You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I got another 'vote for proportional representation' message which just states that it is wrong that parliamentary votes are based on the number of MPs which may not reflect the actual national spread of votes. This is particularly relevant now with Labours massive majority in parliament but relatively small % of the national vote.
The trouble with most proportional representation is that you need to find some way to put MPs in places where they weren't voted for, just to make the parliamentary numbers balance. If one party gets 20% of the national vote but only managed to actually get 1 MP elected they they are virtually powerless to represent the 20% of the population that voted for that party. With traditional proportional representation you would have to give them a load of 'free' MPs to make up the numbers.
What about a system where you let whoever wins the vote be the elected MP but then weight their voting power based on their parties % of the national vote?
The table shows an example where one party (Yellow) got loads of MPs but only 40% of the overall vote whilst another party (Pink) only managed 1 MP with 20% of the national vote. There is then a vote with options A, B and C for the MPs to choose. In pure numbers of votes Option A wins but with the proportional weighting applied Option B wins.
Could this work?
It’s not like literally every other country in the world that makes any realistic claim to being a democracy hasn’t dealt with this problem.
As the UK even has in some areas for some other elections.
Those who pretend it’s difficult need to give their heads a wobble.
So please explain the simple fair way it works if I want to be represented by the person I voted for, assuming they won in my area, but because their party got the most MPs they have to give me someone else?
I think it would be a hot mess until the electorate get thier heads around voting 'for' something, rather than thinking they have to vote 'against' something.
It will hurt, but I think it's nessesary and the only way forward for a more fair voting system.
I think lots of democracies have worked much better examples of how to do PR properly WCA.
I think Germany has a system that does the local candidate and proportionality that you're looking for
https://electoral-reform.org.uk/how-many-countries-around-the-world-use-proportional-representation/
https://electoral-reform.org.uk/how-does-proportional-representation-work-in-germany/
I think lots of democracies have worked much better examples of how to do PR properly WCA.
Yes, there are numerous different systems in operation around the world. A simple system is to have half the MPs as local candidates, then have party lists that are used to top up parliament to make the numbers proportional to the vote.
If you are totally wedded to the idea that all candidates must represent a local seat, you can also have multi-seat electorates. For example, combine five current seats into one, with five MPs. Each party then lists five candidates for that district. If the most popular party gets 65% of votes, they are given three seats and their vote reduced to 5% for the next round. If the next most popular party has 27% of votes, they get one seat and their total is reduced to 7%. If a third party has more than 7% of votes, they would get the third seat, otherwise the second party would get it.
The problem with proportional representation is that it usually requires coalition governments, so typically the third most popular party will get to form the governing coalition. This will often mean that the most popular party overall is shut out of government, which angers their supporters.
TBF the scottish system works really well, it has the downside that nobody except for experts really understands exactly how it works but that's OK, I don't know exactly how my kidneys work either. Votes go in, MSPs come out.
For some reason people seem to like voting systems that are "simple" though. Which mostly means "whatever you already have" because of course you understand that better than a new idea. FPTP isn't really simple at all, it's just that we're totally used to its ridiculousness. And "clear results" are apparently better than "fair results".
The other downside is that the list side means that parties can make sure certain candidates get in, so you necessarily can't "vote out" an individual. And apparently that's really important to a lot of people but does it really matter?
I livein a country with PR and I like PR. First past the post + modern social media = banana republic at some point
One of the problems with 'list' systems is that it gives a lot of power to the party machine - that the current leader of the party has a lot of say in who gets to be an MP.
In theory at least having local candidates chosen (again in theory) by the local party members prevents the party being stuffed with yes men, arse-lickers, and time servers.
I'm not sure it makes much difference really, but then I'm not sure PR does either. Countries that have PR systems don't seem to end up being governed any better.
... I'd just like to add to my comment about 'list' systems: being able to vote someone out is as important as being able to vote the in.
If your local MP is especially useless or corrupt - rather than just average MP corruption or uselessness - then you can vote them out. We do see it happen sometimes; rarely, but it does occur.
How would we go about voting out a list candidate? If they are high on the list even a small percentage of the vote would keep them in position.
I don't think it <is> that important to be able to vote an individual out, that's mostly a problem and symptom of single member representation like FPTP. If you've got one MP for your seat, having a bad one is a really big deal but it's way less of an issue if you've got 8. Your odds of having a bad one are higher of course but so are your odds of having good ones, and the risk of having no good ones and only bad is essentially zero.
One of mine, a list candidate, has been charged with possession of indecent pics of kids ffs but I can effectively forget he exists, it's not much different to if he was an MP for some other seat in that regard- there will <always> be MPs you despise, somewhere.
But more importantly, it takes you out of that shitty "My MP is a tory and doesn't care about any issues I care about so as far as they're concerned I don't even exist"- your one and only representative can literally just decide not to represent you. If I want to contact an MSP I can choose from any of the main 3 parties so the odds of getting to a sympathetic or aligned one are hugely better.
For the major parties, there are always safe seats where they can stick their biggest dickheads so it's not like voting someone out is the killer it sounds. And even before that, as you say it's not that often it necessarily happens so it often ends up saying "it's important to me to have the theoretical ability to vote this guy out, even if it doesn't happen"
I would 100% in all cases take "OK maybe one or two of my MSPs is a total nightmare but I have others" over the bad old days when we were the only tory seat in scotland and our one representative had precisely no interest in us. Sure, some people will still have nobody that they can think of as "their MSP" but only on the margins and not, like, up to half.
And that's even disregarding the other democratic/proportional benefits completely. Just the local situation is better IMO even completely diregarding that hey, we don't get "landslides" with 30% of the vote, or huge bodies of votes being essentially worthless. I was almost in my 30s before I ever cast a non-tactical vote, that's toxic, this stuff pollutes the entire system.
How would we go about voting out a list candidate?
Don't vote for their party. Your list vote is basically a vote for the team that you want to be running the government, not for any individual. Your local vote is a vote for an individual that you want to represent your electorate in parliament. Splitting your vote will often be the best strategy. For example, if you want a Labour government, you would cast your list vote for Labour, but having a Tory local MP means that you can phone them up or go to their local office and let them know why you don't like their policies. If a lot of voters do that across the country, that will put pressure on the Tories to move leftwards.
I’m not anti PR
But don’t dismiss the power of the local vote. I’m in the constituency that outed Mad Nad. It was a safe conversative seat but she was rubbish. At the last general election we were the only constituency that swung back to the conservatives. But our new mp is a decent local bloke that is happy to work on local issues. His politics aren’t my politics but it’s way better than the Mad Nad situation.
But Mad Nad is a typical product of a 2 past the post system. In the UK until recently the biggest challenge has been becoming a candidate for a successful party. That means appealing to their members, and people will say anything at that point so sell themselves to what are effectively self selected political extremists.
I don't think list candidates are a big problem. When a party needs to get exposure across a big pool of voters amd not just the 125,000 members of the Conservative party a lot of the loons start to look like a bad bet. Mad Nad would have been booted out/made irrelevant a long time ago
Look up the Sainte Lague method. I'm also not averse to coalition governments either as again it filters out a lot of the extreme nonsense
You could look at the system currently in operation for Scotland (top-up) or what we did for european parliament until we left with regional groups of constituencies (NB they would be much smaller and more local for 650 MPs than it could be for the 70ish? MEPs).
Just for two examples of systems already in operation, in this very country (parts of/until recently) that give very reasonable results.
You could even just do an AV system for each constituency, which wouldn't necessarily be proportional (or even that close to) but in reality would do a much better job than what we have at present and allow/encourage people to express a genuine preference rather than either grit their teeth and vote for the least-worst that they think might win, or just refuse to engage in the whole charade (NB you can guess why the tories were so keen to abolish AV for mayoral elections).
Let's face it, it's not like the "local" MP being "local" has any real meaning anyway, most of the time they are parachuted in from head office and as soon as they get anywhere near career advancement you'll rarely see them in the constituency.
As for people "getting their heads round it", we've all already been voting via a wide range of systems (or at least had the opportunity to do so) for decades. Anyone who can't get their head round it has no place operating heavy machinery such as a car, and probably ought to be getting their shoelaces tied by someone else.
I'm not sure it makes much difference really, but then I'm not sure PR does either. Countries that have PR systems don't seem to end up being governed any better.
On the contrary - I forget the name but the older guy who was Welsh 1st minister (or equivalent if that isn’t correct!). He said that the legislation that was produced in coalition was much better quality than if it was only one party doing it.
I firmly believe that full PR is a must, and as soon as possible. Not the half baked Scottish system, it needs to be what the Welsh are getting. Exactly what model is best, I’m not qualified. But I can see positives and negatives of most of the most popular options. But FPTP doesn’t work when there’s more than two parties to choose from, and that transition has been happening for decades. There’s currently only a small number of seats in the UK that decides the government at elections - most people have no idea about this.