Vagueness and the Aftermath - A sporadic diary

[TheChipPrince]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/8628434.stm

[RED-DOG]

Constituencies are of different sizes, and from time to time the Electoral commission changes the electoral make up of consituencies too

So if a party racks up a lot of votes but in the big constituencies those votes are in effect "wasted" from a seat getting point of view

Very generally, a lot of the Tory safe seats are in the big Shire constituencies and a lot of the Labour seats are in the smaller urban constituencies (eg Manchester has 7-8 seats, all Labour, but Tories have Vale of Rutland where the seat is the size of 5 of those constituencies combined)

So, a smaller percentage vote for Labour can rack up a lot of seats due to demographics and geographical dispersion of seats. Other factors too no doubt

The last electoral boundary changes were about 6 years ago and made it more difficult than it was before for the Tories to secure and overall majority because to do so they need to be (without double checking) 9-10% in the clear on percentage of the vote to overcome the issues above

I seem to remember, but am a bit reluctant to make a political point because I am not sure of my ground on this, that the current government pushed through the last changes with opposition at time from the other parties (they need a vote in Parliament to go through)

At the current time the issue is being brought into stark focus because the rise in popularity of the LibDems since the TV debate looks like giving them a decent increase is share of the vote but only a tiny increase in the number of seats

Political commentators are thus hypothesising that under a possible/probable hung parliament that the pressure for electoral reform away from first past the post voting towards Prop representation or single transferable vote etc will become immense, and a price the LibDems will require to form a coalition, presumably with Labour as the largest party if your figures prove correct.

Thanks for taking the time to give me such a detailed explanation, but it has created more questions.

What is Prop representation?

How does a single transferable vote work?

What is wrong with one person one vote, party with most votes wins?

[gatso]

Man...I tried.  Really I did.  But now my eyes are watering and me brain is fried.  Translation of above anyone?  Please and thanks.

with first past the post if you have 99 constituencies, 50 of which have 1 voter and 49 of which have 1000 voters each you could win more than 1/2 of the seats with only 50 of the 49,050 votes or about 0.1%

with proportional rep 0.1% wouldn't even get you a single seat

[Laxie]

Man...I tried.  Really I did.  But now my eyes are watering and me brain is fried.  Translation of above anyone?  Please and thanks.

with first past the post if you have 99 constituencies, 50 of which have 1 voter and 49 of which have 1000 voters each you could win more than 1/2 of the seats with only 50 of the 49,050 votes or about 0.1%

with proportional rep 0.1% wouldn't even get you a single seat

Ahhhhhh, gotcha.  I think.  Places with fewer voters count nearly more than big towns and cities in the end result?

[TightEnd]

OK, I need to not keep answering these as once I am on a hobby horse I will piss the day away!

Proportional representation is a type of voting system aimed at securing a close match between the percentage of votes that groups of candidates obtain in elections, and the percentage of seats they receive. Which would make sense to alleviate the issues describe above. However to get it would require a "Turkeys vote for Xmas" type situation from the current two big parties

Single transferable vote is a method of proportional representation that uses a system of preferential voting to determine the results of the election. A constituency elects two or more representatives per electorate with votes ranking candidates. LidDems favour this method.

To answer your final question, yes..but that would require all constituencies to be of equal size in terms of number of voters. At the moment sizes of electorate in various constituencies are drmaatically different

The difficulty in doing this is a practical one for potential MPs. For example lets say Cornwall has a population of say Manchester. One MP can cover Manchester easily enough, logistically, but another MP for Cornwall would represent a massive areas that practically he would not be able to serve effectively (constiteunecy surgeries etc) as the area over which the population is spread is so massive

[RED-DOG]

OK, I need to not keep answering these as once I am on a hobby horse I will piss the day away!

I have other questions but I'm not asking them. I hope you're grateful.

[TightEnd]

OK, I need to not keep answering these as once I am on a hobby horse I will piss the day away!

I have other questions but I'm not asking them. I hope you're grateful.

Ask them, just let me get some work done first. If you tell me to work, I'll work. If not, I'll answer. I am weak as anything.

[RED-DOG]

OK, I need to not keep answering these as once I am on a hobby horse I will piss the day away!

I have other questions but I'm not asking them. I hope you're grateful.

Ask them, just let me get some work done first. If you tell me to work, I'll work. If not, I'll answer. I am weak as anything.

If you could choose the method by which the next government is elected, how, without political bias, would you do it?

Answer as and when, no rush

[TightEnd]

The main concept behind proportional representation is that each vote made counts. So if Joe Bloggs votes for a certain party that party will gain a little bit of power through the appointment of a representative. So Joe's vote would have directly gone towards the election of this candidate even if his fellow electorate did not agree with him.

Set that against the current UK system where it is commonly held that in an electorate of 40m plus the outcome of the election will come down to 100,000 voters or so in key marginals. If Joe happens, as I have for all my votes, to live in a safe seat then it could be argued that Joe's vote does have far less impact than someone in those key constituences.

Now in a proportionally representative system this would be different. Joe's vote would mean that a representative of his would gain power but also other people in his constituency will also gain representatives. This means that the constituencies in proportionally representative systems are multi-member (in one constituency there are lots of seats to be had by the various candidates). So there would be several representatives per constituency and some of these would represent some sections of society and others would represent other sections of society. This is done in proportion so if a constituency has an electorate of 66% hippies and 33% facists then the amount of representation would mirror this as best as it can. In some places there is just one big constituency of the nation such as in Israel.

It is important to note that proportional representation often leads to coalition governments. Since so many parties can gain little amounts of power it is very unlikely that just one will gain sufficient power to form a government with enough power in the legislature to pass legislation. Some people criticise proportional representation because of this since it can lead to a government with constant in-fighting. See Italy. Set against that see systems where PR works well like Germany, Netherlands, Australia

So, the current system has many disadvantages and it could be argued contributes to the malaise of the voter towards the political system "my vote does not matter"

For PR there are a set of advantages. First and foremost the people have a large choice of parties/candidates to vote for. This means that there are a wider selection of candidates from differing parties which can represent different sections of society.

So as opposed to the U.S. two party system and the U.K.'s three party system, a proportional system would make it possible for people to vote for smaller parties who wholely represent their views. At the moment in the US and UK small parties rarely get much support because people do not see them standing a chance to gain power. For example, in the 1989 British European elections (elections to vote MEPs to the European Parliament) the Green Party gained 15% of the vote nationally yet gained no seats. In general elections it is often seen that the Liberal Democrats rarely gain many seats even though their votes amounted to 18.3% of the electorate in 2001 wining them only 52 out of 659 seats. If you do the maths 18.3% of 659 is around 120 seats. This is compared to  Labour who gained 40.7% of the vote but gained 413 seats (41% = 268 seats, only) . As you can see even though the Lib Dems have a rather large amount of voter support their marginal power is quashed by the strong majority that Labour wielded. With proportional systems power is distributed more evenly meaning that in the 2001 election the Lib Dems would have gained 120 seats and Labour 268 seats. This would lead to Labour needing the Lib Dems' support to pass things through Parliament. People would then see that other smaller parties (or individual candidates), who better match their ideologies, would actually be able to gain some power. Their vote would count.

The second advantage is that small parties would gain strength. When a party tries to form a government it would require support from smaller parties to gain a majority. This means that they would have to listen to the views of others possibly meaning more compromises but more importantly more internal debate. In Britain at the moment the party with the leading majority does not need others to rule and therefore does not need to heed their advice. Proportional systems would force debate since legislation would have to meet the acceptance of a large proportion of the populace.

As a secondary aspect, voter confidence would hopefully be strengthened by the increased proportionality and democracy. People would see that their vote will alter the structure of government and therefore how they are governed. This should aid in the fight against voter apathy that is prominent in the US and UK (in the UK general election 2005 the lowest voter turnout was recorded with a pitiful 59.4%).

The most often cited disadvantage is that a proportional representative system leads to weak government. Since coalitions are often created there is the possibility to great arguments forming in the government which causes it to fall and a new election being needed.

It can also be claimed that coalition governments can be controlled more easily by a radical party. A famous example is the Weimar Republic and its hijacking by Adolf Hitler's N.S.D.A.P. Another offshoot of the coalition government is that the compromise and negotiation over legislation can lead to a bill which no one really wants. Instead it is made up of bits and pieces which appease different people but no one is truly happy over. This leaves bills which are an horrible mish mash of ideologies.

It can also be said that the constituency link between a representative and his/her constituents is lost in the multi-member constituencies. With British MPs and USA's Congressmen there is a link between them and the people who voted them into office. They are in the assembly to voice the views of the people in the chamber when debating. This often means going back to the voters to ask their opinion. So in England, MPs often hold surgeries every week to answer voters' questions and listen to their problems/ideas. With multi-member constituencies it is said that this link is weakened and so direct democracy is even more damaged.

The irony of course is that a "hung parliament" is currently priced by bookies as an odds-on favourite for May 6th. Not seen since the first election of 1974 when Heath tried to govern as a minoirty, which led to a second election later that year. Genuine coalition government in the UK? You have to go back to Lloyd George a century ago

So, extending that irony further, the current system may in the end have to produce a coalition.

Going to the next step, a Labour party third in the polls (and unlikely to secure a majority of seats on its own this time) but with huge inbuilt advantages from current electoral commission boundaries may be said to be tacitly encouraging a rise in popularity of the LibDems as it feels that is its best chance of retaining power, in coalition with them.  

Logically though look at the UK electorate:

In all elections 30-45% of the vote goes Tory or Labour and 20-30% LibDem. It could be argued that the UK is a natural coalition electorate as no party ever gets a 50%+ majority. It is only the inequities of the constiuency system that creates a seat majority one way or the other.

We might be at quite a critical point therefore, because without a hung parliament neither of the major parties will change the current voting system

p.s Downsides of coalitions aside, I am quite a fan of PR.

 

[RED-DOG]

The main concept behind proportional representation is that each vote made counts. So if Joe Bloggs votes for a certain party that party will gain a little bit of power through the appointment of a representative. So Joe's vote would have directly gone towards the election of this candidate even if his fellow electorate did not agree with him.

Set that against the current UK system where it is commonly held that in an electorate of 40m plus the outcome of the election will come down to 100,000 voters or so in key marginals. If Joe happens, as I have for all my votes, to live in a safe seat then it could be argued that Joe's vote does have far less impact than someone in those key constituences.

Now in a proportionally representative system this would be different. Joe's vote would mean that a representative of his would gain power but also other people in his constituency will also gain representatives. This means that the constituencies in proportionally representative systems are multi-member (in one constituency there are lots of seats to be had by the various candidates). So there would be several representatives per constituency and some of these would represent some sections of society and others would represent other sections of society. This is done in proportion so if a constituency has an electorate of 66% hippies and 33% facists then the amount of representation would mirror this as best as it can. In some places there is just one big constituency of the nation such as in Israel.

It is important to note that proportional representation often leads to coalition governments. Since so many parties can gain little amounts of power it is very unlikely that just one will gain sufficient power to form a government with enough power in the legislature to pass legislation. Some people criticise proportional representation because of this since it can lead to a government with constant in-fighting. See Italy. Set against that see systems where PR works well like Germany, Netherlands, Australia

So, the current system has many disadvantages and it could be argued contributes to the malaise of the voter towards the political system "my vote does not matter"

For PR there are a set of advantages. First and foremost the people have a large choice of parties/candidates to vote for. This means that there are a wider selection of candidates from differing parties which can represent different sections of society.

So as opposed to the U.S. two party system and the U.K.'s three party system, a proportional system would make it possible for people to vote for smaller parties who wholely represent their views. At the moment in the US and UK small parties rarely get much support because people do not see them standing a chance to gain power. For example, in the 1989 British European elections (elections to vote MEPs to the European Parliament) the Green Party gained 15% of the vote nationally yet gained no seats. In general elections it is often seen that the Liberal Democrats rarely gain many seats even though their votes amounted to 18.3% of the electorate in 2001 wining them only 52 out of 659 seats. If you do the maths 18.3% of 659 is around 120 seats. This is compared to  Labour who gained 40.7% of the vote but gained 413 seats (41% = 268 seats, only) . As you can see even though the Lib Dems have a rather large amount of voter support their marginal power is quashed by the strong majority that Labour wielded. With proportional systems power is distributed more evenly meaning that in the 2001 election the Lib Dems would have gained 120 seats and Labour 268 seats. This would lead to Labour needing the Lib Dems' support to pass things through Parliament. People would then see that other smaller parties (or individual candidates), who better match their ideologies, would actually be able to gain some power. Their vote would count.

The second advantage is that small parties would gain strength. When a party tries to form a government it would require support from smaller parties to gain a majority. This means that they would have to listen to the views of others possibly meaning more compromises but more importantly more internal debate. In Britain at the moment the party with the leading majority does not need others to rule and therefore does not need to heed their advice. Proportional systems would force debate since legislation would have to meet the acceptance of a large proportion of the populace.

As a secondary aspect, voter confidence would hopefully be strengthened by the increased proportionality and democracy. People would see that their vote will alter the structure of government and therefore how they are governed. This should aid in the fight against voter apathy that is prominent in the US and UK (in the UK general election 2005 the lowest voter turnout was recorded with a pitiful 59.4%).

The most often cited disadvantage is that a proportional representative system leads to weak government. Since coalitions are often created there is the possibility to great arguments forming in the government which causes it to fall and a new election being needed.

It can also be claimed that coalition governments can be controlled more easily by a radical party. A famous example is the Weimar Republic and its hijacking by Adolf Hitler's N.S.D.A.P. Another offshoot of the coalition government is that the compromise and negotiation over legislation can lead to a bill which no one really wants. Instead it is made up of bits and pieces which appease different people but no one is truly happy over. This leaves bills which are an horrible mish mash of ideologies.

It can also be said that the constituency link between a representative and his/her constituents is lost in the multi-member constituencies. With British MPs and USA's Congressmen there is a link between them and the people who voted them into office. They are in the assembly to voice the views of the people in the chamber when debating. This often means going back to the voters to ask their opinion. So in England, MPs often hold surgeries every week to answer voters' questions and listen to their problems/ideas. With multi-member constituencies it is said that this link is weakened and so direct democracy is even more damaged.

The irony of course is that a "hung parliament" is currently priced by bookies as an odds-on favourite for May 6th. Not seen since the first election of 1974 when Heath tried to govern as a minoirty, which led to a second election later that year. Genuine coalition government in the UK? You have to go back to Lloyd George a century ago

So, extending that irony further, the current system may in the end have to produce a coalition.

Going to the next step, a Labour party third in the polls (and unlikely to secure a majority of seats on its own this time) but with huge inbuilt advantages from current electoral commission boundaries may be said to be tacitly encouraging a rise in popularity of the LibDems as it feels that is its best chance of retaining power, in coalition with them.  

Logically though look at the UK electorate:

In all elections 30-45% of the vote goes Tory or Labour and 20-30% LibDem. It could be argued that the UK is a natural coalition electorate as no party ever gets a 50%+ majority. It is only the inequities of the constiuency system that creates a seat majority one way or the other.

We might be at quite a critical point therefore, because without a hung parliament neither of the major parties will change the current voting system

p.s Downsides of coalitions aside, I am quite a fan of PR.

 

How wonderful to hear someone speak (As it were) so eloquently on a subject for which they have real enthusiasm.

Thank you.

[TightEnd]

and this is fascinating


Zeppelins, not voting systems

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00qpjpr/Around_the_World_by_Zeppelin/

[Jon MW]

...

Logically though look at the UK electorate:

In all elections 30-45% of the vote goes Tory or Labour and 20-30% LibDem. It could be argued that the UK is a natural coalition electorate as no party ever gets a 50%+ majority. It is only the inequities of the constiuency system that creates a seat majority one way or the other.
...

Logically and rationally, yes.

But people don't act logically and rationally and we don't 'do' consensus politics in the UK.

The UK political system is built on confrontation, even down to it's seating pattern in parliament.

The only way it would work in the UK would be to have one of the major parties allying with one of the minor parties.
So for example a Labour party requiring a handful of seats to gain a majority could work with the Green party (for example)
Therefore a minor party with say 5% of the vote could end up with say 30% of the power to run the country as part of such a deal.

How would this be fair and proportional to the votes they receive?

First past the post may give 100% of the power to the party who gains 35-40% of the vote
But proportional representation is likely to give some power to a party who gain 5-15% of the vote

Is that really fairer?

[Rod Paradise]

The system for the Scottish parliament is a hybrid of the 2 systems - a first past the post Constituency MSP is elected in as in a British election, with voters voting for the individual.Then top up Regional MSPs are voted in using PR with voters picking 2 parties - 1st & 2nd choice - these votes are then used to calcualte the regional MSP's who are voted in off a preference list of candidates from each party.

[Rod Paradise]

...

Logically though look at the UK electorate:

In all elections 30-45% of the vote goes Tory or Labour and 20-30% LibDem. It could be argued that the UK is a natural coalition electorate as no party ever gets a 50%+ majority. It is only the inequities of the constiuency system that creates a seat majority one way or the other.
...

Logically and rationally, yes.

But people don't act logically and rationally and we don't 'do' consensus politics in the UK.

The UK political system is built on confrontation, even down to it's seating pattern in parliament.

The only way it would work in the UK would be to have one of the major parties allying with one of the minor parties.
So for example a Labour party requiring a handful of seats to gain a majority could work with the Green party (for example)
Therefore a minor party with say 5% of the vote could end up with say 30% of the power to run the country as part of such a deal.

How would this be fair and proportional to the votes they receive?

First past the post may give 100% of the power to the party who gains 35-40% of the vote
But proportional representation is likely to give some power to a party who gain 5-15% of the vote

Is that really fairer?

But that is how it's happened - the Ulster Loyalists being a party who have got power beyond their mandate because they won concessions from the Tories (as a reward for toeing the party line) are a prime example.

And I'm reminded of the saying 'Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts completely' - having a minority party being a genuine member of a coalition (not bought votes as in the example above), inserts a watchdog in the middle of the decision process.

[Bongo]

http://www.voterpower.org.uk/

You can see how much "power" your vote has there.

Apparently I have 0.555 of a vote which is twice the national average.