If the Liberal Democrats get about half UKIP’s votes (8% against 14%) but about 10 times as many MPs 20 – 30 against 2 – 3), will the Liberal Democrats stand by their principals and demand electoral reform? In particular, will they insist on the Single Transferable Vote (STV), which they have always recognized as the best voting system for voters?
The Liberal Democrats have had five years now to learn the hard way what some of us warned in 2010, based on our observations of continental Europe where coalitions are normal; the senior partner takes the credit for popular decisions and blames the junior partner for unpopular ones.
If the Liberal Democrats had got STV for this election as a condition of entering into coalition in 2010, they could now be looking at winning about 52 seats for about 8% of the vote. Admittedly, UKIP might be expecting about 91 seats but, if that is what voters want, so be it.
The real point of electoral reform is not to benefit this or that party but to benefit the nation and the voters.
With electoral reform for this election, the SNP could expect about half the Scottish seats (30) for about half the Scottish votes instead of all the seats (59) for half the votes and not be in pole position now to hold the UK to ransom. Please see David Green’s excellent exposition on for more on this.
The SNP also supports STV, so will they also stand by their principals and demand STV for the next General Election even though First Past The Post will have given them disproportionately large representation this time?
The Liberal Democrats and SNP are very likely to hold the balance of power between them by this weekend. Despite their profound differences on many issues, they both profess to support STV. With their joint balance of power, they should both insist on STV as a red-line issue for supporting either of the two “major” parties, neither of which looks like getting more than about a third of the votes.
And if neither Conservative nor Labour will agree? Walk away and go into opposition.
Notes
STV is Liberal Democrat policy, but readers not familiar with the system can find information about it by visiting www.stvAction.org.uk.
‘The Independent View‘ is a slot on Lib Dem Voice which allows those from beyond the party to contribute to debates we believe are of interest to LDV’s readers. Please email [email protected] if you are interested in contributing.
* Anthony Tuffin is a former Liberal Party activist, independent of party politics since 1988 to devote his political energy to electoral reform. He is Chair of Make Votes Count In West Sussex, editor of STV Action and publisher of “STV News”
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
One of Them
Rocks Green Sainsbury's supermarket runs into objections from highways agency on drainage and screening from A49
The Chants: Man Without a Face
My tweets
Cronyism or worse?
Covid 19 stats at a more local level?
Harris Education and Recreation Association Zoom classes! #dundeewestend
Paul Barker
n hunter
Andrew Sosin
Martin
Peter Martin
21 Comments
Will the Libdems continue to back PR, will the Pope remain a Catholic ?
UKIP will not get 14%, I predict 8%.
Parallel voting combining 2/3 FPTP 1-member constituencies with a 1/3 STV element.
It’s not ideal, it’s not beautiful, it’s not very proportional, but it gives more menaingful choice than many people have right now and it’s a reasonable way to reconcile the nation’s attachment to FPTP with the increasing calls for more proportionality and and more representation of the minor parties, whilst fending off party-list systems that give more control to party leaderships.
It will be worth remembering that when the SNP claim that a Westminster Government needs a Scottish voice or MPs to be legitimate that more Scots will probably vote for parties other than the SNP despite returning fewer MPs to Parliament.
paul barker6th May ’15 – 11:15am
“Will the Libdems continue to back PR, will the Pope remain a Catholic ?”
Spot on Paul – its like asking a Liberal Democrat if they believe in fairness. They are facets of the same keystone of our philosophy.
Stephen Hesketh6th May ’15 – 12:05pm
[paul barker6th May ’15 – 11:15am “Will the Libdems continue to back PR, will the Pope remain a Catholic ?”]
“Spot on Paul – its like asking a Liberal Democrat if they believe in fairness. They are facets of the same keystone of our philosophy.”
Having said that some believe an unfettered free market redistributes wealth fairly and that AV is PR 🙁
STV is not a pure proportional system and as it is still preferential we would likely still do better in relation to our first preference vote percentage than UKIP would as we would more likely be ranked higher by voters from other parties also STV would allow for incumbency benefits.
The SNP would probably still win over half the seats in Scotland as well due, you don’t need half the votes to get half the seats under STV especially if you’re really popular and are likely to be ranked highly by other voters.
@Stephen Hesketh what do you define as an unfettered free market?
As Vince Cable today takes a strong EU Rferendum position would he hope right wing voters would support a referendum for PR sounds like cake and eat it
I can’t envisage a scenario where the LibDems if offered STV would decline it.
I disagree with your analysis that things would just pan out as current polls plugged in to an estimate suggest. If people are voting under more proportionate system then people behave differently, the world is dynamic don’t use static data to model it. UKIP would probably gain a lot of seats but many may be the people who currently electing the “odd squad” of the Tories, so the position may move between parties the MPs who will vote the same way.
The LibDems would probably loose voters to the Tories and Labour who are voting tactically and pick up from those parties other tactical voters, the proportion is likely to remain the same.
The other factor that has to be remembered is that smaller parties that are likely to get more seats are more inclined to get more media scrutiny, both a blessing and a curse to them. It will give more impetus for discussing unfashionable views so they don’t just “break in to the scene” when no one has been challenging them properly (immigration recently, but also to a certain extent it would have made Labour more prepared for the SNP “surge” as they would be better practiced at combatting them nationally).
A more proportional system will give unknown outcomes, so people should stop worrying about trying to weigh up if they “win” or ”loose” as it will take an election or two before people are fully used to it and an assessment can be made as to the impact of different parties. One thing is it will likely make more parties much clearer about what they are for, not just trying to be the least offensive.
Stephen Hesketh
“Having said that some believe an unfettered free market redistributes wealth fairly ”
Which markets are you thinking are currently “unfettered free markets” I can’t think of many.
If the Liberal Democrats get about half UKIP’s votes (8% against 14%) but about 10 times as many MPs 20 – 30 against 2 – 3), will the Liberal Democrats stand by their principals and demand electoral reform?
Why on earth not? 20-30 MPs for 8% of the vote is still well under a proportionate share. As for UKIP, the argument doesn’t change – proportional representation would always give more seats to small unpleasant parties, in the past that would have been the BNP. Democracy should not be twisted because you don’t like the results.
Psi: “I can’t envisage a scenario where the LibDems if offered STV would decline it.”
I’m sure you are right but will the Lib Dems insist on STV and campaign for it especially if offered some other form of PR?
You are absolutely right that people would vote differently with a different voting system but we don’t know how they would vote and calculations based on voting under the present system are useful as illustrations.
Alex Hoskin: “STV is not a pure proportional system ”
You mean STV is not a pure PARTY PR system, but, unlike other PR systems, it offers so much more, especially voter choice. In fact the Ministry of Justice’s Review of Voting Systems in January 2008 states: “All the newly introduced voting systems have achieved a greater degree of proportionality than FPTP, although only STV in Northern Ireland has achieved what academic observers consider to be close to genuine proportionality.” You can read more about that report on http://stvaction.org.uk/node/100.
Finally my reference to 8% for Lib Dems and 14% for UKIP was based on an opinion poll of a few days ago.. I saw one tonight that put the Lib Dems ahead of UKIP but this does not affect the basic argument that Lib Dems should INSIST on STV.
I strongly agree with Anthony Tuffin that STV must be insisted on. Other so-called PR methods do not even try for proportionality other than by political party, and they do not even do that well. I regard those other methods as only semi-proportional. Only STV is the nearest to proper proportionality that we know how to get. Unfortunately nobody has suggested a way of measuring proportioality that deals properly with what STV is trying to do, so it suffers from the fact that we cannot quote numbers to justify what we are saying, but in real life even its party proportionality turns out to be good
Furthermore we need to insist that only STV will do because of what happened in the last Parliament over House of Lords reform. There was a draft bill that included STV ( even though with an additional nasty fearure) but when the bill was introduced by Nick Clegg to the Commons, this had been changed to the worst form of party list method. I was consequently very pleased that it did not get through. It is that sort of backsliding that needs to be guarded against
@Psi – Stephen Hesketh is part of the Humpty Dumpty Tendency: “words mean what I say they mean”.
According to Channel 4 News yesterday, trade union leaders are urging Labour to offer electoral reform in return for an anti-Tory pact – http://news.channel4.com/election2015/05/06/update-5192.
If that happens, another referendum would not be good enough without wholehearted support from the Labour Party. Also, although any kind of reform might be tempting, Lib Dem negotiators should insist on STV or no deal.
Although other voting systems can provide party proportionality, only STV can maximize freedom and choice for voters, abolish safe seats and other advantages.
If Labour offers, say, AMS voting, it would be open to the Conservative Party to outbid Labour by offering STV, which is the only voting system that really matches traditional Conservative views on individual freedom.
And if no party offers STV, there would be no harm in being on the Opposition benches.
@Anthony Tuffin – agree.
Since the Liberal Democrats believe Fianna Fail to be a suitable partner, a party that twice tried to abolish STV in the Irish Republic, no further comment is necessary.
If the result of the election turns out to be as forecast by the polls, then the case for ‘electoral reform’ – including adifferent voting system (of which STV is best) – will be irrefutable. But we also need reform of party funding and, maybe, the selection of candidates (who should be truly ‘resident’ in the constituency they wish to represent).
I would have hoped that ALL the parties would see that it is essential in this modern world of more than two parties. If we belive in true democracy, then we need a system that will reflect “the will of the people” – which STV provides.
Malcolm Morrison 7th May ’15 – 6:43pm
“then the case for ‘electoral reform’ – including adifferent voting system (of which STV is best) – will be irrefutable”
The problem is that those who benefit from the existing system [the main parties] are unlikely to make any changes.
For the L/Ds to make this change they are going to have to become an extremely popular party to get the necessary support – which means adopting popular policies [which does not include STV}!
Malcolm Morrison
“who should be truly ‘resident’ in the constituency they wish to represent”
Why? Why can’t constituents decide who represents them?