Talk of PR makes me all of a dither. It’s the political scientist in me. I can see the pros and cons of every system and I can see that whatever system is in place it is not a panacea for the nation’s ills (nor the cause of them all either).
Alternative Vote, though, would seem to be a completely redundant change. Because in effect that is the system we already have.
AV gives you lots of safe seats where the winning party gets more than 50% of the vote. So does first past the post. In the marginal seats, AV then makes the two most popular parties in a constituency compete for the second preferences of the less popular parties’ voters. And that is exactly what happens in our system now. In every election since the war, voters have plumped for the candidate nearest to their views who is most likely to win.
In the 50s and 60s, Liberal voters were often forced to do so because there was no Liberal candidate. But if you read reports of election campaigns from Torrington, Finchley, Roxburgh and Orpington from fifty years ago, Liberal candidates were trying to persuade Labour voters to support them as effectively their second choice candidate. Targeting has now become so sophisticated that all three parties spend a huge proportion of their campaign resources on attracting swing voters in swing seats. So nothing would change.
Advocates of Single Transferable Vote say it does away completely with safe seats and therefore gives maximum power to the voter. Well, up to a point Lord Copper. Because it depends on the parties themselves not manipulating the system. Under STV the biggest fear for parties is that they will leak preferences between candidates. Two candidates might get 15% of the first preferences between them in a 5 member constituency but miss out on a seat because a chunk of their second preferences disappear to other parties. So the party will try to short circuit the system but putting up only one candidate and hey presto you have one safe seat on the back of first preferences…
So, here’s a thought. There has been much talk of party primaries, too, recently. At least one country (Uruguay) has built its voting system around the idea that primaries and the general election run together at the same time. Parties run more than one candidate for office. The votes for those candidates are aggregated to determine which party wins. And the candidate from within that party who gets the most votes is elected.
What if you introduced AV in single member districts but insisted that all parties had to run two candidates? Voters would be free to express a genuine choice. You would retain the link between MP and constituency that is so important to defenders of first past the post. You would retain the ability to elect single-party majorities in parliament. And you would probably re-invigorate parties too by promoting genuine internal competition.
Think about it – its not as daft as it sounds…
Ed Maxfield was second on the list for the European Elections in the East Midlands.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Care homes under threat after Labour policy change
Three less conventional ways of looking at who supports Reform - The Week in Polls
Layla Moran on Gaza: "Starvation shouldn't be a weapon of war"
Daniel Stylianou
Simon R
John Waller
Mick Taylor
Tristan Ward
16 Comments
That would indeed be an interesting proposal, although it might be difficult to enforce. How would you treat independent candidates for example?
Of course, and at the risk of opening up a different debate, parties could be required to select a man and a woman…
Under STV the biggest fear for parties is that they will leak preferences between candidates. Two candidates might get 15% of the first preferences between them in a 5 member constituency but miss out on a seat because a chunk of their second preferences disappear to other parties. So the party will try to short circuit the system but putting up only one candidate and hey presto you have one safe seat on the back of first preferences…
This is a very important point, and it fits exactly with the actions of all parties in the STV elections to Scottish councils in 2007. STV has many advantages, and I support it, but the idea that voters will necessarily be able to choose from a slate of candidates of the same party is simply wrong.
I certainly agree that parties should only be allowed to have their logo, etc. on the ballot paper in an STV election if they field at least two candidates.
This is a very important point, and it fits exactly with the actions of all parties in the STV elections to Scottish councils in 2007.
But the exception to that rule was the SNP – who did rather better as a direct result.
James, I think the ill we are trying to fix is an imbalance in the power to choose MPs that currently exists between parties and voters. So I’d guess the law would have to say parties must stand 2 candidates while independents could run on their own.
The gender balance thing would best be left to internal party selection rules but I can certainly see that it would become an issue. I guess you COULD insist on parties putting up 3 candidates but then it begins to get a bit bonkers.
I suppose that what you’re talking about is a slight adaptation of the existing rules regarding logos and official party titles appearing on ballot papers.
It is certainly a form of AV that would qualify as a ‘significant’ change as opposed to mere tinkering. I could even see it winning a referendum. I’d still prefer us to resolve this by putting the question to a Citizens’ Convention though.
I would prefer the Danish system to STV, and I don’t know why it’s never been considered in the UK.
It’s rather complicated from the point of view of calculating the results, but very easy for the voters, who choose to use their one vote for either an open party list or a single candidate in each multi-member constituency.
Compensatory seats are then allocated, first nationally, then regionally, then at constituency level.
All seats are allocated using the modified Sainte-Laguë method.
The Danes are very proud of their system, as they think it’s the fairest in the world, and it produces an almost exact parliamentary correlation between votes cast and seats awarded while also keeping the consituency link.
I don’t believe these numbers either. But it doesn’t matter, because AV is rubbish anyway. There are very good arguments in Lord Alexander’s ‘Note of Reservation’ to the Jenkins Report.
The question that has to be asked is: Why do we believe there should be a change to the voting system?
Ignoring the unworthy answer ‘Because we’ll win more seats that way’ (surely LibDems are above such partisanship?), I think the following principles are what lie behind the objection to FPTP and should guide our response to any alternative:
1. Every vote choice should count.
2. The strength of parties in parliament should be proportionate to their support in the country.
3. Party machines should not be able to dictate to the electorate: voters should be able to vote for individuals, not just parties.
The funny thing is, AV does nothing to improve on FPTP in any of these respects. Ed Maxfield’s interesting idea would meet point (3); but points (1) and (2) can only be met through either multi-seat constituencies or some sort of additional member system.
For what it’s worth, I would favour 3-to-6-member constituencies (as for STV), with an open-list system (as I am deeply sceptical of preferential voting), and the possibility for those who wish it of voting for an individual candidate without having to endorse their party colleagues. (It sounds like this may be something like the Danish system, but I can’t find a detailed explanation of it.) As a second-best compromise, I would be happy with the Alexander version of Jenkins (i.e. a limited additional member system, but without AV), provided that parties were forced to put at least three candidates on their lists so that there is always a choice within parties.
Obviously, the remark about not believing the numbers only makes sense in the comments on Harry Hayfield’s post. Which is where I was when I started, but not when I submitted. God knows what I ended up voting on…
Ed Maxfield makes the pungent point that PR is not a panacea for all electoral ills.
My comments are:
1.The Realpolitik is that given the present public musings of this Government,never if at all, will either Mr Brown or `Rasputin’, sign up to any alternative voting system, with a form of PR, in this supine Parliament.The rationale is simply that the Tories are anti-democrats and categorically against PR from the start.Whilst Labour must flirt for their lives, although deep under their skins they know that the beneficaries are L/D`s and quite rightly so,and not theirs and the smaller parties :so what do they gain?
2.Any visitor from another planet and interested in fairer electoral voting systems, may well ask-Why is it that the UK is the only member in the EU that does not have a version of fairer voting i.e.PR? Yes, and we all drive on the other side of the road, as well!
3.As a L/D I have supported STV since 1985, having been persuaded by the short precis on the common PR formulas with merits and demerits- written by Vernon Bogdanor. His views are the same ones that appear on the Electoral Reform Web, today.These spell out that STV benefits individual voters most closely, as for the first time each individual will be able to have a countable vote, as opposed to the army of voters,under FPTP, whom live in constituencies, that are not mob happy, with one dominant major party.
4.STV also benefits minorities,women,ethic communities,single issue candidates and dissenters and non-conformists etc.
5.The draw back with STV is that even with a critical threshold of say 5% it allows recognition to the extreme right wing and can give credence to their `racist’ message.The democratic resolve then in such a situation must be stiffened resolve,to ensure that the extreme right are defeated.But we are already into a new phase of coming to terms with 2 MEP`s that are clearly unequivocally this Govt`s watch and part of their nemesis.
6.PR to Mr Brown is a diversion from the By-Elections in Norwich North and Glasgow NE, whom will yet have the chance to cast judgement on this Government.These voters will not be interested in PR but rather the machinations of `M.P.s Expenses’ and the fol de rol of 7 Cabinet Ministers.
When I studied Liberal Govt. at UEA, I remember attending Norwich Cathedral and then running full stretch to bus back to the Campus, to watch`Brian Walden’ on `Weekend World’, when he interviewed all and sundry in Govt.and the `Gang of Four’ and when Roy Jenkins was singing out `Let`s Break the Mould’!
Later the rise and rise of the Alliance saw it eclipse all before it, at 50% at highest and many believed that there would be a breaking of the mould, without PR but clearly PR was seen as an integral part of the future.
It is a circle of life that the giantess of political journalism Polly Toynbee, whom wrote about the birth of the Alliance in 1981, is now interviewing Nick Clegg.He did brilliantly in nailing his Liberal Democrat values, to the mast.
Mr Clegg has always been consistent on the abolition of inequality through housing and education and empowered citizenship,investment in social housing and to campaign to stop child poverty and equal funding via the `Pupil Premium’ and `International Liberalism’ and to listen to the `The Silent Majority’.(not an oxymoron)
That is why Mr Clegg will become our next P.M.
I think to try and combine PR with directly elected constituency MPs is a bit of a fudge. Just have one House voted with pure PR and the other with first past the post. You could even do away with the Lords and have an English Parliament.
The decision then is which way round you have the authority. Do you want the main power in the PR or the FPTP, I’d suggest the PR as it’s more representative. Policy would then be handed to the Lower House or regional Parliaments to be sold to theirconstituents. I should be able to lobby ‘my party’ in parliament instead of being forced to go through a constituency MP who may be in opposition and/or represent a party I don’t like. All these mental muddles are a waste of time and only exist because the Commons doesn’t want to lose authority and because the Lords is full of paid up party cronies. Keep it simple and get ready to have to work much harder on getting legislation through.
“Two candidates might get 15% of the first preferences between them in a 5 member constituency but miss out on a seat because a chunk of their second preferences disappear to other parties. So the party will try to short circuit the system but putting up only one candidate and hey presto you have one safe seat on the back of first preferences…”
All that tells you is that the “less big” parties in a region would only put up one candidate. But for bigger parties, it would be advantageous to put up 2+ candidates, because they are capable of winning more than one seat.
And any way, your example makes little sense. So you have two candidates from the same party, one getting say 7%, the other 8% of 1st preferences, but the 2nd preferences of those voters aren’t going to the other one. So how would only putting up one candidate help that party then? If the party only put up the candidate who got 8% of 1st preferences, then those 7% who have to vote for a different 1st preference, aren’t going to vote for this one, since they didn’t put him down as their second preference.
“Just have one House voted with pure PR and the other with first past the post.”
The reason most people here oppose FPTP, is because it is grossly unfair. The reason most people want an elected Lords, is because currently, the Lords system is grossly unfair, and undemocratic. Why replace one unfair system with another unfair system, particularly when we oppose that system where it’s already used?
“You could even do away with the Lords”
Getting rid of bicameralism would be silly. Either you have the two chambers elected at different times, with the same length terms, so that they provide checks on each other, or you have on chamber have longer terms, and have staggered elections in that chamber, so that you have one chamber with less susceptibility towards “career politicians”.
“and have an English Parliament.”
England is too big and populous compared to Wales, Scotland and Northern Island to have its own Parliament. Having federalism at a 4 “state” level would have England dominating the other 3. No, power should be devolved to areas smaller than that, like for instance, the regions we use for the EU.
But the exception to that rule was the SNP – who did rather better as a direct result.
The SNP correctly identified a surge in their support and capitalised on it by putting up two candidates in wards where they thought they had enough support to get both elected – just as other parties did in their own strongest wards.
Actually I understood that in sizeable areas the SNP undernominated and had large surpluses which transferred to other parties who won. I Glasgow they put up 1 candidate in every seat bar 1 (with 2) and missed out on several seat there by and possibly that is why Lab still have overall control of Glasgow.
Sorry Ed, alternative vote is most definately not the system we have. While a lot of effort is put into squeezing the vote of other parties
(usually with each party using a dodgy bar chart that reinforces their squeeze message)
it is not the same as having a transferable vote.
With AV, someone can vote green or ukip and than transfer to a another party of their choice.
In many seats it is impossible to judge who is the main challenger to party X – especially if the vote was close last time.
Do you go on the general elections, the euro or the local election vote?
Often seats these days have 3 or more parties “in the running”.
Other seats have one party on 18,000 and the other two on 12,000 and 11,000. Under AV the transfers might change the result, under FPTP a squeeze message won’t.
Yes STV has limits. Chosing between candidates of the same party is the weakest aspect to it. However, the essentail truth is that it is up to the voters. In a strongly Tory or Labour part of the country, where they might expect to win 3 out of 5 seats in an STV constituency, people will be able to distingish between the candidates with the expenses scandal and the other ones.
Some people seem unable to grasp the consequences of different policies. For example, STV and a reduction of the number of MPs will mean constituencies made up of 6 or more existing seats. That will lead to very different demands on MPs and local parties.