There’s a lot of fear, uncertainty and doubt floating around on Twitter about what exactly proportional representation, or PR, means.
I’ve dusted off my notes from the excellent module on Parliamentary Reform which I took at Hull, under the tutoring of Lord Norton, the UK’s “greatest living expert on Parliament” according to the Political Studies Association (if you’re a political journalist reading this, get out there and get a quote from him!) They’re still very dusty after a quick rewrite, so please bear with me as I continue to update this post.
POINT #1: PR is a category of various forms of “Proportional Representation,” not a system in itself.
To say “I support PR” is to say “I support a system that elects a number of representatives that is closer to the popular vote.”
POINT #2: What are the possible systems of PR?
Alternative Vote (or AV) - vote 1, 2, 3 in single member constituencies. Not true PR. Maintains constituencies. Could be even less proportional than FPTP. Removes tactical voting, but doesn’t remove legitimacy issues. Party with least secondary support would be main loser (Conservatives).
Alternative Vote top-up (or AV+) - the Jenkins Commission recommended this. AV in most constituencies, plus 15-20% regional/top-up seats voting for a party list or party itself. This system would advantage party with biggest majority, so Labour would have actually increased the number of seats it gained in 2005!
Regional list- English regions, percentage wins same percentage of seats. Could put limit to stop small parties. Benefits Lib Dems. No-one really suggesting it.
Additional Member System (or AMS) - national and local preference. Local MPs elected FPTP, then additional national party list members are chosen. National vote divided by MPs won (plus one- d’Hondt method), gives national MPs.
Single Transferrable Vote (or STV) - ranking of candidates in multimember constituencies.
POINT #3: No system of PR is perfect.
PR undermines adversarial politics, and makes you choose between coalitions or a clear winner.
It could be more complicated. People know how FPTP works, and seem to be happy with it, even when it results in a minority Government like last week. I’ll update this bit if there are riots on the streets.
Polls say people want PR, but when faced with actual choices about systems, people aren’t so sure. People are concerned about smaller parties, which means you have to bring in threshold systems like in Germany, where every party needs to get more than a minimum percentage of votes to gain seats (stopping the BNP in Barking, for instance).
Most systems of PR increase the likelihood of coalition Governments that no-one is happy with. Everyone will be forced to ask the question of whether their first choice is preferable over their least objectionable choice.
The problem of poor voter turnout is not solved by PR (although it has been shown to increase turnout by around 5 per cent, which would mean an extra 3 million votes in the UK). Deprivation and age are much bigger factors in turnout.
POINT #4: PR does have some very notable advantages.
Non-PR systems are inherently unfair. A large number of electorate vote for parties and they get very little power.
In FPTP minorities can win local and national elections and result in a most popular minority election.
FPTP is unrepresentative.
Systems of PR increase public confidence - there are no “wasted votes.”
PR allows popular mandates.
Shifting votes under PR are not so dramatic: a 1 or 2% shift means only 1-2% shift in seats.
It increases the credibility of Government strategies. Industries and financial markets are able to plan ahead more effectively when they don’t have to factor for two wildly different electoral outcomes.
PR is arguably more constructive, more collaborative and more open. This can be shown by attitude to FOI Act in devolved territories which elect their representatives under PR. You could even look at the amnesty for illegal immigrants proposed by Boris Johnson during the 2008 Mayoral elections, which he might not have proposed if the Mayoral election system wasn’t PR-based.
There could be less focus on the executive, and more focus on Parliament under PR. Leaders would have to gain the support of other parties which don’t share their views. Did PR stop Germany from going to Iraq?
There are no safe seats under PR. There were 100 key seats where the election was fought in 2005. 70%, were safe. Parties would have to fight for all seats under PR.
There’s a more effective role for opposition under PR. Look at the “non-executive” powers in Scotland. Collaborative legislation, unlike in the Commons where legislation presented to House completed and passes through without tests. Labour have only lost a vote 3 times in Commons in 13 years! THINK DEBILL!
POINT #5: Now we’re getting philosophical
You may think it cynical, but PR is motivated by the electorate, just like all forms of previous electoral reform.
In 1918, votes were given to more men and the women after war, in 1969 the boundaries commission’s changes were blocked by Labour to avoid disadvantaging its voters in inner cities and in 1968 the voting age was reduced to 20 (rather than 18) because the major parties were scared of nationalist movements in Wales Scotland.
Just like in the past, the two parties with the most power (Labour and Conservatives) want to keep the existing system because it advantages them, and the minority party wants to change the system because it disadvantages them. The system will only change because the electorate want it, and the flat Lib Dem vote doesn’t bode well for this prospect.
Enoch Powell (a leading voice in the anti-reform movement) believed the purpose of Parliament wasn’t to offer a reflection of society, and that it already offered adequate representation of interests, regions, and ideas. I don’t agree with this view, but some people do. A more representative Parliament will mean the million people who voted BNP will get more representation (to what extent depends on the system adopted), so this view does need to be considered.
FPTP forces MPs to be accountable to their local constituents, even if they didn’t get all their votes.
