Having defeated Norman Lamb to become leader by a decisive margin, Tim Farron has the task of rebuilding Britain's Liberal Democrats. May's election saw the Lib Dems go from a party in government with 57 MPs to a return to the opposition benches with just 8 MPs.
What the recent election in Britain has also done is to highlight a range of problems with the First Past The Post (FPTP) electoral system. Whilst the Liberal Democrats have in the past been the party most associated with moves to get rid of FPTP, May's election also saw a disproportionate return of 1 MP each for both the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and the Green Party, despite both parties combined polling of over 5 million votes.
Now that both UKIP and the Greens are making their views known on the unfairness of FPTP in a way not seen before, I believe the Lib Dems need to work with both parties on the issue, whenever possible. It is working together with different parties which is very often a product of Proportional Representation, despite policy differences.
Whilst there may well be significant policy differences with UKIP in particular, this is the chance for the Lib Dems to show that support for Proportional Representation (PR) is not merely about self-interest. After all, it would probably have been UKIP who would have found themselves in the best position to become a junior coalition government partner, had May's election been held under a PR system.
The Lib Dems have consistently supported a particular PR system known as the Single Transferable Vote (STV). This is a system which has MPs elected in multi-member constituencies, and which voters rank preferences between candidates of different parties. The voter can rank as many candidates, or as few as they like.
STV does indeed have advantages. For instance, it clearly retains a constituency link. Also, a sitting MP could be defeated by a party colleague. Although I can see such benefits of STV, I am at present leaning more towards another PR system known as Mixed Member PR (MMP) as I indicated in my post on 5 July 2015.
MMP involves each voter having 2 votes. With one vote, a voter will vote for a party. All votes received by a particular party in a region will determine how many seats that particular party will get for that region, directly in line with share of the regional vote. The other vote is used to vote for the local MP in a constituency, just as British voters do at present. My post on 5 July does give a simple explanation on how MMP works.
MMP is used in Germany. Very simply, as Germany has had generally more economic success over the past 70 years, we are talking about a system with a track record of contributing to a successful country. A form of MMP is known to be the favoured system of Canada's centre-left New Democratic Party (NDP), who could come to power for the first time in Canada's election later this year.
To get the best chance of getting rid of FPTP, Britain needs a united desire between the Liberal Democrats and the other pro-electoral reform parties. My view on MMP as a replacement to FPTP is just one viewpoint, and a viewpoint which could still change over time to prefer STV, or perhaps another PR system.
I hope Tim Farron recognises it is important to not only co-operate with the other pro-electoral reform parties in moves to get rid of FPTP, but to also listen to the wider public for their views on what electoral system should eventually replace FPTP.
What the recent election in Britain has also done is to highlight a range of problems with the First Past The Post (FPTP) electoral system. Whilst the Liberal Democrats have in the past been the party most associated with moves to get rid of FPTP, May's election also saw a disproportionate return of 1 MP each for both the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and the Green Party, despite both parties combined polling of over 5 million votes.
Now that both UKIP and the Greens are making their views known on the unfairness of FPTP in a way not seen before, I believe the Lib Dems need to work with both parties on the issue, whenever possible. It is working together with different parties which is very often a product of Proportional Representation, despite policy differences.
Whilst there may well be significant policy differences with UKIP in particular, this is the chance for the Lib Dems to show that support for Proportional Representation (PR) is not merely about self-interest. After all, it would probably have been UKIP who would have found themselves in the best position to become a junior coalition government partner, had May's election been held under a PR system.
The Lib Dems have consistently supported a particular PR system known as the Single Transferable Vote (STV). This is a system which has MPs elected in multi-member constituencies, and which voters rank preferences between candidates of different parties. The voter can rank as many candidates, or as few as they like.
STV does indeed have advantages. For instance, it clearly retains a constituency link. Also, a sitting MP could be defeated by a party colleague. Although I can see such benefits of STV, I am at present leaning more towards another PR system known as Mixed Member PR (MMP) as I indicated in my post on 5 July 2015.
MMP involves each voter having 2 votes. With one vote, a voter will vote for a party. All votes received by a particular party in a region will determine how many seats that particular party will get for that region, directly in line with share of the regional vote. The other vote is used to vote for the local MP in a constituency, just as British voters do at present. My post on 5 July does give a simple explanation on how MMP works.
MMP is used in Germany. Very simply, as Germany has had generally more economic success over the past 70 years, we are talking about a system with a track record of contributing to a successful country. A form of MMP is known to be the favoured system of Canada's centre-left New Democratic Party (NDP), who could come to power for the first time in Canada's election later this year.
To get the best chance of getting rid of FPTP, Britain needs a united desire between the Liberal Democrats and the other pro-electoral reform parties. My view on MMP as a replacement to FPTP is just one viewpoint, and a viewpoint which could still change over time to prefer STV, or perhaps another PR system.
I hope Tim Farron recognises it is important to not only co-operate with the other pro-electoral reform parties in moves to get rid of FPTP, but to also listen to the wider public for their views on what electoral system should eventually replace FPTP.
No comments:
Post a Comment