Proportional Representation

[Major Sinic]

Let's not rush to sweeping and groundless conclusions. Not everyone agrees that FPTP is rubbish. Most people who give it any thought, and that I suggest is a small minority of the electorate, would probably agree that it is inherently undemocratic and that there are more democratic alternatives. However with those alternatives also come weaknesses and compromises.



Yes I agree political reform is certainly desirable and probably necessary.



However most electoral options have features that can be regarded  as either strengths or weaknesses. For instance FPTP and Party List PR are party centric. To some this provides broad or even tight agreement between MPs, a common a identity and cohesion. This can be considered a strength by some and a weakness by some.



More contentious is the point that only very rarely is the majority party in terms of seats also the majority party in terms of votes. Again this is far more likely to provide strong government (a strength) but at a loss of individual democracy ( a weakness).



Then we have 'halfway house' such as the Alternative Vote, were if the votes fall in a certain way can be either more or less representative than FPTP.



My own view is that we can not look at just the electoral process without considering the other aspects of our unwritten constitution; the reform of the HoLs, the disestablishment of the CofE, the repeal of the damaging fixed term parliament act, the degree that the legislature can intervene in a parliament which is, or was regarded as sovereign, the role of the Speaker, the Whip system and, deep breath, perhaps the most contentious of all, republicanism and the role and limits of a Head of State.



In much the same way as marriage is far more than just procreation, political and parliamentary reform is and should be far more than just the electoral process.

[Major Sinic]

This is exactly the point.



Everyone agrees that FPTP is rubbish, except when they win via it, and of course, they are then loathe to change it.



This sub forum was created to discuss the various merits, faults and features of voting systems. Not to carry on the partisan battles held elsewhere.



Despite my remian politics, I'm going to try my hardest not to bring brexit or remain into the discussion.



The "it's always sour grapes" argument is a logical fallacy (the appeal to motive fallacy). You are implying that the motive of the proposer (in this case they lost an election because of the FPTP system) is grounds to ignore the argument.



You mentioned you have advocated electoral change for many years, so perhaps you could stick to discussing any advantages of FPTP?  Or maybe a disadvantage of PR?

Let's not rush to sweeping and groundless conclusions. Not everyone agrees that FPTP is rubbish. Most people who give it any thought, and that I suggest is a small minority of the electorate, would probably agree that it is inherently undemocratic and that there are more democratic alternatives. However with those alternatives also come weaknesses and compromises.



Yes I agree political reform is certainly desirable and probably necessary.



However most electoral options have features that can be regarded  as either strengths or weaknesses. For instance FPTP and Party List PR are political centric. To some this provides broad or even tight agreement between MPs, a common a identity and cohesion. This can be considered a strength by some and a weakness by some.



More contentious is the point that only very rarely is the majority party in terms of seats also the majority party in terms of votes. Again this is far more likely to provide strong government (a strength) but at a loss of individual democracy ( a weakness).



Then we have 'halfway house' such as the Alternative Vote, were if the votes fall in a certain way can be either more or less representative than FPTP.



My own view is that we can not look at just the electoral process without considering the other aspects of our unwritten constitution; the reform of the HoLs, the disestablishment of the CofE, the repeal of the damaging fixed term parliament act, the degree that the legislature can intervene in a parliament which is, or was regarded as sovereign, the role of the Speaker and, deep breath, perhaps the most contentious of all, republicanism and the role and limits of a Head of State.



In much the same way as marriage is far more than just procreation, political and parliamentary reform is and should be far more than just the electoral process.

[johnofgwent]

Sorry, by pecking order I didn't mean a formal list (though that can happen)



I meant that the choice of which candidates get seats is not decided by the voters but by the internal party system - the nominating officer.



So if Red party wins 4 seats in a region *who* gets the 4 seats is decided by the red party.  The 4 candidates could (assuming they meet the residency etc criteria) a be the party leaders children, or major donors.  



In FPTP there is also an element of party power as they get to pick the candidate.  Though that is slightly more moderated because that candidate then has to win the seat.  In a safe seat not such a problem but I'm more.marginal seats or with more "nepotistic" candidates it is a bit more of a check.



Some of this goes back to my dislike of parties.  I feel that the "branding" effect coupled with internal party politics is.not great for our democracy.

Serious danger of agreement here. My view of the system may be somewhat optimistic, but it was indeed intended that engaged voters pick the man after understanding them and their ideas. Political parties destroy that engagement.

[Thomas]

I suppose one advantage of some sort of PR is that boundary redrawing has less effect (not zero)

no matter what system you use , it will never be foolproof.

[Thomas]

I fully agree that the "SNP only won 45% of the vote so their landslide MP count is irrelevant" argument is daft coming from those celebrating their lesser landslide MP count off the back of 43% of the vote.

while that same party and its supporters tell scotland the argument for the union is now we arent giving you a vote on independence (despite standing on a mandate to stop any more indy referendums in scotland and getting humped) we are keeping you hostage in the uk , locking you up and throwing away the key.



I have argued with you over the last year or so about disrespecting the english vote over brexit , and the result was those parties labour and libs  , got their arse handed to them on a plate.



Now the tories are doing the same to scotland :fcplm:



I think nicola sturgeon must be rubbing her hands with glee.



Getting back to PR , we have ams ,stv , fptp , d`hondt in scotland for elections , and england has only two of those as far as im aware.



Seems to me beelbeeb its england that is behind the curve in terms of pr systems , so im no  sure why the op was bleating about scotland and the snp except out of sour grapes.



Only england can alter the system itself that it uses for elections.

[BeElBeeBub]

We already have pr  , the ams system in the scottish parliament that more often than not produces coalition governments.



Despite this , scotland is becoming more tribal as our country descends into unionist and nationalist  , and northern ireland as everyuone knows is a large step further.



Im not sure pr in england would stop tribalism , but it would certainly be a step in the right direction of a more democratic system than the stitch up you have at present.



From memory though talking to many english in our old forum when this was raised time and again in the past , the majority of english didnt want that?



You certainly wont get it while lab / tory continue to milk FPTP , stitch up boundaries etc in their favour.

Agreed.  I honestly can't remember how I voted in the AV ref.  Possibly no.  I remember the argument about a strong government was fairly convincing to me.  Of course the intervening time has rather blown that out of the water!  So my view has shifted.



Clearly it will be extremely hard to move away from FPTP.



The only chance would be if we end up with another coalition and the LDs, greens, SNP force the issue. Though I wouldn't blame the SNO for thinking twice!



I suppose one advantage of some sort of PR is that boundary redrawing has less effect (not zero)

[BeElBeeBub]

We won 45 % of the vote where we stood , and they won 43% of the vote where they stood , yet somehow its unfair the seats their own system gave us while ignoring or at best being mealy mouthed about the seats their stitch up of a system gave them  , now and historically?



Remember this is a party that has never won an election in scotland in history telling us what we cant and can do , and their supporters have the cheek to bleat about voting systems and how naughty and undemocratic  the jocks and  europeans are? :roll:  ::











appreciate that and i wish you all the best , but im sure you also appreciate we dont want to be part of what you call democracy and i am simply responding to the puerile point scoring of bitter unionists on this thread whose brexit / tory victory in the GE seems to be bitter in their mouths for them.

I fully agree that the "SNP only won 45% of the vote so their landslide MP count is irrelevant" argument is daft coming from those celebrating their lesser landslide MP count off the back of 43% of the vote.

[BeElBeeBub]

"My complaint about many PR systems is exactly the party list.

The seats go to the party faithful in strict pecking order. "



Well, for the welsh assembly, I can say with certainly ... Nope. Not even close.



In 2011 I was a candidate in the welsh assembly election on a regional list.



I became aware after the close of nominations but about three weeks before the election that one party seemed to be doing something rather wierd. The nomination paper for the Welsh Conservative party listed about thirty names for the regional list. Almost eight times as many names as there were seats available.



This seemed strange so I started to ask questions



For the welsh assembly, names of candidates to take up regional party list seats are supplied to the returning officer by the "national nominating officer" of each party (a post whose holder must be declared to the electoral commission on the party's annual return). For parliamentary elections, it is the national nominating officer who carries the can should a nomination be found to be improper (not living in the constituency, or an adjacent constituency, or having an agent normally resident in either). It is the national nominating officer who must for westminster authorise the person to identify themselves as standing for that party, and must authorise the use of any legend or logo on the ballot paper against the name.



For the Welsh Assembly, the returning officer declares the winning party, and calls upon the national nominating officer to declare which of the listed candidates they choose to take the seat. There is **NO** requirement in the welsh assembly election for the person taking the seat to be the first named on the list. The only requirement is that they must be on the list to take it.



Why the tory party had so many names for this region beats me. It's not as if they can be nominated for more than one seat ...



Moving on to more recent events



The Brexit party is in fact a company limited by guarantee. I do not know who their nominating officer is - i could find out if i cared, it is a matter of public record and must be declared on the party registration - but it is certain they and they alone decide which of the many applicants get allocated to seats. I can't say I blame farage for this...

Sorry, by pecking order I didn't mean a formal list (though that can happen)



I meant that the choice of which candidates get seats is not decided by the voters but by the internal party system - the nominating officer.



So if Red party wins 4 seats in a region *who* gets the 4 seats is decided by the red party.  The 4 candidates could (assuming they meet the residency etc criteria) a be the party leaders children, or major donors.  



In FPTP there is also an element of party power as they get to pick the candidate.  Though that is slightly more moderated because that candidate then has to win the seat.  In a safe seat not such a problem but I'm more.marginal seats or with more "nepotistic" candidates it is a bit more of a check.



Some of this goes back to my dislike of parties.  I feel that the "branding" effect coupled with internal party politics is.not great for our democracy.

[Thomas]

there is definitely something amusing in seeing Johnson supporters bringing up the fact FPTP gave the SNP many more seats than their popular vote % whilst maintaining their large majority of MPs is more important than the popular vote

.

We won 45 % of the vote where we stood , and they won 43% of the vote where they stood , yet somehow its unfair the seats their own system gave us while ignoring or at best being mealy mouthed about the seats their stitch up of a system gave them  , now and historically?



Remember this is a party that has never won an election in scotland in history telling us what we cant and can do , and their supporters have the cheek to bleat about voting systems and how naughty and undemocratic  the jocks and  europeans are? :roll:  ::

I'm trying to move away from that so an important and complex part of our democracy can be kicked over.

appreciate that and i wish you all the best , but im sure you also appreciate we dont want to be part of what you call democracy and i am simply responding to the puerile point scoring of bitter unionists on this thread whose brexit / tory victory in the GE seems to be bitter in their mouths for them.

[Thomas]

I think PR would help break down the unhelpful tribalism which dominates UK politics if it meant politicians of different loyalties had to work together to get anything done. Certainly we'd probably end up with more coalition governments since it is less likely that one party would secure a clear majority.



Granted the last three years perhaps indicates that the political establishment is not quite ready for such grown-up behaviour but change is never going to be easy.

We already have pr  , the ams system in the scottish parliament that more often than not produces coalition governments.



Despite this , scotland is becoming more tribal as our country descends into unionist and nationalist  , and northern ireland as everyuone knows is a large step further.



Im not sure pr in england would stop tribalism , but it would certainly be a step in the right direction of a more democratic system than the stitch up you have at present.



From memory though talking to many english in our old forum when this was raised time and again in the past , the majority of english didnt want that?



You certainly wont get it while lab / tory continue to milk FPTP , stitch up boundaries etc in their favour.

[Thomas]

I really do believe that a system whereby some political parties have an unfair  advantage over others, is unsustainable in this day and age, and that this being  the case, there may indeed be need for reform, and if the Tories, and/  or the SNP suffer from  reform, so be it!

The snp have been advocates for political change and reform for decades in case you didnt understand. I well remember the years when FPTP long kept the SNP out despite much sympathy in scotland to independence , and folk like me were forced to vote labour instead for the empty promises of jam tomorrow they have been selling scots since the days of keir hardie.



The point im making is for years none of the vast majority of english or should i say british were  interested in the slightest while the labour tory tennis match carried on election after election using one of the most unfair electoral systems in the world , on a par with a banana republic.



Now the snp have smashed the FPTP stitch up in scotland , the brit nats dont like it , and are crying foul of the very system they forced scotland to abide by in the first place. Hidden behind mealy mouthed words like if the tories(or labour) suffer too so be it.



Unlike in your country , may i yet again point out the SNP already contest our national parliament in yet another system specifically designed by the britnats to keep them out of power , a proportional system which has failed in what it was set up to do.



Further , you talk about voting mechanics to me a scot , but are completely oblivious to the fact the english conservative party has never ever won an election in scotland in its entire history , and you have to go back to 1955 , nearly three quarters of a century ago , to when its old sister party , the scottish conservative and unionist party , which it assimilated , last won an election in scotland.



Despite this , over that time , we have had conservative governments forced on us despite being repeatedly rejected at the scottish ballot box because englands voters said so?



...and you are moaning about FPTP?



Why not say what you actually mean  , and that you would like to keep a system in england you are comfortable with that gives you the status quo , while you would like to implement a differing system in scotland to keep the snp out? Lets be honest , and forthright and i will respect you more for saying what you actually think?



The european union is 28 countries each with a veto that cant out vote each other , and if anyone wants out , they leave.Thats despite massive popualtion imbalances like 80 million germans , and  at the other end wee malta , the same size as the scottish island Arran with a population similar to Edinburgh.



The uk is a union of four nations , where only one has a veto under the pathetic excuse of population imbalance , and if someone wants out , your parliament tells them they cant leave and you have the cheek to tell us in scotland the eu is undemocratic and moan about the british electoral system you force us to use when you dont like the end result?

[johnofgwent]

My complaint about many PR systems is exactly the party list.



The seats go to the party faithful in strict pecking order.



Without wanting to get political, if you look at how the BXP allocated it's MEP seats.  There were a number of donors and big wigs who were given the seats above the "rank and file" candidates.



If the only way to get an MP seat is to be picked by the party hierarchy, then candidates who don't prioritise loyalty to party leadership over their constituents will not get picked.



That's my bugbear with it.



I like the idea of proportionality, but I dislike the power it gives to the parties whose internal democracy is outside the rules.



The Conservatives, labour and LDems all have different internal processes for picking MPs and deciding policy. The 1922 committee, the NEC etc.



Again, without wishing to get political the MP selection and policy making process inside the BXP is considerably different and less transparent than other parties.



FPTP puts the party power elsewhere.  In a safe seat the MP is decided by the internal process of whichever party safely holds the seat.  Even if that process were perfectly democratic it would, by definition, only include a subset of the constituency electorate. Of course it is never perfectly transparent or democratic.

"My complaint about many PR systems is exactly the party list.

The seats go to the party faithful in strict pecking order. "



Well, for the welsh assembly, I can say with certainly ... Nope. Not even close.



In 2011 I was a candidate in the welsh assembly election on a regional list.



I became aware after the close of nominations but about three weeks before the election that one party seemed to be doing something rather wierd. The nomination paper for the Welsh Conservative party listed about thirty names for the regional list. Almost eight times as many names as there were seats available.



This seemed strange so I started to ask questions



For the welsh assembly, names of candidates to take up regional party list seats are supplied to the returning officer by the "national nominating officer" of each party (a post whose holder must be declared to the electoral commission on the party's annual return). For parliamentary elections, it is the national nominating officer who carries the can should a nomination be found to be improper (not living in the constituency, or an adjacent constituency, or having an agent normally resident in either). It is the national nominating officer who must for westminster authorise the person to identify themselves as standing for that party, and must authorise the use of any legend or logo on the ballot paper against the name.



For the Welsh Assembly, the returning officer declares the winning party, and calls upon the national nominating officer to declare which of the listed candidates they choose to take the seat. There is **NO** requirement in the welsh assembly election for the person taking the seat to be the first named on the list. The only requirement is that they must be on the list to take it.



Why the tory party had so many names for this region beats me. It's not as if they can be nominated for more than one seat ...



Moving on to more recent events



The Brexit party is in fact a company limited by guarantee. I do not know who their nominating officer is - i could find out if i cared, it is a matter of public record and must be declared on the party registration - but it is certain they and they alone decide which of the many applicants get allocated to seats. I can't say I blame farage for this...

[BeElBeeBub]

True PR one man one vote against a party list system.



Keele University kept records now on wikipedia and other places that show certain seats (like newport east) have such an entrenched majority for the sitting mp that nothing short of death will ever unseat them. These seats seem to have an ingrained surplus of voters for that party and actions by the boundary commission seem to.have heightened not ameliorated the situation



The upshot of this penalty to FPTP is that if you like me hate the sitting mps party with a loathing the Sunni moslem reserves for the Shia, and vice versa, your vote is wasted and everyone knows it.



Huntingdon, Cambs is the tory equivalent of Newport east.



A vote in the golden triangle seats south east of Birmingham are supposedly the ones where a voter has the most chance of deciding the government.



The only way to sort this is a party list system where every vote counts.



Of course this will impact the degree to which an individual.mp.waz elected by a set of constituents but since so few give a flying f**k about their voters, why does this matter

My complaint about many PR systems is exactly the party list.



The seats go to the party faithful in strict pecking order.



Without wanting to get political, if you look at how the BXP allocated it's MEP seats.  There were a number of donors and big wigs who were given the seats above the "rank and file" candidates.



If the only way to get an MP seat is to be picked by the party hierarchy, then candidates who don't prioritise loyalty to party leadership over their constituents will not get picked.



That's my bugbear with it.



I like the idea of proportionality, but I dislike the power it gives to the parties whose internal democracy is outside the rules.



The Conservatives, labour and LDems all have different internal processes for picking MPs and deciding policy. The 1922 committee, the NEC etc.



Again, without wishing to get political the MP selection and policy making process inside the BXP is considerably different and less transparent than other parties.



FPTP puts the party power elsewhere.  In a safe seat the MP is decided by the internal process of whichever party safely holds the seat.  Even if that process were perfectly democratic it would, by definition, only include a subset of the constituency electorate. Of course it is never perfectly transparent or democratic.

[BeElBeeBub]

you havent quoted me but i assume you are replying to me.

yes

You need to read thorough my discussion with phantom and others on here.



From what i was picking up , FPTP was a two edged sword to them.A bittersweet system. While most seem over the moon the tories got 43% of the vote which gave them a large majority in your parliament , they were less than happy and appeared to be moaning that with 45% of the scottish vote it gave the snp 48 /59 scottish seats. Seemed to me as i earlier said it only bothers those when it goes against them.



As far as im aware phantom from previous discussions with him is a tory in wales , so im not sure how he lost the election , he didnt. He just isnt happy the snp won in scotland like many others.



Thats was all im responding to.

there is definitely something amusing in seeing Johnson supporters bringing up the fact FPTP gave the SNP many more seats than their popular vote % whilst maintaining their large majority of MPs is more important than the popular vote

.

For the record , again , im not interested what system you use , i want out of your parliament and my country independent. I dont agree from a democratic point of view there actually is any advantages to FPTP , its a divisive disgusting system that doesnt reflect what people want.



i also pointed out with my graphic of the disadvatages of the system your country foisted on my parliament ,AMS ,  where someone like tory murdo fraser can lose every election he ever stood in as a scottish msp candidate , but because of the list system , still warm benches in the scottish  parliament picking up taxpayers money despite being roundly rejected 7 times now.



Neither scotland , ireland nor wales  , nor any of our political parties can change englands electoral system. You hold 82 % of the seats in what is your defacto parliament .



only you the english people can do that, and as i said it isnt going to happen while you vote labour /tory tennis.

Agree.  This thread is meant to be a discussion about the various features of systems and trying to (ironically) avoid party politics.



The current political situation seems to have booked over a bit.



*Everything* is looked at through a political lens.  Partisanship takes over.



I sometime feel if I were to say I preferred Rice over Chips the forum would quickly divide between leavers for Chips and Remainers for Rice.



Insults would be traded, graphs posted and band handed out.  At the end of 30 pages nobody would even remember who was for chips or rice anymore, only that the other side was wrong and probably undemocratic.



I'm trying to move away from that so an important and complex part of our democracy can be kicked over.

[PhantomPhlyer]

not sure how old you are phantom , i myself can remember elections back to the eighties , and everytime a result comes along that people dont like , wether its bittersweet elections like this where the tories win england and the snp win scotland , we hear about unfairness of the voting system.



I as many old forum members know have been an advocate about voting change all my life , to a fairer system. It gets ignored by the majority while they are happy when things go  their way.



im telling you now there is no way labour or conservatives are going to change any voting system that damages their chances. They were happy to use fptp when the snp where kept out of power by it for decades and now its only a problem when it goes against them.



Doesnt matter what system you use , you effectively stopped catholics and nationalists in northern ireland from having a democratic voice for decades under the sectarian apartheid system supported by westminster and used by stormont until eventually the people forced change .



As far as scotland is concerned pr wont stop constitutional change it will further enhance it.



I will be best pleased when people in your country keep your noses out of our affairs , and we will do the same with yours.

Oh, I am old, and my first taste of a General Election was in 1964 , and much against my wishes, Labour scraped in!



My Dad was a 'Special' and was at the village's only polling Station in full uniform all day/ evening, and much to my Mum's annoyance, instead of staying at home after months away, I had joined him, and was also in uniform having arrived with a long weekend leave pass, sporting a new set of wings above my left breast pocket.



That election fuelled my interest in politics, although I held it ot bay whilst in uniform!



I fear that you may have misinterpreted my post, in that I was not  commenting as to whether or not Ms  Sturgeon  should be allowed another independence referendum, , nor on Scotland being independent,  only that the FPtP system may very  well need an overhaul,  but not restricted to Scotland?



I really do believe that a system whereby some political parties have an unfair  advantage over others, is unsustainable in this day and age, and that this being  the case, there may indeed be need for reform, and if the Tories, and/  or the SNP suffer from  reform, so be it!



 

Using my previous example,  1.24 million SNP voters returned  49 MP' s to Westminster which equates to just under 24500 votes per MP returned, compared to The Tories who had the support of 692,000 , or around 56% of the SNP votes yet returned only 6 MP's , which equates to 115000 votes per MP,  and the LibUndems ,needed 66000 votes for each  MP, and then, poor old Labour which attracted some 500,000 plus votes, yet only returned 1

MP?



This is unfair and unsustainable



I also wrote -

 " As far as Scotland is concerned, I was always a firm believer in keeping the Union together, and I dislike Sturgeon's SNP, almost as much as I dislike Corbyn's Labour Party, but if there is a majority of citizens in Scotland who want independence, then good luck , ' go with god'!