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

[(Anonymous)]

Jennie.

I agree in principle with what you are saying but the pragmatist in me just wants to get people on board for PR first before we start going into the specific detail of what system.

I have expended on my thoughts here (http://markreckons.blogspot.com/2009/05/debating-different-forms-of-pr.html) if you are interested.

Cheers,

Mark Reckons.

[miss_s_b]

The thing is, if you're not specific about what system you are advocating, you then have to defend against criticisms which don't apply to all systems.

[(Anonymous)]

Well maybe I am being too sensitive about this but I just fear that this perhaps once in a political generation opportunity could degenerate into internecine squabbling between proponents of different forms of PR and ultimately we get stuck with FPTP for another 30 years.

I agree though about the having to defend against non-criticisms. I don't really know how to square this circle.

[miss_s_b]

The Electoral reform people favour STV. The Lib Dems favour STV. The vast majority of the public, when given correct information on all systems, favour STV. The only people who don't are the MSM and the Tories, who don't favour PR at all, and Labour because AV is better for them. The squabbling between proponents of different forms of PR is a myth put about by the MSM to ensure that we don't get ANY PR.

[(Anonymous)]

Well I certainly don't want to be playing into the hands of opponents of PR.

Because I have spent the time getting to understand what the different electoral systems are, I am fully aware of how STV is the best (or least worst) system but whenever I have tried to explain it to non-politicos their eyes glaze over.

I think this is where my reticence comes from because I have seen first hand how hard it is to make this case compelling to people who aren't interested.

I will think about what you have said though and might blog about myself at some point.

[miss_s_b]

It's a problem we have with a lot of Lib Dem policies - they aren't simple soundbites, they are elegant, complex solutions to complex problems. It's always hard to make them sexy. But it needs to be done, somehow.

[(Anonymous)]

But "PR" is a pretty vague term, including a huge variety of types of voting system. I agree with Jennie that you have to be clearer and more specific from the outset in what you're arguing for, and why. And "fairness" isn't good enough. You could pray that in aid for all sorts of voting systems, including FPTP.