That's one incremental way of introducing preferential voting.
The other way would be to standardise voting in local and regional government to STV, as used for the assembly in Northern Ireland, and Scotland. Then, at a subsequent general election, promise to implement STV at Westminster
There's definitely a case for STV (and AV for wards with only one candidate up) in local elections. FPTP gave us many, many more Reform UK councillors than the voters would have liked in May. Ranked preference polling has Reform ranked 5th of the 5 main parties by 51% of voters in England after don't knows are excluded. They really struggle in ranked preference polling.
Great piece; I would argue this is the single most significant reform Burnham could definitely achieve. However, I would go for STV which the ERS has given a far higher rating on all metrics than either AV or SV (neither of which are technically PR systems)
STV might well be the acceptable endpoint of a national commission on electoral reform and be the proposal in Labour, Green, and Lib Dem manifestos for the next election. What Peter is proposing is an emergency interim system that requires very few changes and can be brought in quickly and with minimum fuss. I think AV fits that role better, but both are much preferable to waiting for an electoral mandate for something else.
Ah, I see, because STV or similar would require thoroughgoing reform of constituencies, parliament itself, etc? Is there a danger then that we bring in the half-way-house option and get stuck with it?
STV itself would likely be the least complicated of STV, AMS and AV+ as you could just bundle together existing constituencies into larger constituencies of 3-6 MPs each, but that would still require deliberation over which get bundled together and how many are in each bundle. The others would require a full boundary review.
If we brought in AV then we might get stuck with it if it is decided it is the best system to suppress the representation of extremists (it is). But if the progressive parties agree on a system after the national commission, then AV or SV is highly likely to deliver a progressive majority as the right bloc is so much more leaky than the progressive voting bloc. In the March poll, progressive parties got 55% of 1st preferences, and 65% of 2nd preferences. Ranked preference systems allow the voter to provide more of their political opinion on the ballot paper, and Reform UK would really suffer as a result.
The other key advantage of systems that allow voters to rank preferences in an individual constituency is that it forces them to engage in a deliberative process when voting; it ceases to be an existential act or a marker of group identity. That is especially important in the context of growing political polarisation and self-reinforcing social media algorithms.
Great piece and your numbers are so striking. Of course if we do get to a parliamentary consensus on the need for PR, it will be a return to a place we have been in before. It even got through the first readings of the 1918 Representation of the People's Bill before the parties fought each other to a standstill on what form of PR to adopt. [link] https://paulgeorge.substack.com/p/pop-quiz-when-was-proportional-representation.
Be interesting to hear your thoughts on whether there are still strong differences in party advantage for the various options today.
"All this was largely true from 1945 to 2005. Only one general election, in February 1974, produced a hung parliament."
Missing out 1951, when Labour won more votes than the Tories but less seats ... while Labour quietly accepted this "anomaly" at the time, it's very much a stain on the 'democratic' legitimacy of the period that could return to haunt them.
However, the major problem with your argument is you continue the fiction that GB is a single polity, where Labour is a powerful party and faces only Tory and Reform as the main opposition, with Greens and LibDems being challengers in a few areas.
Even if that were true for England -which it isn't as many areas have some 4 or even 5 party components - it definitely is NOT true any more that Scotland and Wales are same as England.
Labour collapsed to third place in votes the May elections (third in Scotland in list votes, as a party) and the SNP and Plaid Cymru were triumphant under semi-PR systems. No matter what modifications or manifesto alliances they come up with, Labour face potential annihilation in the next UK general election in Scotland and Wales - to SNP and Plaid Cymru and they will demand a heavy price for their support at Westminster - referendums on at least massive devolution (the "Home Rule" option) and, possibly, independence. The "Celtic Alliance" of Sinn Fein, SNP and Plaid Cymru could well hold over 70-80 seats in a hung parliament (while Sinn Fein don't take their seats they still have some clout that will put pressure on the SDLP and Alliance parties).
Not even commenting on this illustrates a poor understanding of the increasingly irrelevant nature of "British" politics and commentators like yourself need to start talking about the reality that four nation and multiparty politics are already here.
That's one incremental way of introducing preferential voting.
The other way would be to standardise voting in local and regional government to STV, as used for the assembly in Northern Ireland, and Scotland. Then, at a subsequent general election, promise to implement STV at Westminster
There's definitely a case for STV (and AV for wards with only one candidate up) in local elections. FPTP gave us many, many more Reform UK councillors than the voters would have liked in May. Ranked preference polling has Reform ranked 5th of the 5 main parties by 51% of voters in England after don't knows are excluded. They really struggle in ranked preference polling.
Brilliantly argued, and thank you for those eye-opening figures about how unrepresentative MPs are becoming under the current system!
Great piece; I would argue this is the single most significant reform Burnham could definitely achieve. However, I would go for STV which the ERS has given a far higher rating on all metrics than either AV or SV (neither of which are technically PR systems)
STV might well be the acceptable endpoint of a national commission on electoral reform and be the proposal in Labour, Green, and Lib Dem manifestos for the next election. What Peter is proposing is an emergency interim system that requires very few changes and can be brought in quickly and with minimum fuss. I think AV fits that role better, but both are much preferable to waiting for an electoral mandate for something else.
Ah, I see, because STV or similar would require thoroughgoing reform of constituencies, parliament itself, etc? Is there a danger then that we bring in the half-way-house option and get stuck with it?
STV itself would likely be the least complicated of STV, AMS and AV+ as you could just bundle together existing constituencies into larger constituencies of 3-6 MPs each, but that would still require deliberation over which get bundled together and how many are in each bundle. The others would require a full boundary review.
If we brought in AV then we might get stuck with it if it is decided it is the best system to suppress the representation of extremists (it is). But if the progressive parties agree on a system after the national commission, then AV or SV is highly likely to deliver a progressive majority as the right bloc is so much more leaky than the progressive voting bloc. In the March poll, progressive parties got 55% of 1st preferences, and 65% of 2nd preferences. Ranked preference systems allow the voter to provide more of their political opinion on the ballot paper, and Reform UK would really suffer as a result.
Given that the ERS prime strategic goal is the adoption of STV it’s hardly surprising they score it highly on all metrics!
Our Strategic Goals
To have public authorities in the UK elected by proportional representation and specifically by the Single Transferable Vote.
The other key advantage of systems that allow voters to rank preferences in an individual constituency is that it forces them to engage in a deliberative process when voting; it ceases to be an existential act or a marker of group identity. That is especially important in the context of growing political polarisation and self-reinforcing social media algorithms.
I take a somewhat different approach, but reach a very similar conclusion.
I'll be lobbying fellow Compass members at their strategy meeting this month.
It might be worth you contacting Neal Lawson in an attempt to bring him round to these arguments as he clearly is close to Andy.
https://ewanhoyle.substack.com/p/av-as-the-necessary-interim-step?r=2u1072&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Can I also float non-corrective AV+ as the most acceptable end-point?
https://ewanhoyle.substack.com/p/the-good-systems-disagreement?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2u1072
Great piece and your numbers are so striking. Of course if we do get to a parliamentary consensus on the need for PR, it will be a return to a place we have been in before. It even got through the first readings of the 1918 Representation of the People's Bill before the parties fought each other to a standstill on what form of PR to adopt. [link] https://paulgeorge.substack.com/p/pop-quiz-when-was-proportional-representation.
Be interesting to hear your thoughts on whether there are still strong differences in party advantage for the various options today.
"All this was largely true from 1945 to 2005. Only one general election, in February 1974, produced a hung parliament."
Missing out 1951, when Labour won more votes than the Tories but less seats ... while Labour quietly accepted this "anomaly" at the time, it's very much a stain on the 'democratic' legitimacy of the period that could return to haunt them.
However, the major problem with your argument is you continue the fiction that GB is a single polity, where Labour is a powerful party and faces only Tory and Reform as the main opposition, with Greens and LibDems being challengers in a few areas.
Even if that were true for England -which it isn't as many areas have some 4 or even 5 party components - it definitely is NOT true any more that Scotland and Wales are same as England.
Labour collapsed to third place in votes the May elections (third in Scotland in list votes, as a party) and the SNP and Plaid Cymru were triumphant under semi-PR systems. No matter what modifications or manifesto alliances they come up with, Labour face potential annihilation in the next UK general election in Scotland and Wales - to SNP and Plaid Cymru and they will demand a heavy price for their support at Westminster - referendums on at least massive devolution (the "Home Rule" option) and, possibly, independence. The "Celtic Alliance" of Sinn Fein, SNP and Plaid Cymru could well hold over 70-80 seats in a hung parliament (while Sinn Fein don't take their seats they still have some clout that will put pressure on the SDLP and Alliance parties).
Not even commenting on this illustrates a poor understanding of the increasingly irrelevant nature of "British" politics and commentators like yourself need to start talking about the reality that four nation and multiparty politics are already here.
Is the matter not urgent enough to be voted on before the next election?
I dont buy that Parliament cannot vote on important matters not in the manifesto.
If the right block is split two ways and the left block split three ways, won't SV favour the right block?
Relative to FPTP, no. Relative to AV, probably.
SV is first rank honest, second rank tactical.
AV is all ranks honest.
FPTP is one tactical or honest guess.