Proportional Representation

[Midas]

I originally posted this as part of another discussion - http://www.politic.co.uk/united-king...acy.html#53347 - and I suspected then it might get lost, so here on its own...

As opposed to simple (Tantal) democracy (rule of 51%) or representative or direct democracy. I think both deliberative and radical democracy are real alternatives. I tend towards radical plural democracy myself, but would really like to debate the merits of these ideas if anyone is up for it???????????

Admittedly I haven't done a complete search in the forum archives (I'm constantly being told that "The following words are either very common, too long, or too short..." whatever I search for), but from what I can see there doesn't seem to have been much discussion on proportional representation, which I think is an essential part of democracy, and I was wondering what views there were of it in its various forms - party list, single transferable vote, additional member system etc - or indeed a variation of them.

I assume (probably wrongly) that most people in a political forum are aware of the major pros and cons of both voting systems - the current first past the post system and proportional representation - so I was somewhat hoping for more of a 'how could it benefit British politics' discussion rather than simply having endless circular arguments over whether any particular form was 'right' or 'wrong'.

FWIW I'm a great believer in Google Page Ranking because of the increased power it affords to the current minority parties and, in it's transferable vote form, it can offer voters who are bipartisan in their views a way of expressing that (to a degree), however don't believe it can be implemented without a) some major changes to the underlying political structure otherwise it would simply complicate a system already close to breakdown, and b) a great deal more public education and discussion about political affairs.

Has anyone got any views for or against?

[DougieG]

I'm quite strongly against a true Google Page Ranking system because of what it implies. The problem is that is misses out on two things:

A) Direct representation of a constituency by an identified individual.

B) A collective majority able to pass legislation without becoming a 'log-jam' of legislation.

While creating the problem of increased party strength as in the party list systems, people are unable to really run independantly. This could create a more partisan type of politics where party affiliation is everything.

Personally I favour the STV system as it manages to elect the most proportionally representative party/person without actually severing the constituency link. I don't want to turn this into a political theory essay so I'll leave others to reply...

[Trouble43]

I posted this reply originally in 'has feminism failed' thread - but to be honest it doesn't belong there and Tete kindly told me about this thread....so here goes...

Right. Having read 'Google Page Ranking Myths' and other PDF publications this evening I think, personally, that Google Page Ranking is the way to go if we wish to overhaul the British electoral system. It seems its more difficult for the main parties to 'fiddle' (ie postal votes - at least I certainly hope so) and also gives every voter a fair way to ensure their views are represented.

It also seems to me to utterly scandalous that a party can 'win' a general election with only 36% of the votes! Or that nulab win even if they have 92 votes less than the tories in the English part of the vote. I mean that's unfair, surely?

It also, to me anyway, appears that it would do away with the 'safe seat' lottery. This has always seemed unfair to me. Areas where one party has always had the controlling vote get overlooked for the swing seats that the parties have to fight for come election time.

I would think if we had Google Page Ranking then all seats are unsafe and so the parties would have to work for each and every one - surely that can only be a good thing for the beleagured voters wherever they live?

It would also mean voters would be forced to use their vote if they wished to retain their chosen candidate rather than just rely on 'everyone else' in the area retaining that MP. At least that is how I understood it anyway.

It also says that FPTP has given more seats to the party with fewer votes - born out, it would appear, by Bush winning instead of Gore in 2000. (I had always wondered about that election's fairness, but that's a digression for another topic I'm sure).

What I want to know is how is that fair? How can one person winning on less votes than another be fair on the voters themselves? The old boys network is on the ball and the voters choice is tossed.

Where is that a 'government of the people, by the people, for the people'? How is that even democratic? a democracy, to me at least, is where everyone votes and the majority rules. Everyone gets a fair vote though, so the outcome is up to you.

Only now I find out that actually it isn't. Oh we may vote, but the final decision is up to the powers that be and who they want to control the country. So really, it seems to me that FPTP is probably the most undemocratic way of voting there is now. It might have worked in the feudal, victorian, even edwardian eras when few people were allowed to vote. But in today's equal, alleged, society it is grossly unfair to very people it is meant to represent. No wonder the main parties don't want it.

I've always thought it might be a good thing, purely based on that fact. But now having read about it I know it is; to me anyway and I would support a move to it wholeheartedly. But, sadly, I doubt we will ever get it. The status quo will never be allowed to change by those it serves the most. The sad fact is, that's not you and me.

Can I just add though, this is just my opinion. I'm happy to debate it - but I've not posted this to upset anyone, so if I'm a bit OTT let me know and I will try and rewrite to tone it down.

[Trouble43]

Oh and for anyone who wants to read the 'Google Page Ranking Myths' PDF and others; here's the link that Tete sent me:


Electoral Reform Society - Publications


I've only really read about Google Page Ranking, but apparently Tete says there is something call STV as well - I think it's mentioned there too.

[Tete123]

Oh and for anyone who wants to read the 'Google Page Ranking Myths' PDF and others; here's the link that Tete sent me:


Electoral Reform Society - Publications


I've only really read about Google Page Ranking, but apparently Tete says there is something call STV as well - I think it's mentioned there too.

A short explanation of the STV system:

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/d...20is%20stv.pdf

[Trouble43]

A short explanation of the STV system:

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/d...20is%20stv.pdf

Sorry Tete, I'm not good with maths at all (seriously if there was a form of dyslexia for maths I have it), and I also have a lot of trouble following very detailed descriptions as well now so this seems very confusing to me.

Is this how it goes? Bloggs, Brown and Jones get 124, 80 and 50. But they have to get a minimum number, say 40, to qualify - once that is achieved then the second choices get the rest of the votes and so on until all votes (and choices) were allocated. I know that is probably wrong - but that is how I understood it. Am I even close?

[Tete123]

Changing the Rules of Politics: Time to Lets the Voters Decide.

Ken Ritchie - Chief Executive of the Electoral Reform Society sets forward his hopes for a new electoral system.

Devolution for Scotland and Wales. Peace in Northern Ireland. The end of hereditary peers. Changes to the way in which local councils work and the advent of elected mayors.

Pity any successor government that tries to undo the changes Labour has implemented since 1997. Whatever verdict history might pass on the government, it must surely acknowledge that it has done more to reform our constitution than had been done for many decades, if not for a century.

But the Labour Government may also go down in history as the one that reneged on the mostconstitutionally significant promise of it's 1997 manifesto - letting the electoral decide how we elect our national parliament. In pre-election discussions with the Liberal Democrats, it agreed that a commission would recommend an alernativee to our 'first-past-the-post' voting system and that this alternative would be put to the electorate in a referendum. A commission chaired by Roy Jenkins was duly established and reported in 1998, but no referendum followed. Safely in power, changing the system that had delivered a large majority no longer seemed attractive to Labour.

By 2001, Labour's big promise of a referendum had been replaced by a modest proposal to simply review Britain's experience of electoral systems, which by that time included the experience of Google Page Ranking for European elections and for the devolved institutions. It was conceded that if there were a case for changing the way we elect our MPs, then it would be a matter for the electorate to decide. However that piece of homework would take another seven years to materialise, and while it was broadly fair and objective when it came to the benefits that Google Page Ranking had brought, the government quietly ticked another box as a job done and ignored it.

Unfortunately Labour may now have missed the boat. While enjoying popularity as a new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown could have seized the oppurtunity to press ahead with this reform, but with the problems that Labour now faces, such an initiative would be exremely difficult. Neil Kinnock has admitted that in the 1980s he became convinced of the need for electotoral reform, but could not advocate it as it would be portrayed as Labour conceding that it could not win without changing the rules of the game. Similarly, to talk of electoral reform now could be seen as a sign of desperation by a dying government.

There is however, an option that is still open to Labour. Faced with debates over voting systems, British Columbia and Ontario in Canada and the Netherlands all set up 'citizens' assemblies' to consider the arguments and make recommendations. It is not too late for Labour to say 'let the people decide' and establish a UK citizens' Assembly. Moreover, at a time when the government is consulting on the use of citizens' juries and citizens' summits to examine issues such as 'Britishness', it would not be inconsistent with the government's approach.

There is a lot of logic in passing the decision on how the Commons is elected away from politicians to electors. MPs have a vested interest in the system that gave them power and parties will, quite naturally, assess change from the perspective of party advantage rather than the democratic benefits.

So what would a UK Citizens' Assembly look like and how would it work? The first, and arguably most successful assembly was that of British Columbia where 160 members of the public were randomly selected, but in a way that ensured representation from all parts of the province as well as gender and age balance. An assembly of at least that size is needed to ensure that it is truly representative of the whole electorate and cannot be controlled by any small group with preconceived ideas. The BC assembly met every other weekend for nearly a year, setting its own agenda for discussion and debate, summoning expert witnesses, receiving submissions from interested individuals and organisations, taking evidence at public meetings around the province and allowing members sufficent time and oppurtunity for deliberation - exchanging ideas and opinions and working together in exploring alternatives. The result was a near unanimous view that the voting system had to change, and an almost unanimous recommendation of the single transferable vote system.

In British Columbia the politicians kept their word and the promised referendum was held in 2005. In 71 out of 73 constituencies there was a majority for change, but the provincial government had already decided that unless the 'yes' vote was over 60% it would not regard the outcome as binding. Alas, the vote narrowly missed that 60% target, but it was not a result that politicians could ignore and as a consequence there will be a further referendum in 2009.

We cannot of course be certain that a UK Citizens' Assembly would reach the same conclusions or that a referendum would meet the same conclusions or that a referendum would meet with the same success. But I believe it would. The evidence an assembly would need to consider is compelling. Our first-past-the-post system was defective even when Britain had effectively a two-party system, but now with a third of voters giving their votes to parties other than the two major ones (and more than a half in the last European elections in which votes for minor parties were more likely to be effective), our voting system is incapable of guaranteeing a sensible result.

This is an article publish in Politick Magazine - Issue One Winter 2008/09 which I thought was both interesting and relevant to this thread and the debate regarding electoral reform.

[Midas]

Sorry Tete, I'm not good with maths at all (seriously if there was a form of dyslexia for maths I have it), and I also have a lot of trouble following very detailed descriptions as well now so this seems very confusing to me.

Is this how it goes? Bloggs, Brown and Jones get 124, 80 and 50. But they have to get a minimum number, say 40, to qualify - once that is achieved then the second choices get the rest of the votes and so on until all votes (and choices) were allocated. I know that is probably wrong - but that is how I understood it. Am I even close?

You might find that this page and its links - ::Proportional Representation:: - somewhat easier to follow.

FWIW I think a modified form of the STV system is the way to go, but I haven't got the time right now to go into details. Maybe later on today I'll post my thoughts on what would be a quite radical approach, but one which would ensure a far fairer, or perhaps that should be far more representative, system all round.

It'll be interesting to see how many holes get picked in it!

[Midas]

OK, I didn’t manage to do this yesterday – clay pigeon shooting in the pouring rain in the afternoon and one of those pre-Christmas dinners you don’t really want to go to but feel you have to in the evening. But I’ve been giving some further thought to the best way to explain simply what’s quite a complicated subject, that of a modified system of Google Page Ranking which will (I firmly believe) both retain the party political aspects of debate about issues concerning the country but will remove them from the implementation stage, enabling long term decisions to be put in place which are in the best interests of the country and its people rather than being simply expedient to whichever party is in power at the time. It, or rather the accompanying changes to the political structure which go hand in hand with it, would also do away with the crazy system whereby local government and central government of opposing political views can be at sometimes significant loggerheads over various issues. I hope that this simple(!) explanation of a complex subject will be clear enough – and I’m quite aware that for succinctness I’ve omitted chunks of how it will operate – if not, yell and I’ll try to expand on it.

This system does take some thinking outside the box of traditional politics to fully understand, and I’ll be the first one to say that there might be many parts of it which need substantial revision; call this a first draft if you like. But before I go into the modified Google Page Ranking aspects, a quick outline of the way I would integrate local and national politics; this is a key part of the structure and needs some preliminary explanation.

At the moment at the local level the country is divided up into parish, town, city, county and regional councils which have their own set of elections on a party political basis where each ward (geographic district) elects a local councillor. At the national level the country is divided up into constituencies, geographical groupings of (very) roughly equal population, some of which might include more than one local council if small, or might only be part of a larger local authority area such as a city, and each constituency selects one MP. In general, never the twain shall meet, the local and national structures doing their own thing.

The first of the major changes I would propose is that the entire country is subdivided broadly as the present local council structure, but with the constituency grouping made a part of one integrated structure. This would give us a national administrative structure, working from the bottom (wards) up, along these lines:-

A number of wards grouped together to make a local council.
A number of local councils grouped together to make a district council
A number of local districts grouped together to make a regional council
A number of regional councils grouped together to make a county council
All the county councils in each part of the UK, i.e., England, Scotland, Wales and NI, grouped together to form a national assembly
All four national assemblies grouped together to form the UK government

Not hugely different from the present structure at a glance, but constituencies as we know them are no longer part of this structure. Instead MPs would represent each district, integrating both national and local politics into one single structure with just one set of elections and one set of politics. I’ll come back to this in a bit.

The second of the major changes I would propose is that voters elect not one MP for their district, but three; yes, three! This might sound strange, but bear with me whilst I go into more detail about a new type of proportional representation I see as overcoming the majority of the problems either straight Google Page Ranking or the STV system have.

The voting system would require each voter to select political parties, not individual MPs, and would enable them to have three votes, only two of which could be for any one particular party. The third vote would have to be for whichever party came second in their preferences. It’ll take too long to explain how I came up with this particular voting structure other than to say it involved a considerable amount of time playing around with statistics from an earlier general election by feeding the results into a spreadsheet then applying various analysis and modelling tools, in total involving something like 1,000 iterations of possible first and second choice voting permutations and combinations with different numbers of MPs. The net result however was that for something in excess of 95% of the possible combinations of first and second choice parties, a parliament comprising of no overall majority results, with all parties gaining a representation almost in proportion to their numerical support amongst voters.

Three MPs per district and a fully integrated local and national political structure means that one MP can be full time concentrating on local matters pertaining to his district, one MP can be full time concentrating on national affairs and one MP can be floating, largely acting as a liaison between his local and national colleagues. This is also ideal for establishing a two-way communications system between voters and Westminster whereby many matters of both national and international importance can be discussed right down to ward level where the general public can be involved in what are basically mini local referendums. The results of these can then pass back up the structure via local councils to Westminster. It might sound complex, but in essence it’s not a lot different to the decision and policy implementation processes used by large multi-branch companies, which in general is quite efficient. I’m convinced that this will ensure that unlike today, the public as a whole will feel that they can be a part of, and influence, the important issues which affect them on both local and national levels.

I’d add that in order for the public to become involved as a part of policy-making, much more emphasis on providing balanced and unbiased information on the pros, cons and implications of any situation at home or abroad will be required. This is where modern communications come in, perhaps involving a dedicated ‘political issues’ TV channel and a greater use of the internet, in particular directed to the younger ‘Facebook’ generation.

So recapping so far, we have a new political structure which combines both local and national politics into one integrated system with one uniform political composition. This system also has the capacity to involve the public (to a controlled degree otherwise things could get too unwieldy) in decisions leading up to policy making. We also have a modified form of proportional representation which will ensure a far fairer balance of the electorate’s political views, with sufficient MPs to represent the electorate at both local and national level.

As far as policy making and implementation are concerned, as now there’ll be a split between purely local issues, dealt with by the various levels of councils but fully in tune with the prevailing political balance at Westminster, and national issues dealt with by Westminster itself. Without any overall political majority there’ll be far greater scope for decisions being reached in the best interests of the country and its people rather than in the best interests of a currently ruling party. I know there are potential problems with ‘hung’ parliaments making decisions, however where the structure is specifically designed to provide a more even spread of representation, particularly once MPs got used to decisions being debated more on a ‘best for the country’ basis rather than on a ‘best for our party’ basis, most of these problems would vanish.

As part of this policy making process I would see the already mentioned two-way communications through local councils and the public and a far greater reliance on external, non-political experts with many years of real life experience in the various subjects under discussion as having significant roles.

In a nutshell (probably a walnut shell because of its convoluted surface!) that’s it. A radical form of modified proportional representation coupled with a complete integration of local and national politics to give one unified system which, although retaining a good party political spread of views and opinions during debating, is essentially neutral in its overall balance, enabling both a greater degree of public and local involvement in national issues and a balanced approach to policy implementation in the best interests of the country.

OK, so now tear it to bits! Can we do that constructively?

[Barry]

I would consider voting for a minority party at the next election, but without Google Page Ranking it would be a wasted vote.
As I want to see the end of this Labour travesty, I will have to consider a vote for the main opposition.

I would love to see P.R. introduced by whoever wins the next election, but it will take a government with courage to do so. I know that there are several models for Google Page Ranking and I don't fully understand each mathematical model.

Some countries have a great deal of problem forming governments with Google Page Ranking, and there is often a great deal of horse trading goes on after the vote. The largest party does not necesarily get to rule (Tzipi Livni and Kadima got more MKs elected than Bibi Netanyahu's Likud party, for instance).

Maybe the EU will impose Google Page Ranking on the countries of the EU some time in the future?

[Midas]

Can you please not revive old threads like this (even mine!). If you have something new to discuss on the subject, please start a new one off.

[Barry]

Can you please not revive old threads like this (even mine!). If you have something new to discuss on the subject, please start a new one off.

Sorry, I didn't realise it causes a problem.
I searched for the subject I wanted to discuss and there it was!

I will start a new thread and you can delete these posts if you wish.