And another thing…

Any voting system that results in more Liberal Democrats being elected has got to be a bad thing.

Thank God a note of sanity, at last! And from a Labour MP at that.

All electoral systems are forms of PR, but on differing scales. In the UK, we don’t elect parties or Prime Ministers, but individual MP’s. Each MP is elected with the largest proportion of votes in his/her constituency.
However, given the party system, variations in size of constituency electorates, and presidential powers of Prime Ministers, it is essential to ensure government reflects the will of the voters across the whole country, not just those in marginal seats.
Tom, would you prefer a Tory government for a generation instead of PR?

I agree with you Tom. First past the post may not be perfect but it ensures strong government. As the Euro election was PR. It allowed the BNP to get in.Thanks Labour for picking this system when you had a choice.

Cry havoc, and unleash the anoraks of war! You’ve done it now Tom. PR people will descend in droves to bore you rigid with tales of how democratic it is… to stitch up a deal in the back rooms of Westminster behind the back of the electorate.

It does seem slightly odd that one one hand we have politicians/pundits saying that we need to make politics more relevant in order to reverse declining voting rates…

…and on the other hand thinking that “fiddling” the voting system so that MPs can defy the clear view of the electorate will fix that problem.

The paraphrase an old saying, first past the post is the least bad system available.

No one has actually come up with a good system yet.

What makes you think you got more votes than the Tories the last time.

Did someone say “referendum”?

What is clear is that the party system no longer works. FUBAR. In no way can it be said to serve the needs of the country.

Where next? What next?

Tom Harris admits “we have nothing to offer the voters but electoral calculations”. Selective quotes are always the best ones!!

On your substantive point in your post, it is worrying that I am agreeing with you again – that’s twice in 2 hours. Is it you or I that should be changing party allegience?

Hmm, AV. Is that like the jury system ?

If so, perhaps you could ask Harriet Harman how well it works ?

As a lifelong supporter of PR I think it would be disastrous for the Government to propose such a scheme now as they will suffer the exact same problem that the Lib Dems always do when discussing it, that it is fundamentally self-interest. Simon’s flippant remark above that a system that elects more people I don’t like is bad. And so if the Government is unpopular and it looks like this might benefit them it is doubly bad.

So sadly once again we must elect you lot on the basis of a system that wouldn’t pass muster for the X Factor, and ignores the views of the vast majority of the electorate. And of course embeds a largely male, white middle class of MPs in Westminster for perpetuity.

One day people might wake up and realise that proportional representation isn’t just about the relative strengths of party allegiance (all that matters to too many politicians) but is also about balanced representation of gender, age, ethnicity, class etc etc. But that’s maybe a bit radical for a Parliament that can’t quite grasp the concept of BlackBerrys.

So this white, middle class, male elector will go to the polls next year and hopefully and only for the second time in my life cast a vote at a general election for a candidate who wins (and who breaks the mould by being young, female and a Liberal Democrat!)

(PS Whatever makes anyone think that AV is more representative than FPTP???)

Tom

whats your take on Camerons collusion with kelly?

at about 4 mins in

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8367000/8367810.stm

Whilst we’re skirting around the topic – can anyone explain what is wrong with FPTP? The constituency votes – the person with the highest votes win, the group with the most winners forms the next government. It sounds fair to me – particularly if you look at MPs as area representatives first and party representatives second (which, IMO, is how it should be).

Changing from FPTP to PR or AV or AV+ or AV+v2.0 (Now with half the calories!) isn’t going to fix the issues people actually have with politics at the moment. It’s unlikely to open politics as a career for those outside the privilleged middle classes, or prevent MPs from abusing expenses, or stop both MPs and the media playing the spin game and focusing on governance as a PR exercise instead of debating the issues truthfully etc. We don’t need electoral reform, we need sociopolitical reform. The sooner all parties realise this, the better we’ll be for it.

And can we please stop all this nonsense about the 1997 manifesto commitment?
********************************************

Hey, Tosh, you might look up the definition of the word ‘commitment’ before you use it to describe anything that appears in a NuLabour manifesto.

…..and this is why i read your blog Mr Harris!

“And can we please stop all this nonsense about the 1997 manifesto commitment?”

Yep. No point in that line. Labour manifesto commitments long since became as real as unicorns and goblins, and Labour don’t understand shame.

There you go, letting integrity and principles get in the way of pragmatism and utter desperation in the face of certain defeat. You just don’t get New Labour, do you Tom?

What an erudite and sound analysis that was Tom. Well worth the web space.

‘By carping on about voting systems, we simply reinforce the notion – and I hope and believe it’s a wrong notion – that we have nothing to offer the voters but electoral calculations.’

Arrant nonsense. For the vast majority of electoral reformers, this isn’t about electoral calculations. It is about making our system as representative as possible. You do yourself disservice as a politician to implicitly suggest otherwise.

AV isn’t even a proportional electoral system-it could be even more disproportionate than FPTP.

In Scotland, of course, Labour supported PR for Holyrood because it makes it almost impossible for the SNP to win an absolute majority of the seats-unlike in the UK where 35% of the vote gave Labour its current overall majority.

Ironically for Labour they miscalculated, so that in 2007 they would have won the election under FPTP but democracy was served as the SNP won the most seats because they polled more votes both for the constituencies and for the second list vote.

Would it be democratic if Labour were in power in Scotland in spite of being outvoted? I do not believe so, but that is what FPTP would have resulted in.

Can’t argue with this one Mr Harris.

The truth is they all have their problems and the problems of FPTP are obvious. The problems of others are not so obvious – the Holyrood system gave us six (or was it Seven?) Scottish Socialist Party MSPs, the next election may give us about the same BNP MSPs.

The hatred at Holyrood is bad enough already!

@JSlayerUK Thursday 19 November 2009 at 7:11 pm
//
Whilst we’re skirting around the topic – can anyone explain what is wrong with FPTP?
//

Yes – because as it works her, a government can be elected without a majority – as per Labour last election, with only one in four voting for them, and as per the Tories last time, one in three or so.

That’s what wrong with it. We need, at least,

1. Compulsory voting
2. A none of the above option.

It seems to me that for much of the last twelve years, we would have been best off without a government. I mean – look at the shocking state we are in after 12 years of these idiot ideologues.

To Sergeant Plodder (07:57):

We also need a roughly equal number of voters in each constituency, so that everything has a chance of averaging out.

I’d also put the “None of the above” option above “Compulsory voting” in the order of priorities, just in case Tom loses interest before he finishes reading your comment.

Apart from that, I concur.

Compulsory voting? I think not. There are a lot of very stupid people out there who might just vote for your least favourite party.

That’s democracy I suppose, though you wouldn’t think it, since a lot of people who should know better moan about the BNP being elected.

No. The best way forward is to introduce a means test. Simple questions should be answered, such as “Who is the Prime Minister, is the UK a. A Constitutional Monarchy. b. a Republic or c. a Banana Replublic?, Who is the leader of the opposition?” etc. Those who fail this should not be allowed near a polling station.

This move would disproportionately favour the Tories.

Compulsory voting?

Seriously?

People died for our right to vote and you want to go spoil that by making it compulsory?

The fight for the right to vote was a fight for freedom from oppression, can you not see the horrible irony in making it compulsory?

I weep for this nation, I truly do.

Edwin Moore says

“The problems of others are not so obvious – the Holyrood system gave us six (or was it Seven?) Scottish Socialist Party MSPs, the next election may give us about the same BNP MSPs.”

Yes, but even under a PR system they were all thrown out of Holyrood in 2007!

I think PR is a fantastic idea if you don’t like the smack of firm government and welcome a cosy coalition around the least offensive policy.

Some things are right because they are right, Mr H. It’s called principle.

Well said Tom

The only issue I have is that your government already seems to solely exist now for electoral calculations re: Queen’s Speech

Well said. AV is no better than FPTP, so why change. If people want to live in a country with full PR they can go to Italy and experience life without firm Government.

Mind you we’ve had that here for three years.

Paul
Friday 20 November 2009 at 10:53 am
I weep for this nation, I truly do.
****************************************

Oh pull yourself together, man, for pity’s sake.

They chucked themselves out JP! I think the SSP would have struggled to maintain their position without the self-destruction, but we’ll never know now.

@Torontory – “we have nothing to offer the voters but electoral calculations”.

Yep, that’ll do as my quote of the day

“..can anyone explain what is wrong with FPTP? The constituency votes – the person with the highest votes win, the group with the most winners forms the next government. It sounds fair to me – particularly if you look at MPs as area representatives first and party representatives second (which, IMO, is how it should be).”

FPTP in that circumstance is absolutely fine. However the party system, and random boundary and electorate sizes corrupt FPTP. In practice, very few people actually vote for a candidate, preferring to vote instead for a party or a Prime Minister. Individual candidates are an irrelevance to much of the public.

I also reckon that as a result of Big Brother, X-Factor and all the other reality TV voting, a sizeable number vote for who they THINK will win, informed by the media, rather than who they WANT to win.

‘No. The best way forward is to introduce a means test. Simple questions should be answered, such as “Who is the Prime Minister, is the UK a. A Constitutional Monarchy. b. a Republic or c. a Banana Replublic?, Who is the leader of the opposition?” etc. Those who fail this should not be allowed near a polling station.

This move would disproportionately favour the Tories.’

Wrinkled Weasel, have you considered that as schools specifically target pupils with the information they need to pass exams, so politicians might see a reason to drum some knowledge about politics into the electorate? Of course, the educated voter could still choose the ‘wrong’ party, but the one that does the best job of clueing us up must have a better chance of winning votes…

When you have quite finished patting yourself on the back Mr Harris, maybe you should explain to the good people of Glasgow exactly why it is that the Conservatives are so far ahead in the current polls.

Be careful now… patter and spin do not work amongst those who wrote the original book.

BTW, these “chattering classes” – when do they begin and do you get a certificate if you successfully complete the course?

[...] nagging thought, though. With his common-sense, honest and open approach to politics, his rejection of electoral reform, his commitment to unionism, his criticism of Labour plans to raise taxes on [...]