My Electoral Reform passion
I am passionate to see Britain replace it's current First Past The Post electoral system with a more proportional system. I believe more voters will be heard, and that less votes will be wasted.
There are of course several different models of Proportional Representation (PR), and since Britain went to the polls nearly two months ago to produce a most disproportionate general election result, I have been taking some time looking at a some of these models.
I very much doubt for instance that I would be upset if Britain were to adopt the Single Transferable Vote system, following a future consultation. This is a proportional system which returns multiple representatives in large electoral districts, and which considers voter preferences. It is also the system used in the Republic of Ireland.
My leanings at present are though moving more towards what is known as Mixed Member PR (or MMP). Different variations of MMP are used in Germany and New Zealand. Under this type of system a voter would have 2 votes, and parties would roughly earn a number of seats in line with share of the vote earned.
MMP explained
For a simple example, we will look at the fictitious region of Cazza-Matta, which contains 20 parliamentary seats.
For the first vote, the voter will vote for the party of their choice. This vote will determine how many seats a party in Cazza-Matta will win in line with their share of the vote in the region. So if the Andy Watto Sing Along Party wins 40% of the vote in Cazza-Matta, then the Andy Watto Sing Along Party will win 8 seats. It is as simple as that!
We will come back to the role of the first vote in a moment. For now, we will move onto the second vote. This vote will be used to vote for a local candidate to represent the voter's local constituency, just as one does currently under the First Past The Post system. Half of the region's 20 seats will be constituency seats. The Andy Watto Sing Along Party wins 5 of the 10 constituencies.
So now we move back to the first vote, which is used to determine proportionality. With the Andy Watto Sing Along Party entitled to 8 seats across the whole region, the party will win 3 further seats from what is known as a regional top up list to add to the 5 seats already won in the constituencies. And the process will continue for Cazza-Matta's other parties.
This kind of system will not only be fair to the voter, but it will also give the voter more choice. If the voter is not particularly fond of the MP in their local constituency, then they could also choose to take an issue to any of their regional MPs.
My admiration of Germany
It is my admiration of Germany which is at present moving my leanings in the direction of the PR system I favour. As a football fan, I like the German football club ownership model which ensures a club must have 50% plus one shares held by it's fans in a co-operative. Dare I confess I also have a little soft spot for the German national football team. Of course, I am naturally pleased that England's Women beat Germany 1-0 last night to secure 3rd place in the Women's World Cup.
The admiration I have for Germany goes way beyond the football field. They have been slightly better than us Brits in various economic measures since the end of World War II. Considering that the election of parliamentary representatives does underpin every policy area, there can be little doubt that Germany's Mixed Member Proportional system has of course played it's part.
A simple comparison of representative government
This year Britain voted in a Conservative majority government with nearly 51% of the House of Commons seats, on just 36.9% of the vote. Compare that to the German Federal Election of 2009, which saw a Christian Democrats/Free Democrats coalition government being formed with a combined share of 53% of the seats in the Bundestag, on a combined share of 48.4% of the vote.
This next comparison is more significant. In 1997, Britain's Labour Party won 63% of the House of Commons seats, with just a little over 43% of the vote. When Germany went to the polls the following year, a Social Democrat/Green Coalition was formed with both parties winning a combined share of 51.5% of Bundestag seats on a combined vote share of 47.6%.
What is also worth highlighting is that Germany tends to get a higher voter turnout on General Election day, compared to us Brits.
A proposed amendment to the German Model
I would personally prefer that the vote in constituencies was to be done by the Alternative Vote system (AV, or Ranked Ballots as North Americans would say). This would mean that voters can rank candidates to be their local MP in order of preference. This is the only tweak I would make.
The principle of AV is that when every vote is initially counted on first preference votes, it is established if the candidate with the most votes has 50% of the support in the constituency. If they don't, then the bottom placed candidate is eliminated, and that candidate's first preference votes would be re-distributed amongst second preference candidates. This process continues until one candidate has reached 50% of the vote.
I am mindful (having spoken to my father) that some people reading this may feel this may be too confusing and too much change for the voter. The point about AV is that a voter can rank as many or as few candidates as they want. Therefore, if someone only wished to vote for one candidate in a constituency, then they can do just that.
I have also considered that even if the constituency element of MMP was kept as First Past The Post, the regional top up list would restore proportionality anyway. However, there are a couple of reasons why I would use AV for the constituency element. Firstly, it will enable voters of minor parties the right to express their true political preference, in a contest that their preferred candidate is unlikely to win, without wasting their vote entirely. Secondly, it would enable independent candidates (who would be unable to appear on regional party lists) a fairer chance of winning a constituency seat.
Above all else, any confusion over change would be overcome with time, especially if MMP (with AV being used for constituency votes) were to become the normal British electoral system, for all types of election.
Don't you always get coalition governments with PR systems?
More often than not you do. However, suggestions that you generally get no coalitions in the UK, are not quite true. Britain's system two party dominated system has produced two parties which I would argue are coalitions anyway.
There has down the years been the odd left-wing Tory and right-wing Labourite alike who have crossed the floor into the other party. The reason is simply that many people on the Labour Right and Conservative Left sometimes have more in common with each other than with others in their own respective parties.
Besides, electing a national parliament and government should be very much about reflecting different views, as opposed to being like a knockout football tournament which culminates in the main event as just between two teams.
I am passionate to see Britain replace it's current First Past The Post electoral system with a more proportional system. I believe more voters will be heard, and that less votes will be wasted.
There are of course several different models of Proportional Representation (PR), and since Britain went to the polls nearly two months ago to produce a most disproportionate general election result, I have been taking some time looking at a some of these models.
I very much doubt for instance that I would be upset if Britain were to adopt the Single Transferable Vote system, following a future consultation. This is a proportional system which returns multiple representatives in large electoral districts, and which considers voter preferences. It is also the system used in the Republic of Ireland.
My leanings at present are though moving more towards what is known as Mixed Member PR (or MMP). Different variations of MMP are used in Germany and New Zealand. Under this type of system a voter would have 2 votes, and parties would roughly earn a number of seats in line with share of the vote earned.
MMP explained
For a simple example, we will look at the fictitious region of Cazza-Matta, which contains 20 parliamentary seats.
For the first vote, the voter will vote for the party of their choice. This vote will determine how many seats a party in Cazza-Matta will win in line with their share of the vote in the region. So if the Andy Watto Sing Along Party wins 40% of the vote in Cazza-Matta, then the Andy Watto Sing Along Party will win 8 seats. It is as simple as that!
We will come back to the role of the first vote in a moment. For now, we will move onto the second vote. This vote will be used to vote for a local candidate to represent the voter's local constituency, just as one does currently under the First Past The Post system. Half of the region's 20 seats will be constituency seats. The Andy Watto Sing Along Party wins 5 of the 10 constituencies.
So now we move back to the first vote, which is used to determine proportionality. With the Andy Watto Sing Along Party entitled to 8 seats across the whole region, the party will win 3 further seats from what is known as a regional top up list to add to the 5 seats already won in the constituencies. And the process will continue for Cazza-Matta's other parties.
This kind of system will not only be fair to the voter, but it will also give the voter more choice. If the voter is not particularly fond of the MP in their local constituency, then they could also choose to take an issue to any of their regional MPs.
My admiration of Germany
It is my admiration of Germany which is at present moving my leanings in the direction of the PR system I favour. As a football fan, I like the German football club ownership model which ensures a club must have 50% plus one shares held by it's fans in a co-operative. Dare I confess I also have a little soft spot for the German national football team. Of course, I am naturally pleased that England's Women beat Germany 1-0 last night to secure 3rd place in the Women's World Cup.
The admiration I have for Germany goes way beyond the football field. They have been slightly better than us Brits in various economic measures since the end of World War II. Considering that the election of parliamentary representatives does underpin every policy area, there can be little doubt that Germany's Mixed Member Proportional system has of course played it's part.
A simple comparison of representative government
This year Britain voted in a Conservative majority government with nearly 51% of the House of Commons seats, on just 36.9% of the vote. Compare that to the German Federal Election of 2009, which saw a Christian Democrats/Free Democrats coalition government being formed with a combined share of 53% of the seats in the Bundestag, on a combined share of 48.4% of the vote.
This next comparison is more significant. In 1997, Britain's Labour Party won 63% of the House of Commons seats, with just a little over 43% of the vote. When Germany went to the polls the following year, a Social Democrat/Green Coalition was formed with both parties winning a combined share of 51.5% of Bundestag seats on a combined vote share of 47.6%.
What is also worth highlighting is that Germany tends to get a higher voter turnout on General Election day, compared to us Brits.
A proposed amendment to the German Model
I would personally prefer that the vote in constituencies was to be done by the Alternative Vote system (AV, or Ranked Ballots as North Americans would say). This would mean that voters can rank candidates to be their local MP in order of preference. This is the only tweak I would make.
The principle of AV is that when every vote is initially counted on first preference votes, it is established if the candidate with the most votes has 50% of the support in the constituency. If they don't, then the bottom placed candidate is eliminated, and that candidate's first preference votes would be re-distributed amongst second preference candidates. This process continues until one candidate has reached 50% of the vote.
I am mindful (having spoken to my father) that some people reading this may feel this may be too confusing and too much change for the voter. The point about AV is that a voter can rank as many or as few candidates as they want. Therefore, if someone only wished to vote for one candidate in a constituency, then they can do just that.
I have also considered that even if the constituency element of MMP was kept as First Past The Post, the regional top up list would restore proportionality anyway. However, there are a couple of reasons why I would use AV for the constituency element. Firstly, it will enable voters of minor parties the right to express their true political preference, in a contest that their preferred candidate is unlikely to win, without wasting their vote entirely. Secondly, it would enable independent candidates (who would be unable to appear on regional party lists) a fairer chance of winning a constituency seat.
Above all else, any confusion over change would be overcome with time, especially if MMP (with AV being used for constituency votes) were to become the normal British electoral system, for all types of election.
Don't you always get coalition governments with PR systems?
More often than not you do. However, suggestions that you generally get no coalitions in the UK, are not quite true. Britain's system two party dominated system has produced two parties which I would argue are coalitions anyway.
There has down the years been the odd left-wing Tory and right-wing Labourite alike who have crossed the floor into the other party. The reason is simply that many people on the Labour Right and Conservative Left sometimes have more in common with each other than with others in their own respective parties.
Besides, electing a national parliament and government should be very much about reflecting different views, as opposed to being like a knockout football tournament which culminates in the main event as just between two teams.
No comments:
Post a Comment