I would strongly advocate for STV for all local elections though- as in Scotland and NI. Too many councils are misrepresented by a dominant party under FPTP.
Very interesting article. 🙏 I would say, though, that history shows us that ANY proposal to change the electoral system will struggle if it fails first to 'roll the pitch' with the public and other stakeholders and so I would say there is a step before advocating any particular system of PR. The National Commission on Electoral Reform proposed by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Fair Elections would be an ideal way to meet that requirement - https://www.fairelections.uk/category/news/
[Full transparency: I am a director of Fair Vote UK, the secretariat to the APPG/FE.]
The views of the Electoral Reform Society would be interesting too. Preparing the public (“rolling the pitch”) will be essential if any government is to be persuaded to support any changes to FPTP.
Peter, your advice that PR has no chance of happening becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy if we campaign for AV instead, and most likely for a very very long time indeed. People wanted PR in 1884 when those in power gave us single-member FPTP, and it has lasted 140 years so far. I'd rather fight on for PR even if it takes a few years longer. We're getting closer to it every year now.
I'm a PR supporter because I think parliament should reflect votes cast; yes there's a question about how governments are then formed, but people can then form an opinion on the parties involved and vote accordingly at the following election.
Despite it not being my ideal outcome I did vote for AV in the last referendum, partly because I think it is a better system and offers more choice than FPTP. The main reason though was because I thought it was the only chance we had of electoral reform, and that if there was a no vote then it would both kill the issue stone dead for the longer than foreseeable future, and the result would be deliberately misinterpreted by some, both of which turned out to be the case.
However, I'm not sure I entirely agree that Labour would refuse to offer PR in a hung parliament. If the Lib Dems and/or others dug their heels in and said 'PR or no deal', would Labour really choose to be out of power or forming a shaky government instead?
I don't think there's much of a chance of AV unless their was a hung parliament either though. There seems to be no clamour in either the Labour parliamentary party or, particularly, the Tories, for electoral reform and at any given time at least one of them would need to support it.
But we had a UK referendum on AV as recently as 2011 where it was rejected by a two thirds majority. What makes you think the electorate can be persuaded to significantly change their collective minds so soon?
The public have changed their minds on Brexit and that vote was five years later. The 2011 campaign was badly run, didn’t get its message over and was opposed at every turn by the Tories.
I don't think the electorate treated the AV referendum as a referendum on electoral reform, but treated it as a referendum on Nick Clegg instead. I think it's difficult to stop something like that from happening, which is a problem.
This is persuasive, as one would expect from this author.
However, given the fact that the previous Tory government and the current Labour government have, in more or less equal measure, been determined to place their own party interests above the good of the nation, I am pessimistic about these turkeys voting for even a smidgeon of Christmas.
The price the liberals paid to go into coalition with the Tories was giving us the road to Brexit, universities ruined and nhs chaos, all for the chance of a public vote on electoral reform…. A heavy price for defeat.
The Liberal Democrats didn't give you the road to Brexit. That came after the Conservatives won an overall majority with 37 per cent of the votes in 2015.
There are a pair of problems with AV which I don’t think you engage with (and I would be curious to hear your answer - which may simply be that no system is perfect).
Problem 1: that a first preference vote is Labour and a second LD (or first Con and second Reform) cannot show that those voters voted for a coalition between those parties. Only very rarely would one manifesto be endorsed and, so like the Cameron plan for his second term, he’d back a lot of votes by promising an EU Referendum and then junk it backstage. That was under FPTP but it leads us to the next issue.
Problem 2: how many fewer people would have given Cameron a first preference had they known he’d junk their - possibly main - reason for voting for him.
I have read that a problem in Australia is what I believe is called the "donkey vote". ie faced with an alphabetical list of candidates Aaronson, Balfour, Chauhan, duPlessis... many voted just write 1,2,3,4...
Two arguments against AV. 1) This is the voting system that has already been rejected by the electorate in a referendum just over 10 years ago; and 2) Roy Jenkins when invited by Tony Blair to come up with a new voting system rejected AV in favour of AV+, that is AV with a top-up of AMS to ensure proportionality. The existence of two types of MP, one with constituency responsibilities and one without (which is already accepted in the Scottish Parliament) is a small price to pay for good proportionality. Make the list order for AMS the highest-polling losing candidates for that Party and you have close to an ideal system. STV is good for council elections but do we want constituencies with ~500,000 electors for Parliamentary elections.
I would strongly advocate for STV for all local elections though- as in Scotland and NI. Too many councils are misrepresented by a dominant party under FPTP.
Very interesting article. 🙏 I would say, though, that history shows us that ANY proposal to change the electoral system will struggle if it fails first to 'roll the pitch' with the public and other stakeholders and so I would say there is a step before advocating any particular system of PR. The National Commission on Electoral Reform proposed by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Fair Elections would be an ideal way to meet that requirement - https://www.fairelections.uk/category/news/
[Full transparency: I am a director of Fair Vote UK, the secretariat to the APPG/FE.]
The views of the Electoral Reform Society would be interesting too. Preparing the public (“rolling the pitch”) will be essential if any government is to be persuaded to support any changes to FPTP.
The ERS have long advocated STV as the preferred solution to the UK's malfunctioning electoral system
Peter, your advice that PR has no chance of happening becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy if we campaign for AV instead, and most likely for a very very long time indeed. People wanted PR in 1884 when those in power gave us single-member FPTP, and it has lasted 140 years so far. I'd rather fight on for PR even if it takes a few years longer. We're getting closer to it every year now.
Excellent point 👍🏻
I'm a PR supporter because I think parliament should reflect votes cast; yes there's a question about how governments are then formed, but people can then form an opinion on the parties involved and vote accordingly at the following election.
Despite it not being my ideal outcome I did vote for AV in the last referendum, partly because I think it is a better system and offers more choice than FPTP. The main reason though was because I thought it was the only chance we had of electoral reform, and that if there was a no vote then it would both kill the issue stone dead for the longer than foreseeable future, and the result would be deliberately misinterpreted by some, both of which turned out to be the case.
However, I'm not sure I entirely agree that Labour would refuse to offer PR in a hung parliament. If the Lib Dems and/or others dug their heels in and said 'PR or no deal', would Labour really choose to be out of power or forming a shaky government instead?
I don't think there's much of a chance of AV unless their was a hung parliament either though. There seems to be no clamour in either the Labour parliamentary party or, particularly, the Tories, for electoral reform and at any given time at least one of them would need to support it.
But we had a UK referendum on AV as recently as 2011 where it was rejected by a two thirds majority. What makes you think the electorate can be persuaded to significantly change their collective minds so soon?
The public have changed their minds on Brexit and that vote was five years later. The 2011 campaign was badly run, didn’t get its message over and was opposed at every turn by the Tories.
I don't think the electorate treated the AV referendum as a referendum on electoral reform, but treated it as a referendum on Nick Clegg instead. I think it's difficult to stop something like that from happening, which is a problem.
This is persuasive, as one would expect from this author.
However, given the fact that the previous Tory government and the current Labour government have, in more or less equal measure, been determined to place their own party interests above the good of the nation, I am pessimistic about these turkeys voting for even a smidgeon of Christmas.
The price the liberals paid to go into coalition with the Tories was giving us the road to Brexit, universities ruined and nhs chaos, all for the chance of a public vote on electoral reform…. A heavy price for defeat.
The Liberal Democrats didn't give you the road to Brexit. That came after the Conservatives won an overall majority with 37 per cent of the votes in 2015.
Thank you Peter. Will you write about the Two Round system as well please.
There are a pair of problems with AV which I don’t think you engage with (and I would be curious to hear your answer - which may simply be that no system is perfect).
Problem 1: that a first preference vote is Labour and a second LD (or first Con and second Reform) cannot show that those voters voted for a coalition between those parties. Only very rarely would one manifesto be endorsed and, so like the Cameron plan for his second term, he’d back a lot of votes by promising an EU Referendum and then junk it backstage. That was under FPTP but it leads us to the next issue.
Problem 2: how many fewer people would have given Cameron a first preference had they known he’d junk their - possibly main - reason for voting for him.
These seem to me 2 tricky problems with AV.
I have read that a problem in Australia is what I believe is called the "donkey vote". ie faced with an alphabetical list of candidates Aaronson, Balfour, Chauhan, duPlessis... many voted just write 1,2,3,4...
Two arguments against AV. 1) This is the voting system that has already been rejected by the electorate in a referendum just over 10 years ago; and 2) Roy Jenkins when invited by Tony Blair to come up with a new voting system rejected AV in favour of AV+, that is AV with a top-up of AMS to ensure proportionality. The existence of two types of MP, one with constituency responsibilities and one without (which is already accepted in the Scottish Parliament) is a small price to pay for good proportionality. Make the list order for AMS the highest-polling losing candidates for that Party and you have close to an ideal system. STV is good for council elections but do we want constituencies with ~500,000 electors for Parliamentary elections.