Proportional representation as an election method allows all voters a degree of influence on the political process. 15% of the votes under such a system award the party in question 15% of the seats. There are different ways of deciding how the individual candidates are elected.

Preferential Voting is where you mark your ballot paper from 1 to how ever many candidates are standing in order of your preference. If no candidate achieves 50% or more of the first preferences the candidate that got the lowest first preference vote is eliminated and his second preference votes become first preference votes for that candidate and so on till someone gets 50%.

What a great argument “Hung Parliaments Stink!”

Quite right, Graham, apologies. I ought to have been less jejune. I was in a hurry. I have expanded my argument elsewhere, if you can be bothered – see my blog at (does Stephen allow links?) minghella dot com.

“and then you go on to trot out nonsense that sounds like it came from Tory Head-office.”

Yes, I do sound like a Tory on this. It’s a problem! (As democrats we ought to remember, though, that Tories speak for more people than any other party, on percentage of vote as well as seats.)

“Tell me, please, when was the last time we had “lovely clean open inclusive government”.” Never. I badly want cleaner politics. I just don’t think PR is the right way.

…”dismissing the views of the voters whom the MPs are supposed to represent by claiming that “we have a mandate to do whatever the hell we like because a few years ago enough people put an X in a box”

Even coalitions end up dismissing the views of voters. Eg. a LibLab coalition would freeze out the Tories, and leave their voters in the cold.

“Strong Government” is just Labour and the Tories saying “we want to be able to ignore the people whilst we’re in power.” You might be right. I don’t think I mentioned “strong government” in my post.

“As for your sneering comments about PR, I think it is you who need to do some more reading, because it works well in Ireland (South and North), Denmark and Germany to mention a few.”

Sorry to sneer. I was reacting, among other things, to the ERS website which characterizes counter-arguments to its PR advocacy as ‘myths’. I will look further at the Irish and other systems. I don’t doubt that PR ‘works’ in those countries, I just debate its value as a panacea. I found the Irish Republic’s system even more complex in its redistribution rules than the example given by the ERS, and/but it still redistributes in ways that I do not like.

“The system of STV when applied to consituency MPs would mean that instead of one candidate getting elected with 18,000 votes whilst 25,000 votes went to all the other candidates, those 25,000 votes would be redistributed until one candidate actually gets a majority of *all* the votes cast, so there are no longer any “safe seats” nor “wasted votes” as happens with the current system.”

That redistribution is what I was specifically addressing. The redistributing of second and subsequent choices is a complex, counter-intuitive and, in the way that it prioritises the second choices of those who support fringe candidates, unfair.

“You conclude “It’s our fault. Voters like us sometimes don’t deserve to be represented, proportionately or otherwise” yet if the turkeys keep voting for Xmas and sneering at the opportunity for reform, throwing away a golden opportunity for change because it doesn’t deliver “strong government” (Greece had a strong government…!) then it most certainly *WILL* be “our fault”!”

I do want change. I just don’t think PR as a system is so wonderful, and I don’t think coalition government as an outcome is necessarily desirable. We will, I think, have the chance to judge the latter very soon. Please, please, please can I be proven wrong?

For clean politics we need clean politicians. Give me Fry any day. But he’s too clever to stand.

All the best,
DM

Let me put in my support for the Australian federal political system – compulsory voting means that well over 90% of the adult population actually vote and most people put in valid votes. Then preferential voting system (the AV system) then means that you are very unlikely to get into government unless more than half the voting population prefer you to the main alternative.

In combination, compulsory and preferential voting means that governments don’t get elected unless at least 45% of the total adult population over 18 years would prefer you to be government. In contrast in this election the Conservative party got 36% of the 65% who voted or about 23% of the adult population.

What this means is that the Australian political system drives political parties into the centre. Both the labour party – as we call it here – and the liberal party – amusingly our name for the conservative party – are much more middle of the road than UK political parties.

Mrs Thatcher’s policies would have been impossible to implement in Australia (as would have been Mr Foot’s I suspect). Or rather they would have implemented their policies and then lost the next election.

This effect is reinforced by having an upper house that is elected on a different timeline and through proportional representation, plus having states that have more constitutional separateness and powers. Australian politics is therefore more boring than in the UK, but probably less dangerous.

A good example of this is the fact that since 1901 only two Australian Prime Ministers have lost their seats in general elections, John Howard in 2007 and Stanley Bruce in 1929. In both cases, they introduced radical changes to labour market regulations and then lost the next election and their seats.

Fingers crossed….

Michael Everson

It may be that the current Labour and Tory parties could never again command a house majority were PR to be introduced. Fortunately Charles Darwin came up with a mechanism, 150 years ago, by which the individuals within those parties may still have a future in the political limelight – and one which I’m sure would appeal to their instincts.