Proportional Representation

[miss_s_b]

While I welcome the fact that PR has suddenly become sexy again, I think people need to be more precise when they are talking about it. There are many forms of PR, and not all of them will have the desired effects. As Mark Reckons's famouse graph shows, the correlation is between safe seats and corruption. A system that doesn't remove safe seats is therefore in the interests of the two main parties, who will do anything to preserve the status quo, where they retain as much of the power as possible, and not in the interests of the electorate.

Resist the siren call of party list systems, which are used in the London Assembly, and simply embed the power of the parties. Nothing but STV in multi-member constituencies will do. STV abolishes safe seats, maintains the constituency link, and means that you can vote for one candidate from a party, but not another from the same party. Like constitutional monarchy, it's the worst system, apart from all the others.

And lest anyone think I am saying this out of mere partisanship: thanks to Chris Rennard, our party is actually best geared up to fighting FPTP elections, and would likely LOSE seats if STV came in. But as Liberals, we put principles over self interest. Yes, I know, it sounds unbelievable, doesn't it? But it's true.

---

This blog is proudly sponsored by

Comments

[burkesworks]

List systems should be resisted at all costs; all they do is provide a platform for party spooges that won't get chosen in any constituency worth its salt, likewise the "plus" element of AV+.

What, though, if Johnson offers a choice of regular AV or the status quo? Bear in mind multi-member STV is most unlikely to be on the table, sadly. AV is far from perfect but it's an improvement - assuming of course there is no "instant runoff" element as in the London mayoral elections, where Paddick picked up loads of second choices that were worth doodleysquat. As things stand there's a window between now and about this time next year to get things moving, because it's safe to assume any kind of PR system won't be on offer once Callmedave's in Number Ten.

Nothing proportional about AV

[(Anonymous)]

I agree with burkesworks about party lists (though a very open list system like that in Finland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_list) is not all bad).

But we should beware of being fobbed off with AV. If AV produced more proportional results it would be by accident, not by design. In Australia the lower house is elected by AV and the result has been hegemony of two parties (whereas in the Senate there is a multiparty system because of STV). This article (http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2007/07/10/would-av-finish-off-the-tories/) from politicalbetting.com argues cogently that AV would worsen the existing anti-Conservative bias in the electoral system.

In practical terms, if STV is too radical a change for Westminster we could get agreement on introducing STV in local elections in England and Wales (as has already been done in Scotland). This could be combined with devolution of power to local authorities, which David Cameron suddenly seems to love. After a few years with STV at the local level people would probably warm to it and a referendum could be held for replacing FPTP at Westminster. Many councils have multi-seat wards already anyway so the boundary changes would often be not very great.