Our favourite topic: Voting Systems!!!!

[monkey]

Originally from the Truss thread. posted here to keep topics together.

All reasons why the next Labour government need to implement PR... to keep the Tories out of government.

Obvious to pretty much everyone except the party leader, apparently.

It's quite common amongst all wings of the Labour Party to oppose PR because they would never get a majority, because Labour have never won a majority of the vote*. This is not the majority view of the membership. Of course, this argument depends on the type of PR you have (some are more proportional than others), and that people would vote the same way under both systems. So while the Tories would be mostly kept out of power, Labour would be dependent on Lib Dems, SNP and Greens. I am not sure how this is an argument against, as the supporters of PR say this is what they want - a parliament/government that is more representative of the people.

Some also reckon that it would split the party, thus making it weaker. But that would be just as likely to happen to the Tories, although they are better at pretending to be a unified party.

I think Starmer is going to go for Lords reform, rather than commons though, which also needs doing. I reckon he thinks that Lords and Commons reform in one manifesto would be too much all at once. Not sure how much of Gordon Brown's ideas will be kept, but those are floating about now they've been leaked.


*The last time the Tories managed this was in 1935.

[Sciolus]

I think Starmer is going to go for Lords reform, rather than commons though, which also needs doing. I reckon he thinks that Lords and Commons reform in one manifesto would be too much all at once. Not sure how much of Gordon Brown's ideas will be kept, but those are floating about now they've been leaked.

Well yeah, but the fundamental reason why Lords reform is impossible is precisely Commons reform. Any change to the Lords will either be undemocratic, which is unacceptable; or democratic, which will challenge the supremacy of the Commons. PR is a prerequisite for Lords reform.

[Bird on a Fire]

Plus the membership want it https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... to-back-pr

I think there's a rare window where UK voters might actually have an appetite for radical reform that would improve the functioning of the country. It would be a massive disappointment to waste that opportunity.

[monkey]

I think Starmer is going to go for Lords reform, rather than commons though, which also needs doing. I reckon he thinks that Lords and Commons reform in one manifesto would be too much all at once. Not sure how much of Gordon Brown's ideas will be kept, but those are floating about now they've been leaked.

Well yeah, but the fundamental reason why Lords reform is impossible is precisely Commons reform. Any change to the Lords will either be undemocratic, which is unacceptable; or democratic, which will challenge the supremacy of the Commons. PR is a prerequisite for Lords reform.

There wasn't much detail with the reporting of Brown's ideas, as far as I know, but "The House of Lords would be reformed as an assembly of regions and nations, with a remit of safeguarding the constitution and with power to refer the government to the supreme court. Labour peers are being consulted on the proposals." Which seems like a completely different job to what it does now, going further than just making it democratic.

There was also a bunch of stuff about doing more devolution.

clicky

[discovolante]

Plus the membership want it https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... to-back-pr

I think there's a rare window where UK voters might actually have an appetite for radical reform that would improve the functioning of the country. It would be a massive disappointment to waste that opportunity.

It's f.cking ridiculous to think that an electorate wouldn't be able to deal with anything other than FPTP and anyone who suggests otherwise or nitpicks over details in order to justify and maintain the status quo is entirely blinded by self interest. Fact.

Nick Clegg still sold out though

[Bird on a Fire]

Plus the membership want it https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... to-back-pr

I think there's a rare window where UK voters might actually have an appetite for radical reform that would improve the functioning of the country. It would be a massive disappointment to waste that opportunity.

It's f.cking ridiculous to think that an electorate wouldn't be able to deal with anything other than FPTP and anyone who suggests otherwise or nitpicks over details in order to justify and maintain the status quo is entirely blinded by self interest. Fact.

Nick Clegg still sold out though

And Blair.

At least Starmer isn't bothering to lie about it, I guess? But it seems to confirm the view that he's basically a "shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic" kind of guy. Not the leader of the opposition the UK needs, but possibly the one it deserves.

[Bird on a Fire]

The interesting implication of the idea that UK voters couldn't cope with PR is that they're stupider than voters in most other Western democracies, who cope with it just fine.

Regardless of the merits of such a statement it seems a bold one for a vote-thirsty up-and-comer to go for.

[EACLucifer]

The interesting implication of the idea that UK voters couldn't cope with PR is that they're stupider than voters in most other Western democracies, who cope with it just fine.

Regardless of the merits of such a statement it seems a bold one for a vote-thirsty up-and-comer to go for.

But Starmer needs to be positioning himself as a self pair of hands in comparison to all those reckless Tory fools and their economically destructive radical politics.

[jdc]

The interesting implication of the idea that UK voters couldn't cope with PR is that they're stupider than voters in most other Western democracies, who cope with it just fine.

Regardless of the merits of such a statement it seems a bold one for a vote-thirsty up-and-comer to go for.

English voters. The Scots, Welsh, and Northern Irish voters seem to be OK with STV and AMS for their own elections.

Sorry, not all English voters. London Assembly uses AMS as well.

So he's just calling some English voters f.cking idiots. Which is pretty fair really, but like you say an interesting tactic.

[Grumble]

The interesting implication of the idea that UK voters couldn't cope with PR is that they're stupider than voters in most other Western democracies, who cope with it just fine.

Regardless of the merits of such a statement it seems a bold one for a vote-thirsty up-and-comer to go for.

English voters. The Scots, Welsh, and Northern Irish voters seem to be OK with STV and AMS for their own elections.

Sorry, not all English voters. London Assembly uses AMS as well.

So he's just calling some English voters f.cking idiots. Which is pretty fair really, but like you say an interesting tactic.

If you can win elections without it then you don’t need to set it as a priority. PR also tends to make smaller parties more viable and hence would lead to the diminishing of the Labour Party, so hardly likely to be a priority for the Labour leader. Can you see Momentum staying as Labour members when the Momentum Party could get a few seats?

Also, the main experience English voters have of PR is its use in the European Parliament elections, so it is tainted. If you want to introduce PR then start by making council elections PR.

[TopBadger]

Liz Truss just got in and, having not put her economic (or indeed, any) ideas to the country first, decided to do them anyway - with more severe repercussions than departing from FPTP.

So this idea that Labour can't be 'bold' and do things outside of a manifesto regarding voting reform are clearly bollocks.

[gosling]

In theory I want PR, but then I remember that UKIP got 12.6% of the vote in 2015.

[jimbob]

In theory I want PR, but then I remember that UKIP got 12.6% of the vote in 2015.

That is one reason why I am in favour of AV. It gives the least-unpopular candidate in each constituency as opposed to the one with the largest plurality.

I tend to think that the ability to vote someone OUT should be the most important thing.

I also dislike party lists as they're a recipe for patronage and corruption.

[Martin_B]

In theory I want PR, but then I remember that UKIP got 12.6% of the vote in 2015.

Australia has a form of PR for the senate. This means that Labor (who won the election in the lower house) have 26 of 76 seats, Liberal (Tories) have 26, Nationals (Farmers) have 6, and the Greens have 12 (13 if you include David Pocock).

But then One Nation (essentially UKIP) also have 2 seats and United Australia (a rabid pro-business party which makes the Tories seem reasonable) have a seat.

PR means that the extremists get more of a platform than under FPTP.

[Little waster]

In theory I want PR, but then I remember that UKIP got 12.6% of the vote in 2015.

I suppose the counter to that is under FPTP they still managed to leverage that into winning a referendum in 2016.

[Bird on a Fire]

Who cares about 12.6%? FPTP gave the Tories a majority on 36.8% of the votes. Even adding the two together wouldn't have delivered a majority. A victory for the sensible middle.

Yes, Labour might also lose the opportunity to do similar, e.g. if they got their wish and lost Momentum to a lefty split-off. They'd have to put the country before the party, and consider how to cooperate with other parties.

But looking at the map on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proport ... esentation it's countries without PR - Italy, Hungary, USA, UK - which seem to have more of a history of electing dodgy extremists.

[dyqik]

In theory I want PR, but then I remember that UKIP got 12.6% of the vote in 2015.

I suppose the counter to that is under FPTP they still managed to leverage that into winning a referendum in 2016.

And an election in 2019, having essentially taken over the Tory party.

[dyqik]

In theory I want PR, but then I remember that UKIP got 12.6% of the vote in 2015.

Australia has a form of PR for the senate. This means that Labor (who won the election in the lower house) have 26 of 76 seats, Liberal (Tories) have 26, Nationals (Farmers) have 6, and the Greens have 12 (13 if you include David Pocock).

But then One Nation (essentially UKIP) also have 2 seats and United Australia (a rabid pro-business party which makes the Tories seem reasonable) have a seat.

PR means that the extremists get more of a platform than under FPTP.

There are versions of PR that deal with that - e.g. a threshold below which a party gets no seats - usually 5% or so.

Separately, ranked choice voting is also helpful there.

[dyqik]

Who cares about 12.6%? FPTP gave the Tories a majority on 36.8% of the votes. Even adding the two together wouldn't have delivered a majority. A victory for the sensible middle.

The other question you have to ask is what were the preferences of people in safe Tory and Labour constituencies who didn't vote at all because it wouldn't make any difference, and how many people in safe constituencies voted UKIP as a protest vote.

Polls are probably a better measure of likely results under PR than FPTP results.

[bagpuss]

Who cares about 12.6%? FPTP gave the Tories a majority on 36.8% of the votes. Even adding the two together wouldn't have delivered a majority. A victory for the sensible middle.

The other question you have to ask is what were the preferences of people in safe Tory and Labour constituencies who didn't vote at all because it wouldn't make any difference, and how many people in safe constituencies voted UKIP as a protest vote.

Polls are probably a better measure of likely results under PR than FPTP results.

My bold - lots of people in this safe Tory seat voted UKIP because they're fuckwits and thought that doing so might stop HS2. UKIP were very clever and their campaigning in this area was almost entirely based on the fact that they were anti HS2. UKIP might perhaps have got even more votes under PR, if people thought that might make it more likely for UKIP to get enough votes to have representation in parliament, but it was a one off issue that simply wouldn't apply now - it's a bit late to stop HS2 cutting down our local trees and demolishing houses when they've already been cut down/demolished.

[dyqik]

Local false messaging like that is much harder under PR as well.

[nekomatic]

In theory I want PR, but then I remember that UKIP got 12.6% of the vote in 2015.

I also dislike party lists as they're a recipe for patronage and corruption.

I have yet to hear an argument against PR that stands up in the face of UK experience 2010-2022.

[dyqik]

In theory I want PR, but then I remember that UKIP got 12.6% of the vote in 2015.

I also dislike party lists as they're a recipe for patronage and corruption.

I have yet to hear an argument against PR that stands up in the face of UK experience 2010-2022.

When the parties already parachute favored sons and daughters into safe seats, party list patronage is alive and well in FPTP.

[nekomatic]

When the parties already parachute favored sons and daughters into safe seats, party list patronage is alive and well in FPTP.

Exactly this. We already have lists of party placemen and women effectively nominated to parliament. We already have right-wing extremists not only represented in parliament but in control of the actual government. How could PR possibly make this worse?

[EACLucifer]

When the parties already parachute favored sons and daughters into safe seats, party list patronage is alive and well in FPTP.

Exactly this. We already have lists of party placemen and women effectively nominated to parliament. We already have right-wing extremists not only represented in parliament but in control of the actual government. How could PR possibly make this worse?

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

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.

To me, the best approach would be a transferable vote for the commons, for the reasons Jimbob outlined, and then a House of Lords doing roughly what it does now, but elected directly using either PR or large multi-member regional constituencies (basically PR but less risk of London taking over absolutely everything) and with terms rather longer than those of the Commons and overlapping, so that the second chamber moves more slowly and acts as a moderating influence on the Commons.