Our favourite topic: Voting Systems!!!!

[Millennie Al]

How could PR possibly make this worse?

By putting groups like Britain First in a position where they've got MPs.

If you're designing an electoral system to favour those you like ir disfavour those you hate, then that's not fair or democratic. Decomcracy means the voters can fairly express their preferences and that they get what they voted for regardless of its merits.

And by completely breaking any link between a constituency and its MP. PR would mean some areas - or more specifically some types of areas - just don't have MPs live there.

That's not a property of PR. It's a property of some systems within PR. PR is a broad category which includes both the excellent multi-member STV which is far better than FPTP and the extremely bad closed party list system, which is even worse than FPTP.

[dyqik]

...the most popular candidate (presumably the FPTP winner).

Blimey. Why waste time nitpicking about what the word "word" means when it's obvious what the ideal voting system is.

My comments related to AV, which I am guessing is not the one you consider to be the ideal voting system. It's not my ideal voting system either, and I was trying to explain why some comments made in its favour don't really make sense.

And I was discussing Ranked Choice Voting, not what was up in the AV referendum.

By most popular, I mean the candidate that gets the most high ranking votes - i.e. the winner under RCV/STV, and by acceptable, I mean they get some level of support from the majority of voters.

Obviously I don't mean the FPTP winner, because I'm discussing a better option than FPTP.

[Millennie Al]

Well, my 'analysis' of the 2019 GE, looks like this (there are a few rounding errors and so forth, but it's about right)
GE19.jpg
Full PR would certainly give a more honest representation of what people voted for. Though we'd probably still have ended up with a far right coalition.

We got into this mess because the Conservatives were afraid that UKIP would take enough of their votes that Labour would get in. This made the Conservatives adopt UKIP extremism (on the rational basis that most of their voters would not defect to Labour even if they disagreed, but it would keep UKIP small). Under STV that scenario is impossible. A shift in policy would result in loss of seats as people could use their preferences to choose between different Conservative candidates in the same constituency, so the extremists would be kept out. Equally, voters who preferred UKIP would not necessarily cause the Conservatives to lose many seats as they could put a Conservative candidate as a second preference, so not favouring Labour where the UKIP candidate had too few votes to be elected. Under FPTP a small party that threatens a large one has very disproportionate influence merely through the threat of taking away votes even if those votes do not end up electing anyone.

[Millennie Al]

My comments related to AV, which I am guessing is not the one you consider to be the ideal voting system. It's not my ideal voting system either, and I was trying to explain why some comments made in its favour don't really make sense.

What are you talking about now? There is no ideal voting system.

Indeed. Arrow's Impossibility Theorem proves that there is no ideal voting system (in reasonable circumstance). But that doesn't mean that it's impossible to say that one system is much better than another. After all, there's no maximum integer, but we can all agree that 1000 is much bigger than 8.

[Grumble]

I appreciate PR is an important subject but we’re no longer talking about Starmer here. Time for a thread split?

[TimW]

...the most popular candidate (presumably the FPTP winner).

Blimey. Why waste time nitpicking about what the word "word" means when it's obvious what the ideal voting system is.

My comments related to AV, which I am guessing is not the one you consider to be the ideal voting system. It's not my ideal voting system either, and I was trying to explain why some comments made in its favour don't really make sense.

What are you talking about now? There is no ideal voting system.

I've got to the point where I am prepared to agree to pretty much anything. So I agree with you that there is no ideal voting system, and I agree with you that it is obvious what that system is.

FPTP, apparently, based on your presumption.

[TimW]

My comments related to AV, which I am guessing is not the one you consider to be the ideal voting system. It's not my ideal voting system either, and I was trying to explain why some comments made in its favour don't really make sense.

What are you talking about now? There is no ideal voting system.

Indeed. Arrow's Impossibility Theorem proves that there is no ideal voting system (in reasonable circumstance). But that doesn't mean that it's impossible to say that one system is much better than another. After all, there's no maximum integer, but we can all agree that 1000 is much bigger than 8.

Above that, it's necessary to work out what things you think are desirable in a system, and no actual proposed sytem will perfectly achieve those. Much time can be wasted talking about an imperfection in a system as though that automatically rules it out when in reality none are going to be ideal.

[EACLucifer]

I appreciate PR is an important subject but we’re no longer talking about Starmer here. Time for a thread split?

Seconded.

And regarding Starmer, Labour's up to a 20-30pt poll lead. While part of that of course is how dreadful the Tories are, it also shows the advantage of getting a credible, non-crank leader who isn't perceived to hate his own country.

Thus inevitably the people that preferred the crank who brought antisemitism into the open within the party are now angry that Starmer isn't putting their pet cause front and centre.

[Lew Dolby]

I quite like the system in New Zealand.

It gives parties the number of seats that their 'party' votes says they should have. Means eg the Greens would get more seats and so would parties like UKIP. But that's democracy.

Perhaps some of you more knowledgable guys could point out the downsides.

[Bird on a Fire]

I appreciate PR is an important subject but we’re no longer talking about Starmer here. Time for a thread split?

Seconded.

And regarding Starmer, Labour's up to a 20-30pt poll lead. While part of that of course is how dreadful the Tories are, it also shows the advantage of getting a credible, non-crank leader who isn't perceived to hate his own country.

Thus inevitably the people that preferred the crank who brought antisemitism into the open within the party are now angry that Starmer isn't putting their pet cause front and centre.

The crank left have certainly been making themselves look silly of late, but PR is hardly their pet project - it's been Lib Dem policy for ages, Blair promised it too, and I actually don't recall it being the main thing that excited people about Corbyn. PR is very popular with people in the centre, which shouldn't be surprising.

[Little waster]

This thread needs a poll on the best* voting system.

And then a 7-page argument on which voting system to use to tally the poll results, followed by another thread-split.

[Grumble]

I’m going to say again, introduce PR at local level first. Get people used to it.

[Stephanie]

I appreciate PR is an important subject but we’re no longer talking about Starmer here. Time for a thread split?

Seconded.

And regarding Starmer, Labour's up to a 20-30pt poll lead. While part of that of course is how dreadful the Tories are, it also shows the advantage of getting a credible, non-crank leader who isn't perceived to hate his own country.

Thus inevitably the people that preferred the crank who brought antisemitism into the open within the party are now angry that Starmer isn't putting their pet cause front and centre.

The crank left have certainly been making themselves look silly of late, but PR is hardly their pet project - it's been Lib Dem policy for ages, Blair promised it too, and I actually don't recall it being the main thing that excited people about Corbyn. PR is very popular with people in the centre, which shouldn't be surprising.

Yeah, this is true. This isn't their pet cause at all.

[Bird on a Fire]

I’m going to say again, introduce PR at local level first. Get people used to it.

"Don't fix the actual problem, do something minor and irrelevant as a practice instead" is part of the problem with UK politics: obsessing over gradualism as if it's inherently more sensible.

Did the people in NI, Scotland, Wales and London need to practice voting under PR?

Alternatively, surely the demonstrated ease of use at those "local" levels is sufficient to get on with fixing Westminster?

[Grumble]

I’m going to say again, introduce PR at local level first. Get people used to it.

"Don't fix the actual problem, do something minor and irrelevant as a practice instead" is part of the problem with UK politics: obsessing over gradualism as if it's inherently more sensible.

Did the people in NI, Scotland, Wales and London need to practice voting under PR?

Alternatively, surely the demonstrated ease of use at those "local" levels is sufficient to get on with fixing Westminster?

The majority of voters in the U.K. have no experience of PR outside of European Parliament elections. This is everyone in England outside of London. I have no experience or appreciation of what the different systems are.

[Bird on a Fire]

You either tick a box or write numbers in a few boxes. I'm sure you could cope. A leaflet would probably be enough explanation rather than delaying things by an extra electoral cycle or two, which is obviously a bit of a gamble.

In any case, EU and local elections had similar turnout, so you wouldn't be reaching any extra voters to train them. Plus I'm not sure why local elections should be considered less important to use as a sandbox.

[dyqik]

I’m going to say again, introduce PR at local level first. Get people used to it.

"Don't fix the actual problem, do something minor and irrelevant as a practice instead" is part of the problem with UK politics: obsessing over gradualism as if it's inherently more sensible.

Did the people in NI, Scotland, Wales and London need to practice voting under PR?

Alternatively, surely the demonstrated ease of use at those "local" levels is sufficient to get on with fixing Westminster?

The majority of voters in the U.K. have no experience of PR outside of European Parliament elections. This is everyone in England outside of London. I have no experience or appreciation of what the different systems are.

So in other words, almost every voter in the UK has had a chance to use these systems before.

I've used STV for student union votes, academic project board representation, social committee, etc. etc.

[Grumble]

You either tick a box or write numbers in a few boxes. I'm sure you could cope. A leaflet would probably be enough explanation rather than delaying things by an extra electoral cycle or two, which is obviously a bit of a gamble.

In any case, EU and local elections had similar turnout, so you wouldn't be reaching any extra voters to train them. Plus I'm not sure why local elections should be considered less important to use as a sandbox.

Just to recap, I’m suggesting using local elections as a way to familiarise people, you’re saying that in plenty of places people are already familiar because they use PR in their local elections. Yes, I agree, extend the same courtesy to the rest of the population please? Local elections are fundamentally less important because they don’t set national policy, don’t be obtuse.

[Bird on a Fire]

You either tick a box or write numbers in a few boxes. I'm sure you could cope. A leaflet would probably be enough explanation rather than delaying things by an extra electoral cycle or two, which is obviously a bit of a gamble.

In any case, EU and local elections had similar turnout, so you wouldn't be reaching any extra voters to train them. Plus I'm not sure why local elections should be considered less important to use as a sandbox.

Just to recap, I’m suggesting using local elections as a way to familiarise people, you’re saying that in plenty of places people are already familiar because they use PR in their local elections. Yes, I agree, extend the same courtesy to the rest of the population please? Local elections are fundamentally less important because they don’t set national policy, don’t be obtuse.

I just don't see why it's necessary. Nobody gets training or familiarization before their first election. Depending on the PR system, there's no difference to the end user in what you do anyway. A more complex system might require a brief explanation ("write numbers next to candidates in order of preference"), for which there would be plenty of time before an election.

Plus, the minority of voters who turn out for local elections are probably mostly the same minority who turned out for EU elections, so they already know what they're doing. It's only the post-2019 intake of new voters who haven't had a chance to use PR, and most of them haven't had a chance to use FPTP either, so in either case they'd be flying blind.

Is there actually any evidence of large-scale problems resulting from a new/changed in voting system in western democracies? Really not sure what you're worrying about here.

[Woodchopper]

Is there actually any evidence of large-scale problems resulting from a new/changed in voting system in western democracies? Really not sure what you're worrying about here.

As far as I know there weren't any significant problems when the Scottish and Welsh parliaments brought in PR. No need to look elsewhere.

[discovolante]

You either tick a box or write numbers in a few boxes. I'm sure you could cope. A leaflet would probably be enough explanation rather than delaying things by an extra electoral cycle or two, which is obviously a bit of a gamble.

In any case, EU and local elections had similar turnout, so you wouldn't be reaching any extra voters to train them. Plus I'm not sure why local elections should be considered less important to use as a sandbox.

Just to recap, I’m suggesting using local elections as a way to familiarise people, you’re saying that in plenty of places people are already familiar because they use PR in their local elections. Yes, I agree, extend the same courtesy to the rest of the population please? Local elections are fundamentally less important because they don’t set national policy, don’t be obtuse.

I might be misunderstanding this bit of your post, so sorry if so, but devolved parliamentary elections are not 'local elections'.

So, deciding which voting system to use can be quite tricky. And properly fully understanding it may be too. But at the end of the day for most of them you go into the voting booth and go right, I like this person the most, then this one next and so on. I think electoral systems should be accessible and understandable but arguing against them compared to less effective and representative ones is another kind of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good (like TimW mentioned earlier).

[purplehaze]

The last European Parliament election in the UK was 23 May 2019, uses STV. The last Parliamentary election in the UK was 12 December 2019, uses FPTP.

I think the vast majority of the electorate is able to use the STV system, e.g. DUP voters.

[Bird on a Fire]

Toynbee's quite good here on why this matters: Why is Labour ignoring its own members on electoral reform?

Progressives almost always outvote the right, according to the Electoral Reform Society. But the right nearly always wins under the current first-past-the-post system because the centre and centre-left vote has been fatally split ever since the rising Labour party failed to kill off the remnant of the old Liberals. At the last local elections, in 85% of seats just one rightist – a single Tory – confronted an anti-Tory vote split between two or three Labour, Lib Dem and Green candidates. Readers of these pages know the well-rehearsed reasons why the Guardian backs electoral reform. The political scientist Sir John Curtice says the system is now more biased towards the Conservatives than at any time since the 1950s, when Labour on its own outpolled them but lost.

At the next election, the Tories only need a five-point lead to win, while Labour needs to be 12 points ahead because the latter’s voters are clumped in the same seats, while Tory supporters are spread more widely. According to political academic Prof Robert Ford: “Citizens living in countries with more proportional electoral systems are more politically engaged and turn out more in elections”, delivering “healthier democracies with happier voters”.

Due to these structural biases in FPTP, no matter how good Labour's polling is they should assume they have exactly one parliamentary term to effect democratic reform (and whatever other important fixes they want to introduce). If you want the country to have a more representative, less biased electoral system there simply isn't time for faffing about with practice elections.

[Grumble]

You either tick a box or write numbers in a few boxes. I'm sure you could cope. A leaflet would probably be enough explanation rather than delaying things by an extra electoral cycle or two, which is obviously a bit of a gamble.

In any case, EU and local elections had similar turnout, so you wouldn't be reaching any extra voters to train them. Plus I'm not sure why local elections should be considered less important to use as a sandbox.

Just to recap, I’m suggesting using local elections as a way to familiarise people, you’re saying that in plenty of places people are already familiar because they use PR in their local elections. Yes, I agree, extend the same courtesy to the rest of the population please? Local elections are fundamentally less important because they don’t set national policy, don’t be obtuse.

I might be misunderstanding this bit of your post, so sorry if so, but devolved parliamentary elections are not 'local elections'.

So, deciding which voting system to use can be quite tricky. And properly fully understanding it may be too. But at the end of the day for most of them you go into the voting booth and go right, I like this person the most, then this one next and so on. I think electoral systems should be accessible and understandable but arguing against them compared to less effective and representative ones is another kind of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good (like TimW mentioned earlier).

Local is the wrong word perhaps, but they’re a tier below Westminster elections.

[discovolante]

Just to recap, I’m suggesting using local elections as a way to familiarise people, you’re saying that in plenty of places people are already familiar because they use PR in their local elections. Yes, I agree, extend the same courtesy to the rest of the population please? Local elections are fundamentally less important because they don’t set national policy, don’t be obtuse.

I might be misunderstanding this bit of your post, so sorry if so, but devolved parliamentary elections are not 'local elections'.

So, deciding which voting system to use can be quite tricky. And properly fully understanding it may be too. But at the end of the day for most of them you go into the voting booth and go right, I like this person the most, then this one next and so on. I think electoral systems should be accessible and understandable but arguing against them compared to less effective and representative ones is another kind of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good (like TimW mentioned earlier).

Local is the wrong word perhaps, but they’re a tier below Westminster elections.

Well yes of course a lot of people will say that a lot of the really important stuff isn't included, but they are still a vote for education, aspects of taxation, justice, health, housing, planning, transport, environment etc etc...so I think you are drawing a false equivalence there.