend it, but it was based around listening to what non-poitically minded friends feel instinctively about the voting system — proportionality is seen as good, but they don’t want to entirely trade away having single-person local representation, they want to vote for individuals, not lists, and do find the prioritisations of AV / STV a barrier.
I really don’t think the cause of getting a democratic electoral system will be aided by getting into yet another protracted debate about voting systems, let alone inventing new ones!
In many ways STV is the system that is easiest for the UK to change to, it maintains the supposed “link between MP and consituents” that incumbent MPs hold dear, and it also delivers a result which is close to proportionality.
The downside is that the Tory and Labour parties are unlikley to agree to it as it weakens the power of the party machine, as is illustrated by the number of Independent TDs in Ireland – many of whom left their original parties.
I would accept an AMS/MMR system for Parliament – a vast improvement on FPTP, but would want to really push to achieve STV in Local Government. In some ways this is an easier sell as most Councils already have multi-member wards, and NOC is common at local level. This balance of systems seems to work in Scotland, so there is precedent in the UK, and of course Northern Ireland has used STV for decades.
@Denis
I ran a bunch of simulated VFH elections with the 2019 results to see how much difference differential turnout makes … and it’s really not too bad. It does tend to slightly favour Labour over Conservatives by ten seats or so, but anything other than whole country list PR or very careful grouping of urban and rural seats will do that on current voting patterns … the Gallagher Index obviously jumps around a bit depending on how “lucky” you get with the simulation, but almost always is in the 0-4 range which is better than most PR systems in actual use manage in practice.
@Denis Mollison First, apologies for misspelling your name—as someone who gets ‘Elija’ and ‘Granite’ quite often, I know how annoying that can be!
@Cim as well:
This discussion on random sampling has highlighted to me that STV, unlike SMPR, does rely on some degree on random sampling (more if you do it as in Ireland, less if you do it as in Northern Ireland), which can create issues with electoral distortion if the random sample isn’t recognised. (The way around this is to use computers in elections, and then you can count every transfer, but that his its own risks)
To that effect, please see: https://www.jstor.org/stable/193740
@Matt You’re doing exactly the right thing by listening to non-political obsessives, and it’s what I tried to do as well in designing SMPR. Any system to succeed FPTP has to meet the British voter halfway, and the preferences against opaque lists, against changing the constituency relationship, and against altering so many other parts seem to be quite strongly held. Change, then, has to be gradual, and SMPR, or any other version of MMP I think, is the way to get there.
@Martin I agree on the example of electoral reform in New Zealand, which has worked very well there (even with occasional issues with overhang seats). However, I don’t see why SMPR is more complicated than AV for the average voter. The ‘frontend’ knowledge a voter needs is quite minimal in SMPR—all the voter has to do is check the candidate she wants. I’m not saying AV is complicated (it’s not), but the maths of transfers and elimination are needed as ‘frontend’ information. Again, it’s fairly easy and straightforward, but I would think less so than SMPR. The ‘backend’ part is no more complicated than the Scottish Parliament, but it has the advantage of not confusing people about list based tactical voting (about which there was a lot of misinformation at the last election).
@Steve Comer As I’ve said elsewhere in the comments, I strongly agree with you that STV makes a lot of sense for local government in England, especially because most English councils (including my own ward) have multi-member wards already, meaning it would be trivial to switch to STV. The right electoral system for any given place depends on context and political reality, and I think STV is a realistic and viable system for English local government, and would not propose altering Party positions in favour of that. For Westminster, as you acknowledged, it seems that the ‘next step’ after FPTP is much more likely to be a form of MMP, and I would submit that SMPR is the form of MMP most likely to get through. After there is PR for Westminster, the Party will be powerful enough to demand more radical changes, like STV or structural constitutional reform (whereas under FPTP, the Party is stuck, unfairly given its vote share, as a very very junior coalition partner).
Elijah Granet:
None of it is particularly complicated. That is my point, the so called complications are a myth put about those who for their own interests are desperate to cling on to FPTP. This is why seeking simplicity is false trail. Simplicity is to vote on FPTP first and then worry about which of the numerable better systems to afterwards. I think you would find that once FPTP had been lost all the bluster about complications would disappear.
The system you advocate would be rejected as complicated because it involves voting for 2 MPs! Imagine if voters were expected to cope with thinking about who the candidates are!
While a big improvement over FPTP and virtually anything would be. This system comes down in two ways.
In these seas of blue representation across the Home Counties for instance, both constituency and regional top up MP would likely remain Tory, giving people a choice of representatives of randomised Tories who might be a one nation MP, but more likely these days a dry extreme free marketeer or little nationalist.
Having been corresponding over the vagaries of post brexit trade with my trade minister MP, Prentice. I am astonished how ignorant and ill informed these supposed representatives can be.
The other issue is that compared to Multi Member constituencies, many people would be unable to find a representative who could offer sympathetic or effective representation.
“Northern Ireland has used STV for decades.”
Given the arguments over complexity it would be helpful to know what was done when STV was first introduced in Northern Ireland.
Can anyone point to any useful info please?
@Elijah – ref random sampling
I’ve had a look at the paper you cite. I don’t think random sampling is used any longer in Ireland; perhaps that paper contributed to the change.
@Nonconformistradical To my knowledge, it was introduced with the beginnings of Home Rule, but was abolished by the Parliament of Northern Ireland quite quickly as the Protestant-run government did not want the Catholic minority to have equal representation. After the Good Friday agreement, it was reinstated.
@Denis Mollison Unfortunately, the current method in Ireland is just as vulnerable to randomness as it ever was (the last parcel of votes received is the one counted for transfers, meaning that voting late can mean your vote counts for more…)
See https://assets.gov.ie/111110/03f591cc-6312-4b21-8193-d4150169480e.pdf
@John I would respectfully direct you to my white paper, where you can see that, in fact, if we run the 2019 data into SMPR, l ***literally none*** of the proportional representatives would be Tories (because the Tories are grossly overrepresented anyway!). The proportional tier is extremely good at making an unfair system fair, and as the Tories do so well under the unfair (FPTP) tier, they get zilch in the proportional tier. So there would be absolutely no one, no one, in England with two Tory MPs! I hope that assuages you on that point of concern.
@Elijah
Re STV in Northern Ireland – I hadn’t been aware of its use in days of old – but this mentions it:
https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/issues/politics/election/electoralsystem.htm
I was thinking specifically about its use after the Good Friday Agreement. I have some vague recollection of a public information campaign at the time – might have involved a cartoon character who might have been called something like ‘P R Pete’ – but I haveni’t found anything about that so far…
@Elijah
Yes, “last batch transfer” as used in Ireland and indeed in the Electoral Reform Society model ruleset isn’t something I’m aesthetically happy with either. I have hand-counted elections using a properly fractional non-sampling transfer, and it takes absolutely ages and leads to huge transfer path tables needing to be calculated and monitored, as well as very careful bundling together of votes. Not impossible but I wouldn’t want to try it for a 5-seat constituency on the UK scale! I wouldn’t be at all averse to computerised counting, though, with appropriate safeguards and accountability.
It’s one of the weaknesses of STV, I think: sure, explaining how to cast a vote is straightforward enough; explaining how the votes are counted in a multi-place election is not because the precise details of how surplus transfers work can actually get pretty complex. For accountability I believe voters should understand not only how to cast a vote but what will happen to it afterwards – trivial for FPTP, still perfectly acceptable for AV or Borda or Range or Approval or the various List PR systems, a hugely complex process that I’ve seen plenty of people (including the occasional Returning Officer!) get wrong for STV.
Whilst I respect your efforts here and I agree largely with you about your underlying assumptions. I think I want to make one last point about panachage.
STV, AMS, and several other systems all allow a voter to either differentiate between a vote for a person and a vote for a party, or to mix their voting between persons of different parties.
Obviously the current FPTP ‘closed-list-of-one’ system doesn’t allow that (eliding it into approval or disapproval of a particular individual … and having grown out of bloc plurality voting in the 19th century, where in theory this choice existed), and neither does your system, being effectively a ‘semi-closed list’ voting system.
Whilst accommodating voter choice in this way does increase the complexity of any voting system, I think it is both desirable from an abstract point of view, and attractive to voters, to include it.
@Cim you make several very good points on the trouble with t̶r̶i̶b̶b̶l̶e̶s̶ transfers, and I’m impressed you had the fortitude to go around hand-counting STV! It may be relatively soon that an open source protocol (for I would never countenance a proprietary software having control over democracy) for securely and transparently doing all the maths is produced, but for now, hand counting is both the only secure way and prohibitively time-consuming in many cases. I suspect we (PR advocates) may have a hard enough time convincing the UK public that a few weeks of coalition negotiation is the sign of a healthy democracy as opposed to a crisis, and having to also convince them that they must first wait a weeks for the results may just make the task more difficult. SMPR has the advantage that its maths are incredibly simple; once all votes are counted, my Python programme can calculate the seat allocations in half-a-second, possibly less.
As to your point on voter education, this is again a difficulty that even democracies with long experience with STV have. I was struck, listening a few years ago to the Irish Times Inside Politics podcast, when the host, an experienced political journalist, confessed he *still* didn’t understand how it was decided which transfers counted and which didn’t. The maths behind SMPR are not really complicated, but even without numbers, it’s fairly easy to explain ‘the seats are then allocated so that parties get seats proportional to their votes’.
For the millionth time, none of this criticism is an argument against any voting system—all voting systems have benefits and drawbacks, and STV does have a lot of benefits. My case remains simply that SMPR’s benefits and drawbacks are arranged so as to be more likely to gain support in the short term.
@Matt You make a very good point, and one that ultimately comes down to a subjective ordering of electoral preferences. SMPR’s beginnings were in looking at the electoral system used in Baden-Württemberg, by which the ‘best losers’ are put to the top of the electoral lists for the proportional tier, which I have always thought is an elegant form of ‘semi-closed’ list PR (inasmuch as voters do influence the list obliquely). That system inherently discourages ‘splitting’ the vote, although that is still possible.
Internal democracy in parties is certainly compatible with SMPR; ‘primaries’ for list and constituency seats could be held by any party. FPTP in that sense can be ‘open list’ (it sort of is in many American states), and any party with a healthy membership could allow them to hold open selection elections (and the Lib Dem selection process is already quite open and democratic, if I understand it correctly). Equally, I think that if parties in their role in helping the ‘formation of the will of the people’ (to steal the German phrase), do not wish to have open selection, I, as a liberal, am uncomfortable forcing a political association’s method of choosing candidates without strong reason.
1/2
@Matt 2/2
The question, then, comes to ‘splitting’. Here, I am comfortable, as a matter of preferences and assumptions, in the fact that any vote for an independent contributes in SMPR to your local representative, but not to the final proportional accounting (because that’s the definition of voting for an independent in any system: a vote for a party of 1 person can never entitle that party to any number of seats other than 1, no matter what the system is). I suspect, as in Ireland under STV, a UK under SMPR would see loose groupings of like-minded independents (we already see such things in council elections in the UK and elsewhere in Europe). Yes, a vote for a person entails a vote for that person’s party under SMPR, but that is inherently true of anyone who decides to affiliate themselves with a party when running for office.
Finally, I think that splitting is a risky feature, because it is so vulnerable to misinformation and/or deliberate misuse. Witness the (mercifully failed!) attempt in Scotland of the Salmondite Alba faction to, as a shadow party, take advantage of splitting to create a natioanlist supermajority. In Italy, a similar system led to widespread abuse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorporo#Abuse_in_the_2001_Italian_Chamber_of_Deputies_election
These are just quick thoughts, and I accept it’s a matter of ordering of preferences, but to me, a simple system that cannot be ‘gamed’ or cheated on was worth not adding vote splitting, which tends to be rather rare even in democracies where it has a longstanding use (like Germany).
If as is certainly Make Votes Matter’s policy the system used will be decided by a Citizens’ Assembly, then it must be able to be understood by them. Another top down system imposed by a coalition will be resented. It is time to treat the electorate that the CA will be respresentative of as grown up individuals able to come to a conclusion with the help of experts. To me voter choice in terms of preferential voting is as important as PR and a constituency link.
@Peter Hirst Interesting regarding a Citizen’s Assembly—I can’t say whether or not one will occur, but I am sure that there will have to be a referendum regardless , at which point everyone will be able to decide. There is certainly no way any voting system can be ‘imposed’ without the people’s consent after the AV referendum precedent. (Whether or not that was a wise precedent is another matter). As to whether a Citizen’s Assembly would like my system, that’s harder to say, in part because the sort of people who care enough about electoral systems enough to comment here (ie you, me, etc) are enough of a severe minority that it is unlikely that people with knowledge of electoral systems will be randomly selected to serve on the CA (if it’s a ‘true’ CA selected like a jury by purely random means). If you have preferences developed enough to want preferential voting (which many democracies), you probably shade more into expert opinion than representative of the electorate (the same applies to me). If we wanted to know what the electorate thinks, polling would be the surefire way to know, but the response to AV and the resistance to electoral reform despite 100+ years of educating the public on why a given preferred system (usually STV) is better, the voters, as grown ups, have repeatedly said ‘no’. So, it’s time to give them a choice they might actually want, as the opportunity to want any of the existing choice has been repeatedly rejected.
@Peter Hirst Interesting regarding a Citizen’s Assembly—I can’t say whether or not one will occur, but I am sure that there will have to be a referendum regardless , at which point everyone will be able to decide. There is certainly no way any voting system can be ‘imposed’ without the people’s consent after the AV referendum precedent. (Whether or not that was a wise precedent is another matter). As to whether a Citizen’s Assembly would like my system, that’s harder to say, in part because the sort of people who care enough about electoral systems enough to comment here (ie you, me, etc) are enough of a severe minority that it is unlikely that people with knowledge of electoral systems will be randomly selected to serve on the CA (if it’s a ‘true’ CA selected like a jury by purely random means). If you have preferences developed enough to want preferential voting (which many democracies), you probably shade more into expert opinion than representative of the electorate (the same applies to me). If we wanted to know what the electorate thinks, polling would be the surefire way to know, but the response to AV and the resistance to electoral reform despite 100+ years of educating the public on why a given preferred system (usually STV) is better, the voters, as grown ups, have repeatedly said ‘no’. So, it’s time to give them a choice they might actually want, as the opportunity to want any of the existing choice has been repeatedly rejected.
@Denis Mollison ^ as the comment above inadvertently shows, you shouldn’t feel bad because apparently I even misspell my own name!
@cim , @elijah
Electronic counting has been used in Scotland since STV was introduced for local elections in 2007. It has caused no problems – indeed, election officials prefer it because it gives more reliable results. [When we failed by 2 votes to win NE Fife in the 2017 General Election, this was on the 4th count, with the result having changed each time.]
The vote data (since 2012) have been made publicly available, so if you’re suspicious of the proprietary software you can rerun the count for yourself and check it out. I have done this for the 2012 and 2017 elections; the data and results can be found on my web pages – https://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~denis/ – together with my best efforts to display how the count proceeds.
On the difficulty of understanding how the count works (“the precise details of how surplus transfers work can actually get pretty complex”), the answer is to use Meek STV. It’s now just over 50 years since Meek pointed out that with the use of computers it is possible to stick exactly to the simple concept of STV:
(a) votes are initially assigned to the voter’s first choice;
(b) calculate the number of votes a candidate needs to be elected (the quota);
(c) if a candidate has more votes than needed, pass on the excess by transferring the same proportion of each vote to that voter’s next choice;
(d) if not all seats are filled, exclude the candidate with fewest votes, transferring the whole of each vote to the voter’s next choice.
Steps (b-d) are repeated, as necessary, until all seats are filled.
For any sizeable election, you can’t do the count by hand, but Meek’s method has just about every other advantage you could want. One important one is that for a voter who wants to calculate what happened to their own vote, all they need to know are the proportions their votes that each elected candidate kept.
@Denis Molllison Indeed, in theory everything about electronic counting is highly preferable, and it can be used very easily in many elections. From a technical perspective, it can be done without any problems. However, with local elections, the security concerns are lower simply because, although local democracy is extremely important, not many malicious actors care about the fate of overall control of a local council. The objection with using it for national (and, I would argue, for devolved bodies’ elections, including for the STV NI Assembly) is the risk of concentrated attacks on the integrity of the system. Computerised STV is fantastic—if I were organising elections to a board, it’s what I would use myself—but I do not think that, from a security perspective, we have reached the point of trusting. I say this not out of any particular expertise myself, but rather, because the actual experts are extremely against using electronic means for national voting, particularly when in the UK (unlike Estonia) all citizens are not issued with cryptographic keys in their national identity cards. This may well change, because security improves all the time, but the risk of interference is such that in the short-term horizon, I for one would not be willing to countenance the use of computers in a national election. (A funny comic below explains it better than I could!)
https://xkcd.com/2030/
@Elijah
You’re confusing electronic counting with electronic voting!
Electronic voting IS very hard to protect from fraud, and I agree that at present it’s only acceptable for voluntary associations and suchlike.
What I’m talking about is electronic counting such as is used in Scottish local elections. The actual voting is done in the traditional way on paper ballot forms. There are then two stages:
(1) The vote papers are scanned by machine, with the usual opportunity for candidates and their agents to query any dubiously filled in votes. If a check or audit is needed, the papers remain available (I think for a year), allowing checks that of any or all scanned votes against the paper original. The votes are stored in a data file which is made publicly available.
(2) The count, following the election’s rules (e.g. STV with a precise specific algorithm) is then carried out by computer. The check on this is that anyone can do their own count, and query the result if they think it’s wrong.
Electronic counting on these lines has now been used for 3 sets of elections across Scotland without significant problems, and I see no reason why it could not be used across the UK, whatever system of PR we adopt – it might even be worth adopting while we keep FPTP to avoid counts like the NE Fife one I mention which are clear evdence that hand counting is prone to error!
The level of security achievable with dedicated voting tablets is much better than anything you can do with a paper system. The opponents of electronic voting generally give examples of internet voting (which is unsafe) or American voting machines (lots of different systems with a very wide variety of faults). Even then the theoretical vulnerabilities they give generally require a much higher degree of insider access and technical expertise than fixing a paper ballot let alone postal voting.
@Denis Mollison You’re right, I was confused there! My apologies. I agree the vulnerabilities are much less pronounced with electronic counting (and again, you’re very right about avoiding human error and the misery for all candidates and parties involved in repeated recounts like in NE Fife). It raised the question (for me, anyway—other commenters may have already known this) as to why, to my knowledge, electronic counting has not been used in either of the jurisdictions on the island of Ireland, Australia, or (to my knowledge) the ERS has not switched from supporting Irish style last batch or NI style Gregory STV to one of the computer protocols. I did find that Malta had implemented electronic counting, but if Ireland has not yet been convinced of switching from last batch (despite the huge advantages), I imagine there must be some issues at large.
As I said earlier, there’s no reason to believe that any of this is impossible (it seems to have gone well in Scotland and Malta), and Ireland could well implement electronic counting by the next GE. Certainly, by the time the UK would have reached the political readiness to adopt STV (which I imagine is a matter of at least ~20 years probably after adopting a ‘bridge’ form—maybe like SMPR—which gives pro-STV parties proportional weight), I would imagine all these technical issues will have been long solved. (As I say every other comment, I’ve never argued nor believed that STV is bad or can’t be achieved in the UK in the medium-long term!)
I don’t think it’s “issues” preventing all those countries and organisations from updating what I would call old-fashioned versions of STV, just inertia/reluctance to tamper with a situation that has public acceptance.
PS. It’s that inertia that makes me reluctant to settle for a second-best PR system. Even if it’s widely recognised as second-best, it will take a long time to change.
@Denis Mollison On the ‘inertia’, I would respectfully disagree. When I look back to the great Liberal achievement of the 20th century—the welfare state—it seems to me that it would have been politically impossible to go from the Victorian position in 1900 to the NHS. Lloyd George’s foundation of systems of insurance, though not universal, nor nearly adequate, was the key step that opened the way for Beveridge and truly universal coverage. Most other great Liberal achievements in this country have similarly been compromises. A compromise doesn’t mortgage future greater achievements, but merely provides a portion of the benefits to those living today. The history of Liberalism in this country has never been one of just enacting the ‘perfect’ policy, but rather of working through gradual, radical change to improve the freedoms of the individual. If STV is the ideal that can be had in 30 years, that’s lovely, but don’t deprive the Britain of ten years from now of the benefits of PR simply out of fidelity to the ideal. For over a century, the electoral reformers have tried to achieve the ideal by one fell swoop; I am humbly suggesting that we should instead learn from the legacy of Liberal reformers past.
As I have said earlier, I don’t really think there is a ‘best’ or ‘second best’ form of PR, as my concern is mainly simply over the basic democratic idea that, in a parliamentary democracy, seats should be in proportion to votes. However, as most commenters on here probably do think STV is best (and once again, I like STV and think it’s a very good system!), I am trying to make clear why SMPR will facilitate the Party’s efforts to get STV through Parliament and a referendum.
@ Elijah
If we have to go to a referendum, we should follow NZ’s example and have two questions, (a) shall we have PR”, (b) if so, which kind?
If that happens, by all means promote SMPR as an option for question (b), but when there are already 2 or 3 well-established and each fairly widely supported options, I respectfully don’t see that adding in a new system as anything but muddying the water.
@Denis (1/2) In an ideal world, this wouldn’t require a referendum, but I think the AV precedent means it probably does.
I would certainly support a two part referendum (with the second part under AV, allowing for ranked preferences—meaning that it would be impossible to ‘muddy the waters’ given that at worst, it gets eliminated and votes transferred to another form). I think I would, however, have the second part (which PR) delayed by a few months after the first referendum. As someone who voted in California’s disastrous recent gubernatorial recall referendum, which had an ‘Do you want x, if so which’ premise, I think that it’s better to ask the electorate one question at a time.
However, this is the sort of sensible thing that the Lib Dems would do if they were leading a government, but the entry point of PR will only ever be from FPTP, and under FPTP it is highly unlikely (regrettably) that the Lib Dems will get the sort of muscular 1906 majority that could dictate sensible policy. The starting point in this discussion can’t be what any of us would do if we were in charge, but rather, to look at the art of what’s realistically possible rather than what’s ideal.
@Denis (2/3 took me longer than I realised to write this out) The realistic time for PR to enter would be in a Lab coalition with the LDs and maybe a few other parties. This is why, before the 1997 election, the Jenkins Commission held so much promise, and gave us the best picture of the version of PR that is likely to emerge in any negotiation between the ‘progressive’ parties. I do not think a Parliament with a Lab, LD, Greens, Plaid and maybe SNP coalition of would allow the question of which system is to be used to be left to the voters—it will most likely be a negotiation for a specific proposal which is then put to the voters. Once again, this is not what I would choose as the ideal way, but if we wait around for the ideal way, in 2122, we”ll have the same electoral system as in 1922. I realise that everyone on this forum, me included, has a way they would prefer to do it, but I am much more interested in the practical than the ideal. It’s why I don’t think SMPR is the cleverest, best, or anything other than an attempt to start a discussion around compromise.
Given that many elements of Labour couldn’t even fully come around on AV, which would have actually benefited the party, I simply do not foresee any scenario in the next 20 or so years where Labour accepts STV. The Greens and Plaid might, but unless Labour endorses it in our hypothetical 2029 scenario, it’s dead. I realise that many in the Party would like to make STV a condition of coalition, but that’s likely either to lead to a repeat of the AV referendum (where the largest party works against the junior one) or to just a Labour minority government with Lib support (a repeat of the Lib/Lab pact, perhaps).
@Denis (3/3) If I were a negotiator on the orange team in 2029 (I won’t be!), my sole goal would be to get PR, because until there’s PR, the Lib Dems will never get anything much (just like in Coalition). PR turns the ‘low watermark’ of post 2015 from 12 seats to over 70, and 70 seats is enough to give real heft in a hung Parliament. In the event of a real LD tide, like in the polling before the 2005 election, it would be in the hundreds. Then and *only then* can the commenters on here going ‘We *should* do it this way’ have their way. Only then (and my Liberal heart starts jumping for joy even thinking about this) do we get a Land Value Tax (finally!!!), only then do we get true federalism, only then do we get to start seeing the world envisioned in the Preamble to the Party’s Constitution. I don’t want the perfect to be the enemy of the true good the Lib Dems could do in a world with literally any PR system.
SMPR isn’t the best or the cleverest (I’m certainly not the cleverest, nor do I think I’m remotely cleverer than Hare) system, but it is designed to prevent a world in which a Labour holding fast to FPTP and the Lib Dems holding fast to STV ends up handing the Tories unfair election wins on a platter. The thing I submitted (and LDV very graciously published) is a first draft, but my hope is it starts a discussion on compromise….
Elijah, I’d go further and say I agree with a lot of your logic on coalitions but the situation where Labour perceives itself to be in a position of strength and the ‘weaker’ coaliition partner are asking Labour for PR is not going to be one where PR of any kind is a likely outcome, even if a referendum is an outcome of that arrangement.
Therefore my scenario of a Labour-SNP coalition is actually more likely to produce PR — because the SNP create a situation of real jeopardy for Labour where Labour will need PR for a possible future without Scotland. That leaves the Lib Dems as onlookers at the feast they have helped to prepare, I realise.
The problem with electronic counting is that it is impossible, within the time allowed, for there to be hardly anything more than a check of the votes queried by the automatic scanning system itself. I accept that scanning systems used in businesses are very reliable, but it doesn’t take much to undermine the code so that what is scanned is not what is subsequently recorded for handover to the count.
The advantage with the manual vote count is that it is possible to check (before the result is declared) that the result is clear and if not, a recount can be called for. It may take a number of iterations before the result does become clear and marginal calls may have to be resolved through the courts (and we should all know of dubious decisions being made on electoral matters there), but these mechanism a) work and b) can be independently verified 100% for all to see.
Once things disappear into the workings of a computer, that is lost and lost forever. You only have to look at the US to see how easily trust can be completely undermined.
@David Evans
I think you should find out more about how votes are counted in the Scottish local elections before passing judgement – have you attended a count as I have?
Electronic scanning is more consistent in picking which votes are dubious and need discussion (done as for paper counts in the presence of candidates’ agents).
So I don’t see in what way there is better information available before results are announced than with hand counting.
And as I said earlier, paper votes are kept for a year, so there’s plenty of time for any audit necessary – they are NOT just “disappearing into the workings of a computer”.
Comparisons with the US’s problem of dodgy old e-voting machines is misplaced.
[And bad as those are, they are far from the worst of the US’s electoral problems – it is barely a functioning democracy.]