It’s indeed very important to assess the merits (or otherwise) of FPTP vs proportional systems. And local representation is a factor often cited by pro-FPTP supporters.
This post asks several key questions and I’d like to add two points and then ask a question.
Point 1: while stv constituencies would indeed be larger than under the current arrangement, we should remember the ratio of MPs to electors is unchanged. An stv constituency five times the size of current constituencies would nevertheless have five MPs not one. That does change things but surely not dilute or weaken them. You could in fact say that constituent choice is enhanced as they can go to the MP they like most. An analogy here is local council wards with three or so councillors- which seems to generate little complaint or confusion.
A bit trickier under AMS, because the ‘list top-up’ is less geographically located, but as with STV the electors to elected ratio is maintained.
Point 2: how strong in practice is the desired local representation? It’s sobering to note that only 15% of our current MPs got over half the votes in their constituency last year. The majority of us got MPs we didn’t vote for. Does that matter? It surely challenges the notion that fptp ensures a strong local constituency link.
And to the resulting question: it was striking to see in the recent British Attitudes Survey that a majority now supports not only proportional voting but prefers coalition to single party government.
Do we have any equivalent research on how people feel about local representation/ whether they feel the ‘link’ to their local MP, whether or not they voted for them?
Proportional voting would give more power and influence to small parties that could block and posture without responsibility making necessary reforms even more difficult.
It’s indeed very important to assess the merits (or otherwise) of FPTP vs proportional systems. And local representation is a factor often cited by pro-FPTP supporters.
This post asks several key questions and I’d like to add two points and then ask a question.
Point 1: while stv constituencies would indeed be larger than under the current arrangement, we should remember the ratio of MPs to electors is unchanged. An stv constituency five times the size of current constituencies would nevertheless have five MPs not one. That does change things but surely not dilute or weaken them. You could in fact say that constituent choice is enhanced as they can go to the MP they like most. An analogy here is local council wards with three or so councillors- which seems to generate little complaint or confusion.
A bit trickier under AMS, because the ‘list top-up’ is less geographically located, but as with STV the electors to elected ratio is maintained.
Point 2: how strong in practice is the desired local representation? It’s sobering to note that only 15% of our current MPs got over half the votes in their constituency last year. The majority of us got MPs we didn’t vote for. Does that matter? It surely challenges the notion that fptp ensures a strong local constituency link.
And to the resulting question: it was striking to see in the recent British Attitudes Survey that a majority now supports not only proportional voting but prefers coalition to single party government.
Do we have any equivalent research on how people feel about local representation/ whether they feel the ‘link’ to their local MP, whether or not they voted for them?
Proportional voting would give more power and influence to small parties that could block and posture without responsibility making necessary reforms even more difficult.
All democratic systems are imperfect.