And another thing…

I think you’re simply attacking the lib Dems because you fear them and I claim my prize.

Their plans for Welsh constituencies also follow similar lines in keeping Lib Dem constituencies intact. Odd

I hope there is enough to vote against this. We do not require this change. Its the people that are the problem not the system

Well perhaps the answer to this is relocate all the Libdems from the rest of the country into their northern Scottish constituencies.

That would even the numbers up and of course it would save the rest of us from suffering the tedium of listening to them whine on about whatever flavour of electoral system gerrymandering they favour that month….

There is an argument to be made that those living in a large, sparsely populated area need a single MP to represent them more than the people of Cathcart who would be represented as part of Glasgow.

There is another argument to be made that those in sparsely populated areas deserve more representation than those living in cities… but as a city boy myself I couldn’t possiblt endorse that.

Tom: do you oppose a proportional system in principle, or just this specific plan of the Lib Dems?

I ask because, as I explained in a post over at Next Left last week, there is solid evidence that proportional electoral systems produce more redistribution and economic equality than majoritarian systems. Thus, I find it very puzzling that a Labour MP, who presumably supports more redistribution and economic equality, opposes PR as such.

Could it be that you put (what you perceive as) your own party interest above the values and popular interests that are the party’s supposed reason for existence? Perish the thought!

If it’s the scheme that Professor Denis Mollison drew up that was posted on Next Left today, there are only three single-member seats in total – one for Orkney/Shetland, one for the Western Isles and one for Argyll & Bute; that’s two Lib Dems and one SNP. If you combined those into a three-member seat, it would probably be either 2 LD 1 SNP or one each for LD, SNP and Labour. So yes, it possibly costs Labour a single MP.

” Which is why strictly proportional electoral systems wouldn’t even be feasible in large parts of the country” Three parliamentary seats isn’t large parts of the country, or even close to being. There are 646 MPs; doing Labour out of one MP (possibly – the Labour vote in Orkney and Shetland is very small so it might still end up the same) is hardly a national gerrymander.

Your complaint is utterly dishonest – those are the only single-member seats in the entire United Kingdom.

Some of the other seats almost certainly cost the Lib Dems MPs; for instance Cornwall, where every MP is Lib Dem in the current system, would probably be 3/3/1 or 4/2/1 LD/Con/Lab instead of 7/0/0.

Of course, as a party that needs three times as many votes to get an MP as either Labour or the Tories, the Lib Dems will end up with more MPs under any fairer system, which appears to be your main objection.

Stuart – Ir’s the correct policies that produce positive outcomes, not the electoral system. Conflating economic outcomes with the electoral system reminds me of David Owen’s claim, after he defected to the SDP, that if we adopted West Germany’s electoral system we would emulate their economic success!

And there was me thinking STV was a Scottish television station…

Oh well, they’re both mind-numbingly dull.

Got that wrong Tom it was Adolf Hitler who said

if we adopted Germany’s electoral system we would emulate their economic success!

God forbid we ever have this system,but I have just been watching the debate in the house and you can if you wish just vote for one candidate on the paper, so just what is the point. It will just create more complication. If it does go through and if the Tories win an overall majority they will scrap having the referendum.

” It’s the correct policies that produce positive outcomes, not the electoral system”. Great, let’s not bother with the universal franchise then. Inconvenient, expensive and it does so tie the hands of those who know best what the “correct” policies are.

For the uninitiated: STV was, when I was young and you were a twinkle in your Granny’s eye, a system for electing members in single-member constituencies.
Applying this throughout the UK would, on my estimate, increase LD representation in the House of Commons by about 50% compared to FPTP (which may or may not be considered fair). Using national PR or multi-member constituencies increases the power of the party machine at the expense of good constituency members and the electorate. Would Dr Taylor (or Martin Bell) have been elected in a multi-member constituency and would the government have noticed the widespread concern about local hospital and A&E services if he had not?
The LD proposal is on the lines of the set-up for European elections which so disaffected most of the electorate that UKIP came second and BNP won two seats in the European Parliament. I realise that this is not a sound philosophical argument against it but I hope that it might wake people up to think about the genuine objections.

Personally I am very much in favour of the AV electoral system.

Like most of those in favour of AV I would prefer a PR system. However getting an agreed system of PR through parliament would be very difficult.

Westminster is, I believe, a truly awful parliamentary system in every way. One house elected by the FPP system which I personally believe to be undemocratic, then a second house in which people are appointed for life based on highly suspect criteria.

It is true that AV would not of course make a something like the expenses scandal any less likely. However the expenses scandal has meant that the reverence held by many, I believe mistakenly, for the UK parliamentary system has decreased and this opens the possibility for parliamentary reform.

What has happened today in parliament has been an exercise really, as we know, but it has been a wise move.

Although there is much criticism of Gordon Brown from all quarters he is very wily.

The Lib Dems will want this AV system very very much, of that there is no doubt. AV and PR will benefit them a lot in elections.

I think that this greatly increases the chances of a Labour/Lib Dem coalition in the event of a hung parliament.

The hung parliament will be unstable but if the Lib Dems can keep it alive long enough to get the AV system through.

Then when the hung parliament collapses, the following election will be an AV election.

[...] cynically chosen this variant of PR and this map to maximise the benefit to their party, although the epic smackdown in the comments suggests otherwise. For some reason, I’m inclined to irrationally disregard his opinion [...]

Don’t blame the system for the people.

Simple Purality means a direct link with the MP. Take a look at the multi seat, barely elected and barely democratic systems of the European Parliament (how many London MEP’s are there for God’s sake, and who are they?)or the consociationalist systems in the EU nations and there is none. And with no link goes no accountability. I may not like my MP, I may hate his policies, but I know who he is, I can demand a meeting and I can vote against him. The problem with most PR systems is they put the power in the hands of the party activisits as the most important thing becommes where you are on the list, not whether people will vote for you.
I know a few MEP’s. They spend most of their “Constituency Weeks” (yes really) doing local activist stuff because they know who decides if they will have a job come the next election. Constituents? Ever heard of an MEP surgery?
Remember 1997 – Remember Michael Portillo – -Remember he would have still been an MP under PR.
And no, it does not increase involvement. The UK has higher turn out than PR European countries and much more than the MEP elections. It just takes the power to appoint and dismiss the local candidtae away from the local people.
Democracy is as much about giving people you do not like a good hiding as it is about voting people in. Don’t stop people being able to do that.

Voting is stupid.

Give me a benevolent dictator any day.

Reading this you are clearly concerned about the threat they pose.

Lethal those Lib Dems.

‘Stuart – Ir’s the correct policies that produce positive outcomes, not the electoral system. Conflating economic outcomes with the electoral system reminds me of David Owen’s claim, after he defected to the SDP, that if we adopted West Germany’s electoral system we would emulate their economic success!’

Tom: you have missed the point. The political science evidence shows that electoral systems have a strong effect on the left-right composition of governments and thereby on the kind of policies which get adopted. PR systems generate more years of centre-left government than majoritarian systems and hence more centre-left policy stances over the long haul.

First I fully respect Mike and Walter’s viewpoint and the points raised in favour of FPP are certainly valid.

The problems with FPP are very many and some become greater with more viable parties standing for election at each constituency.

I live in Hove & Portslade and we have four candidates that are viable to win for Labour, Conservative, Lib Dems and the Greens. In fact this story is true of the constituencies that make up Brighton & Hove.

It is very possible that the victors in these constituencies will win with just 25% of the vote. I think it really is difficult for these victors to be considered representative.

I do feel that the situation in the Brighton & Hove constituencies will become more common throughout the UK in the coming years.

We are sailing now towards a hung parliament. I feel this will become more common in future because the major political parties are presenting themselves as parties of the centre, not class based parties as before.

We need an electoral system that deals with close election results, not one that becomes dysfunctional when they happen.