Electoral Reform

[Sorcerer]

In light of the results of the general election, I feel like now would be a good time to start a separate discussion relating to electoral reform in the UK, especially seeing as this is arguably the most disproportionate result in British electoral history. The Labour Party won with a landslide victory of 411 seats (with some outlets reporting 412 to include the speaker who is technically a Labour member but can't debate or vote unless as a tie-breaker), which translates to about 63% of all seats, however this was done with just 34% of the vote, a lower share than Labour received in 2017 despite that being a losing election for them with 64 seats short of the 326 threshold for a majority.

It is also a bigger majority than Tony Blair's 2005 victory on about 35% of the vote. For many this might not sit right with them, and indeed now that the ones who have traditionally benefited from our first-past-the-post system have instead heavily lost out because of it, debates surrounding electoral reform will inevitably become a subject of debate, especially when Keir Starmer's majority, while big, is also built on shallow levels of support that may not carry over to 2029.

But the question that divides much of the debate for ending FPTP is what kind of electoral reform should we bring in? It's easy to advocate for proportional representation on a surface level, but it is also merely an umbrella term, and not everyone is likely to agree on which form of PR we should adopt.

So do you think should the UK reform it's electoral system? If so, what kind of reform should we adopt? Should we reconsider the Alternative Vote? Should we stick with single-member constituencies, or should we adopt multi-member constituencies? Or maybe should we consider abolishing constituencies all together and go for a national election through Party List PR where seats in Parliament are simply assigned to parties based on the proportion to their vote share?

Personally, I think the UK's best option would be what is used in New Zealand with mixed-member proportional (MMP) since it both enables local representation and proportional allocation of seats in Parliament, as well as already having a precedent in the UK with Wales and Scotland. It's a relatively smooth change.

But what do you all think? I'm curious to know whether you think the UK should implement electoral reform, and if so what kind? I look forward to hearing some of your views on it!

 

[TheSmiths82]

I am divided on the issue, one the plus side the current past the post system keeps out some of the more extreme parties out such as the Reform. I not sure if this is the right time to change things considering the list of other things Labour need to sort out. Plus if he have another referendum on this topic it fuels people like me asking for another referendum on our relationship with the EU. I really don't know what the answer is.

 

[JonathanH]

Or maybe should we consider abolishing constituencies all together and go for a national election through Party List PR where seats in Parliament are simply assigned to parties based on the proportion to their vote share?

That is pretty much the worse form of representation imaginable, even if it gives a proportionate outcome, as the individual MPs simply become 'unelected' debaters. There becomes no mechanism for removing an unpopular MP at the top of the list. Clearly with the circumstances of our nation, it would need to be on a regional basis rather than national.

Mixed member is a possible compromise, with the top up MPs picked from those who were the losers who came closest to being elected in the region. There has to be some level of local representation.

 

[52290]

And what shall we do about the 850 unelected people in the House of Lords, soon to be joined by some of yesterday's rejects?

 

[Sorcerer]

That is pretty much the worse form of representation imaginable, even if it gives a proportionate outcome, as the individual MPs simply become 'unelected' debaters. There becomes no mechanism for removing an unpopular MP at the top of the list.

This isn't strictly true. There are closed list and open list variations of Party List PR, and in some open lists you can vote for individual candidates that would still count towards their party vote. The downside to this form is that it could lead to quite a large ballot paper.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I prefer a system where the closest 2nd placers nationwide are put into the mix somehow.

And what shall we do about the 850 unelected people in the House of Lords, soon to be joined by some of yesterday's rejects?

Massive massive reform or abolish imo

 

[edwin_m]

I prefer a system where the closest 2nd placers nationwide are put into the mix somehow.

That's probably my preference too. I just posted on the election thread (before I saw this one) that I believe there should be a Royal Commission or a Citizens' Assembly to seek to agree the best solution. We must avoid the Brexit problem of getting a vote in favour of change but then finding people can't agree on what system to use.

 

[brad465]

I am divided on the issue, one the plus side the current past the post system keeps out some of the more extreme parties out such as the Reform. I not sure if this is the right time to change things considering the list of other things Labour need to sort out. Plus if he have another referendum on this topic it fuels people like me asking for another referendum on our relationship with the EU. I really don't know what the answer is.

Whether or not the system keeps out extremes is debatable. Under FPTP we have seen certain extreme groups hijack larger parties to do their bidding rather than form separate ones, so we've still had extreme views/policies imposed. Also, there comes a point where I think a system keeping out extremes is counterproductive: the more votes wasted, the more discontent with the system there is, which is a breeding ground for further extremism.

If we look at Europe certain extreme parties that gained traction but then got shut out of coalition deals then performed better in following elections, the Netherlands being the best example, whereas countries that invited them into government have seen those extreme parties have to moderate their stance in a number of areas and thus become less of an issue (e.g. Italy and Sweden), or where they do fail they eventually fall away (like the UK just now). Part of Macron's gambit may well be that if Le Pen's party does get to govern, they could be forced to soften up for a coalition deal to succeed, and/or they find governing harder than it looks and don't actually get anywhere.

Just to get this in as it's going to be used by voting system reform detractors, the 2011 referendum was on Alternative Vote (AV), not on any Proportional Representation (PR) system, the former being an alternative form of FPTP. We have not had any proper say on PR*. Also, even considering this, 13 years have passed since that vote, plus an awful lot of political turmoil, perhaps the most unstable and chaotic period of UK politics ever seen. I would argue this is enough to make the case again for voting reform. However, before proceeding there does need to be some serious planning put in place before asking the public, whether through election or referendum. In the meantime there will be plenty of grassroots' activism in the next parliament about electoral reform, I know because a) I'm directly involved with one campaign group, b) it was ongoing in the previous parliament, and c) the most disproportionate result in UK history is going to provide a strong catalyst on the issue.

*It was a feature of the 1997 Labour manifesto in some form, but never proceeded of course (the suspicion was it was only there for fear of a Lib Dem coalition deal, but dropped when Labour not only had a majority, but got carried away by the size of it).

 

[birchesgreen]

I'm not interested in PR, but as a Labour party member i would say that (but i thought the same before yesterday!)

A priority should be the abolishing of the Lords and it's replacement. Personally i'd go for a 100 seat elected senate, the senators being historic county and metropolitan area based - the number of senators per county varying on the population. Now this can be PR based, though i'd also like it if the senators could be non-party political to some extent.

 

[zero]

I would like larger multi-member constituencies, similar to how it's done in Ireland, as I don't think it's fair that someone can win a constituency with a majority of 1 leaving (up to) half of the voters with an MP they didn't vote for.

You would need to have at least 3 MPs per constituency as otherwise the party which comes second place nationally is likely to get more MPs than their vote share might warrant.

A transferable vote system could be used, or, far simpler IMO, everyone can vote for up to 3 candidates and the highest 3 get elected (they could all be from the same party or two parties). Candidates from the same party could even campaign personally on slightly different issues; alternatively a "party list" system could be used.

However I don't see any appetite from Labour for changing the voting system since it got them into power very easily this time.


Also while I think it's important for MPs to have a constituency link, under the current system there can be a conflict of interest when the MP in question has a particular role. For example when Theresa May was Home Sec, I heard that she basically refused to advocate on behalf of various Maidenhead residents who were unfairly treated by the Home Office, whereas many Labour MPs were keen to help their constituents who had similar problems.

 

[dangie]

Changing the voting system raises its head when the vote doesn’t go the way that voters wanted. It isn’t a good system. Change it.

If it goes the way that voters wanted then it is a good system. Leave it.

 

[sor]

I not sure if this is the right time to change things considering the list of other things Labour need to sort out. P

the counterargument to this is 2010-2024. All the good things Labour did were dismantled by a Tory government who eventually achieved their own majority on rather less than 50% of the vote. This will happen again. You could then argue, what's the point in Labour doing anything when they might be out in 5 years time. As well as the impacts to individual people, this is also extremely costly and unproductive as we end up with endless "reforms" as one party imposes their vision followed by the other, like a pendulum swinging

Given that the EU referendum happened because Cameron was terrified of UKIP polling at a mere 10% and possibly getting an MP, it's fair to say that Farage will get his influence one way or another.

 

[edwin_m]

I would like larger multi-member constituencies, similar to how it's done in Ireland, as I don't think it's fair that someone can win a constituency with a majority of 1 leaving (up to) half of the voters with an MP they didn't vote for.

You would need to have at least 3 MPs per constituency as otherwise the party which comes second place nationally is likely to get more MPs than their vote share might warrant.

A transferable vote system could be used, or, far simpler IMO, everyone can vote for up to 3 candidates and the highest 3 get elected (they could all be from the same party or two parties). Candidates from the same party could even campaign personally on slightly different issues; alternatively a "party list" system could be used.

However I don't see any appetite from Labour for changing the voting system since it got them into power very easily this time.


Also while I think it's important for MPs to have a constituency link, under the current system there can be a conflict of interest when the MP in question has a particular role. For example when Theresa May was Home Sec, I heard that she basically refused to advocate on behalf of various Maidenhead residents who were unfairly treated by the Home Office, whereas many Labour MPs were keen to help their constituents who had similar problems.

I am partly in agreement with this approach. However, with the fragmentation of our politics the constituencies would have to be larger than that, so that significant viewpoints in the 10-20% range get a look in. Particularly in more remote areas, bringing together five or more existing constituencies would be a huge area.

 

[renegademaster]

We should have a referendum on all the various voting systems , and have a FPTP referendum on what voting system that referendum should use, because why not

 

[Senex]

I would like larger multi-member constituencies, similar to how it's done in Ireland, as I don't think it's fair that someone can win a constituency with a majority of 1 leaving (up to) half of the voters with an MP they didn't vote for.

You would need to have at least 3 MPs per constituency as otherwise the party which comes second place nationally is likely to get more MPs than their vote share might warrant.

A transferable vote system could be used, or, far simpler IMO, everyone can vote for up to 3 candidates and the highest 3 get elected (they could all be from the same party or two parties). Candidates from the same party could even campaign personally on slightly different issues; alternatively a "party list" system could be used.

However I don't see any appetite from Labour for changing the voting system since it got them into power very easily this time.


Also while I think it's important for MPs to have a constituency link, under the current system there can be a conflict of interest when the MP in question has a particular role. For example when Theresa May was Home Sec, I heard that she basically refused to advocate on behalf of various Maidenhead residents who were unfairly treated by the Home Office, whereas many Labour MPs were keen to help their constituents who had similar problems.

That's the system I'd like to see too — it keeps an association between member and locality that in some cases at least does seem to be valuable but also can give more people in a constituency some sense of being represented.

The House of Lords in its present form should go, but there needs to be an informed debate as to what sort of second chamber should replace it (and whatever it should not be called "House of Lords" and its members should not be labelled "Lord").

But given how Labour has just benefited from the present system and how the new Prime Minister has just been making use of his power to create peers, we can be pretty sure nothing is likely to happen on the electoral reform front.

I wonder if anyone else shares an irritation I have about the reporting of the present situation. The electorate kicked the Tories out good and proper (thank God!) but in terms of the voting scarcely gave resounding approval to Labour. Yet the result is being reported, particularly by the BBC, only in terms of a landslide (or similar wording) for Labour, taking account just of seats won, whereas if the voting is considered also it was all much more nuanced.

 

[dangie]

We should have a referendum on all the various voting systems , and have a FPTP referendum on what voting system that referendum should use, because why not

Exactly, and we’ll keep having a referendum until we get it right

 

[Howardh]

I just want people to be honest with themselves. If they want PR now, did they want it in the years when the Libdems regularly got 10% of the vote but a handful of MP's, or do they want PR now because it suits them as they support Reform?

Of course the LD's and Greens would still benefit, in fact more might vote for them as it wouldn't be considered a wasted vote, but we've had FPTP since, well the start?? and it's very unlikely to be changed by Labour as it isn't in the manifesto, but if circumstances dictate that we have a referendum on PR (which we've never had) then surely circumstances dictate that we also have a referendum on joining the single market (which we've never had)?

 

[edwin_m]

But given how Labour has just benefited from the present system and how the new Prime Minister has just been making use of his power to create peers, we can be pretty sure nothing is likely to happen on the electoral reform front.

Not necessarily. Labour's win is "broad but shallow" and people in 2019 were talking about how the Tory win would carry them through for at least two terms. A fairly small shift in one more or more of several factors could see them looking very vulnerable next time:

• General reduction in support for Labour when they have to make decisions in power, which even if they are good ones will annoy some people.
• The large majority itself may lead to internal divisions and the party being perceived as disunited.
• Tactical voting is only really effective when deployed against a single party that lots of people want to disadvantage, which is probably going to be the party in power. So some or all of the anti-Tory tactical voting may be replaced by anti-Labour.
• Tories and Reform may come to some arrangement that avoids splitting of votes between them.

So Labour would be very remiss to get complacent and believe they have a clear run in 2028/2029 - it's very different from 1997. Part of the answer is obviously to govern well and make people's lives better, but some level of disillusionment is inevitable to the point where we could return to the situation where a single right wing party can win on a small vote share just as Labour has this time. Labour membership is broadly in favour of PR, LibDems have been in favour for years, Reform is in favour and both the Tories and the SNP now have reasons to be.

The creation of peers is the only way the government has to get good people who aren't already in Parliament into ministerial positions - very different from the ennobling of cronies or donors. Whatever happens to the Lords there still needs to be a way to do this in future.

 

[Senex]

The creation of peers is the only way the government has to get good people who aren't already in Parliament into ministerial positions - very different from the ennobling of cronies or donors. Whatever happens to the Lords there still needs to be a way to do this in future.

On that I agree with you completely. But there needs to be a way of doing it that doesn't involve giving them a feudal title (and an expenses account) for life.

 

[HSTEd]

I am very much in favour of electoral reform and have been for a very long time.

The increasing fragmentation of the electorate is going to result in repeated wild swings in election results as FPTP breaks down.
I would prefer to just go to the AMS system used in Scotland and (for now anyway) in Wales, albeit I would prefer "best near winner" to party lists.

But I am very doubtful any politician elected by FPTP will ever dispense with the system that produced them and which sustains the current party "system".

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jul 2024 ==

On that I agree with you completely. But there needs to be a way of doing it that doesn't involve giving them a feudal title (and an expenses account) for life.

Well any appointment to a second chamber realistically has to be for a very long time.
If the Prime Minister can just dispose of them at will the second chamber becomes a simple rubber stamp and the Prime Minister acquires the powers of a dictator.

I honestly don't see the problem with awarding notional feudal titles to people, given that the title has essentially no meaning in any case.

 

[778]

A 2 round election like there is in France might be a good idea. The top 2 from the first round could go through, and whoever gets the most votes in the 2nd round wins.

 

[JonathanH]

A 2 round election like there is in France might be a good idea. The top 2 from the first round could go through, and whoever gets the most votes in the 2nd round wins.

That is just a variation of Alternative vote, which can be done in one vote.

 

[signed]

Statistically, the most representative way will always be some kind of preference voting. First past the post or run-off always lead to consolidation and only the biggest to win.

 

[Ediswan]

That is just a variation of Alternative vote, which can be done in one vote.

Not quite. With two separate rounds, voters can change their mind for the second round. In France, numerous candidates withdrew from today's second round.

 

[Sorcerer]

Honestly, I would say the Alternative Vote or any variation similar to it wouldn't be a much better option. The only major advantage it has over first past the post is eliminating the spoiler effect (that being the opposition split allowing one candidate to win by default) but otherwise it's just FPTP with extra steps until someone gets at least 51%. I think mixed-member proportional like in New Zealand would be ideal since it's the easiest transition, but I wouldn't oppose the single transferable vote, I just think it'd be a more radical change that we don't necessarily need for a proportional House of Commons.

 

[MotCO]

taking account just of seats won, whereas if the voting is considered also it was all much more nuanced.

It's almost worse than that. Only 20% of the electorate voted Labour (when you include the non-voters) which means that 80% of the electorate positively decided not to vote for Labour.

But to get back on track....

You would need to have at least 3 MPs per constituency as otherwise the party which comes second place nationally is likely to get more MPs than their vote share might warrant.

But then if you have more than one vote each, you could select all three from the same party which won't change anything.

I just want people to be honest with themselves. If they want PR now, did they want it in the years when the Libdems regularly got 10% of the vote but a handful of MP's, or do they want PR now because it suits them as they support Reform?

Of course the LD's and Greens would still benefit, in fact more might vote for them as it wouldn't be considered a wasted vote, but we've had FPTP since, well the start?? and it's very unlikely to be changed by Labour as it isn't in the manifesto, but if circumstances dictate that we have a referendum on PR (which we've never had) then surely circumstances dictate that we also have a referendum on joining the single market (which we've never had)?

I tend to agree. Whilst I feel that the result of the election did not represent the true feeling of the country, the FPTP system has served fairly well over the last 200 years or so. I would put this down to a freak result due to a number of factors - Reform splitting the Tory vote (after the Tories did not return the faour when UKIP stood down last time round), the Muslim vote dividing Labour voters, the 'anyone but Tory' vote after the backstabbing of leaders and underachievement of more or less everything in their last manifesto, etc. If the 2029 election has a similar outcome, I would have second thoughts, but it's probably best to leave it for the time being.

With regards to PR, to some extent you are hindered by whatever pecking order the central offices decide, which may mean some popular and good constituency members may lose out if they are out of favour or off-message. I like the concept of a locally chosen MP who will look after your interests or personal matters, even if they represent a party you did not vote for. Having an anonymous person, who has no vested interest in your locality, does not seem to be a good idea.


With regards to the reform of the upper chamber, the old House of Lords had a wealth of experience and had no constituencies to represent or worry about re-election, so in theory did what was best for the country (or themselves / friends ). It does serve a useful function in scrutinising legislation, but should not block the intent of the House of Commons - it should make sure that the laws proposed will work and there are no unintended consequences. Having a simple 'senate' election may not produce what we want and may not be different to the House of Commons. Maybe we should be asked to vote for people who have special areas of expertise - law, health, education, agriculture etc - who can apply their experience and expertise in scrutinising legislation, alongside 'generalists'.

 

[LYradial]

What we need is a true democracy, no party politics, we vote for the person to represent us, he votes in parliament in the best interests of his constituents in a totally secret ballot.
Remember he is a representative not a delegate.

However the best system is a benevolent dictator and five honest Women or Men………two and a half of each

 

[edwin_m]

I tend to agree. Whilst I feel that the result of the election did not represent the true feeling of the country, the FPTP system has served fairly well over the last 200 years or so. I would put this down to a freak result due to a number of factors - Reform splitting the Tory vote (after the Tories did not return the faour when UKIP stood down last time round), the Muslim vote dividing Labour voters, the 'anyone but Tory' vote after the backstabbing of leaders and underachievement of more or less everything in their last manifesto, etc. If the 2029 election has a similar outcome, I would have second thoughts, but it's probably best to leave it for the time being.

With regards to PR, to some extent you are hindered by whatever pecking order the central offices decide, which may mean some popular and good constituency members may lose out if they are out of favour or off-message. I like the concept of a locally chosen MP who will look after your interests or personal matters, even if they represent a party you did not vote for. Having an anonymous person, who has no vested interest in your locality, does not seem to be a good idea.


With regards to the reform of the upper chamber, the old House of Lords had a wealth of experience and had no constituencies to represent or worry about re-election, so in theory did what was best for the country (or themselves / friends ). It does serve a useful function in scrutinising legislation, but should not block the intent of the House of Commons - it should make sure that the laws proposed will work and there are no unintended consequences. Having a simple 'senate' election may not produce what we want and may not be different to the House of Commons. Maybe we should be asked to vote for people who have special areas of expertise - law, health, education, agriculture etc - who can apply their experience and expertise in scrutinising legislation, alongside 'generalists'.

I can't agree FPTP has served us well in recent years. There is a strong case that it was responsible for Brexit and all the grief that caused, and in particular we wouldn't have handed untrammeled power to the disastrous administrations of Johnson and Truss.

I do agree that we shouldn't have a party list system of PR. Multi-member constituencies or a system where the closest second places get a seat (possibly according to some ratio of party votes) means every member of the legislature has to face an election of some sort.

The House of Lords is a separate issue from electoral reform, but does serve an important purpose when it undertakes expert scrutiny and allows specialists to have a say in the debate. We need a system that can keep these but exclude the cronies and donors, and particularly the hereditaries who have even less legitimacy. But I'm not sure having the public elect experts is a good idea, as the general public won't be in a position to judge expertise and will tend to go for whoever is most media-friendly. Perhaps the government of the day should have the right to nominate (say) ten people every year for a six-year term. The remainder of the chamber could be made up of members also on a six-year term, with a third of them coming up for re-election every two years based on multi-member lists for the English regions and devolved nations. The resulting assembly would have powers similar to the Lords today, but would be less afraid to use them as it would have more democratic legitimacy.

 

[MotCO]

The resulting assembly would have powers similar to the Lords today, but would be less afraid to use them as it would have more democratic legitimacy.

But the House of Commons must have primacy, so I am not sure what powers the Lords would be less afraid to use.

 

[edwin_m]

But the House of Commons must have primacy, so I am not sure what powers the Lords would be less afraid to use.

It currently has the power to delay legislation and return it to the Commons to look at it again, but ultimately the Commons can force it through.