Alternative to First Past The Post voting

[BeElBeeBub]

My version was 175 constituencies sending 350 constituency members to Parliament, plus minor-party MPs whose voting weight would correspond to their party's national vote, but who wouldn't represent a specific constituency.  Say 400 to 450 members in total.

I believe Scotland and a few other countries have a hybrid system where the popular vote "tops up" the MPs.



That is quite complex and also means heavily on party lists for the top up.



I believe parties have too much power in the system and by their nature they are outside the formal constitutional and democratic system.



For example the Cons, Lab and LDems all have differing "constitutions" governing how they pick leaders and policy.  The brexit party isn't even a formal party, it's a limited company and the only people who can pick the policies and leader are the board and they are appointed by the leader.





This is why I am not keen on PR to begin with and any system that relies too much on parties.



A strength of the constituency system is that it does allow space for independents and local politicians. With 2 MPs this space would expand.



Again, the proposed system would require no variation in user interaction from the current system. All the difference happens in the vote counting at Westminster.

[BeElBeeBub]

That seems to be changing the existing representative parliamentary system (where MPs are there to study and amend proposed legislation) into a delegated presidium where MPs are merely voting fodder...

No necessarily.



MPs could still do the current work on committees etc.



In fact for some tasks (eg committee work) you probably would go back to one MP one vote.



For example a committee might scrutinise legislation and vote on a majority basis to put the amendments to parliament, but the final votes on adopting the legislation would be via the "varying votes" method.



The 'variable votes" method only makes sense for full parliamentry votes.  For other work the "one MP one vote" method would be used.



This does feed into another strand of this debate which is how we choose our executive.  But I'll put that in another thread.



My ultimate aim would be better separation of the executive from the legislature and the legislature be more representative of the population.



The idea is that the legislature *is not* there simply to "rubber stamp" the executives proposals but rather the executive's job is to craft proposals that can command a majority in the legislature.  In other words the executive's job is one of compromise and consensus building not whipping MPs

[BeElBeeBub]

It's the different weighting given to MPs votes that's wrong. If I understand the OP proposal correctly, the vote of one MP will be worth less than another MP.

Do we really want a system where more MPs could vote one way while a winning vote has fewer MPs with greater voting weight...?

this is a common argument and not unreasonable.



The counter is why should MPs have the same "vote"



There were 10 seats in the last election won by less than 100 votes. One of them was won by 2 votes!  Given the conservatives were short a majority of 10 that's a significant number of MPs¹



Why should an MP who won by 2 votes be able to completely counter the vote of an MP who won by 32k?



¹I did some digging and just 2750 extra conservative votes in the right constituencies would have given them an extra 10 seats.  That's a huge swing in outcome for a very small number of votes

[Paulus de B]

Sorry was getting around to that.....



It would be entirely possible to reduce the number of constituencies so as to reduce the number of MPs as well.



Eg currently 650 constituencies 650MPs



Could have 650 constituencies and 1300 MPs!



Or could have 300 constituencies and 600MPs



If you wanted to increase "small party" representation the next step would be to have 3MPs per constituency.



200 constituencies and 600MPs

Or 150 constituencies and 450MPs. And so on.

My version was 175 constituencies sending 350 constituency members to Parliament, plus minor-party MPs whose voting weight would correspond to their party's national vote, but who wouldn't represent a specific constituency.  Say 400 to 450 members in total.

[BeElBeeBub]

Will the Honourable Member accept my amendments as in the 3rd post?

Sorry was getting around to that.....



It would be entirely possible to reduce the number of constituencies so as to reduce the number of MPs as well.



Eg currently 650 constituencies 650MPs



Could have 650 constituencies and 1300 MPs!



Or could have 300 constituencies and 600MPs



If you wanted to increase "small party" representation the next step would be to have 3MPs per constituency.



200 constituencies and 600MPs

Or 150 constituencies and 450MPs. And so on.

[T00ts]

That seems to be changing the existing representative parliamentary system (where MPs are there to study and amend proposed legislation) into a delegated presidium where MPs are merely voting fodder...

 :hattip

[patman post]

It's closer to fair than the present system where individual MPs have one vote each with radically different amounts of popular support.   The BeElBeeBubbian model favours fairness to voters at the expense of fairness to MPs, which is as it should be.

That seems to be changing the existing representative parliamentary system (where MPs are there to study and amend proposed legislation) into a delegated presidium where MPs are merely voting fodder...

[Paulus de B]

It's the different weighting given to MPs votes that's wrong. If I understand the OP proposal correctly, the vote of one MP will be worth less than another MP.

Do we really want a system where more MPs could vote one way while a winning vote has fewer MPs with greater voting weight...?

It's closer to fair than the present system where individual MPs have one vote each with radically different amounts of popular support.   The BeElBeeBubbian model favours fairness to voters at the expense of fairness to MPs, which is as it should be.

[patman post]

It's the different weighting given to MPs votes that's wrong. If I understand the OP proposal correctly, the vote of one MP will be worth less than another MP.

Do we really want a system where more MPs could vote one way while a winning vote has fewer MPs with greater voting weight...?

[Paulus de B]

Will the Honourable Member accept my amendments as in the 3rd post?

[BeElBeeBub]

Tbh the whole system need a radical overhaul,though I think a written constitution  needs to be put in place first before altering the voting system,though god only knows how long that would take as I doubt the present incumbents could make an agreement of who to buy bog rolls off.

Agreed on that.



The written constitution question is complex.  I agree the current system has many issues.  I'm not 100% convinced (but could be) that a written constitution is a panacea.

[BeElBeeBub]

The reasons behind the idea seem laudable but, like most PR systems, it's too complicated.

If the idea is to get a Parliament that is more representative of the various factions voted for, I suggest that unless one candidate gets more than 50% of the votes cast, the top two are entered into a second ballot.

Two further points: I'd make voting forms machine readable, and I'd reduce the number of MPs — 500 seems enough with the number of other elected assemblies and authorities there are...

I would disagree about the complication.



In the proposed system every thing is exactly the same as now.  The way you vote (mark "X") the way it's counted etc.



The only difference comes in declaring the winner(s) and when it comes to votes in parliament.



As a counter, the method you propose either requires multiple polls with issues around postal votes, voter fatigue, logistics etc OR involves a ranked preference (instant run off) vote system with voters marking "1", "2", "3" etc.  



I'm addition you would still end up with a single MP.



Imagine having issues with your universal credit application and your MP being Iain Duncan Smith, or wanting to discuss inheritance tax with your MP Jeremy Corbyn.....



With the 2 MPs per constituency you have more choice on who can take your issue up.

[Barry]

:tick:  My thoughts exactly Sampanviking  :hattip

[Sampanviking]

I think the biggest problem with the proposition is that so many of the "good features" identified by the OP. simply do not exist anymore.

There is little local connection between MP and constituency, all MP's are simply party animals and in safe seats, the MP is rarely local, but "the right sort" parachuted in.



If you want to change the voting system, just make it the most simple and most fair system possible, which is a vote for party to elect off from a national party list.



The biggest problem with making any change that I can see, is squaring it with the organisational reality with the Constituency party system which is squarely glued to a locality.

[cromwell]

Tbh the whole system need a radical overhaul,though I think a written constitution  needs to be put in place first before altering the voting system,though god only knows how long that would take as I doubt the present incumbents could make an agreement of who to buy bog rolls off.