General / Off-Topic Alternative voting system for UK Parliment

[Surfinjo]

I accept your point about continuing a discussion. Well made.

I'm put off any system that alter the single member constituency.

I did like the STV system which was offered. It ensured that every candidate would get support for the majority, while keeping single member.

What I do dislike is the way these matters are misrepresented so often. Claims made, after the last election for example, of some sort of representative utopia if we had PR. In reality, that is nonsense. All systems will lead to anomalies.

As long as Scotland has such small constituencies compared to the rest of the UK, nothing is going to repair the situation.

Using the Edge browser I get every spelling mistake highlighted.

 

[beelbeebub]

I accept your point about continuing a discussion. Well made.

I'm put off any system that alter the single member constituency.

I think we both prefer a constituency representative system as opposed to a party list system (as would be required by PR). The link between the representative and his constituency is one of the things I like about the FPTP system. I saw a documentary before the election where they visited some traditionally LD constituencies in the South West. Several of the voters interviewed were Labour or Conservative, but said they had and would be voting for the LD candidate because they thought he had and would do a good job of representing their interests regardless of party politics. This is the sort of thing I thing is good about the FPTP and single representative constituency system.

I'd like to find out more about why you think the dual representative system would be inferior to the single representative system, regardless of how they are selected. For example a STV system could be arranged to result in dual representatives by simply selecting the last two candidates standing.

I did like the STV system which was offered. It ensured that every candidate would get support for the majority, while keeping single member.

I remain unconvinced that under STV the candidates would have the support of the majority. If you have a constituency with a close match between two parties (say Lab and Con) with a small minority of other parties (say UKIP and LD) in reality half the voters are either right (Con) or hard right (UKIP) or Left (Lab) and mid Left (LD). It is impossible for a single representative to have the support of the majority, regardless of the method of calculating who that representative is.
.
On the other hand it would be entirely possible for a Con and Lab representative pair to be the first choice for the majority and at least acceptable to the remainder.
.
All STV provides is another way of picking the single representative.
.
On the other hand dual representatives offers a way to genuinely represent more people (e.g. all the people who are in safe seats for a party they wouldn't vote for) regardless of the way the representatives are picked e.g. simple preference count (as now), STV, AV or any other system.

What I do dislike is the way these matters are misrepresented so often. Claims made, after the last election for example, of some sort of representative utopia if we had PR. In reality, that is nonsense. All systems will lead to anomalies.

I agree, no system can be perfect. We can however strive for a system that rewards inclusive and consensual politics rather than divisive and antagonistic politics.

As long as Scotland has such small constituencies compared to the rest of the UK, nothing is going to repair the situation.

A discussion for another time! although I do have a second set of "bolt on" ideas that takes the DRPV system and uses it to provide for a more federal United Kingdom with regions having more say in some areas whilst allowing for the UK to be united in other areas. but that as they say is another story!

Using the Edge browser I get every spelling mistake highlighted.

I assume you're using W10, how's that working out? I'm thinking of upgrading.

 

[Surfinjo]

Dual representives present a potential for conflict when they represent opposing parties.

Your obserevations on STV are understood, but in reality are equally relevant to FPTP and your own favoured, dual member.

I disagree with your assessment. In the example you created, there are four parties. Voters would choose one, or a second choice or a thrid or a forth. There is no obligation.

And yes, STV provides a means of picking a single member. But a single member with more overall support than it would have under FPTP.

Understand about a Federal UK. Sounds a bit like too much governemnt frankly. In any case, the survival of the UK is becoming less and less likely. We shall have to wait and see of course, but the signs are Corbyn is prepared to work wth the SNP in opposition.

As for W10, really liked it because it uses much less RAM and so is both faster and less crashing, especially running several apps at the same time. (Everyone else is calling them apps now, so what the ...!)

Sadly, I can't se it anymore. I was using an unregistered copy. Windows refuses to upgrade my W7 because it claims my CPU doesn't support some modern protocall.

I'mm eventually buy another machine, complete with W10. But for now, I'll stick with XP.

 

[beelbeebub]

Dual representives present a potential for conflict when they represent opposing parties.

You are right, in some circumstances the two representatives may be at odds, this would represent the real split in the population.
:

If both representatives had a single vote in parliament this would be a serious issue. Take the Liverpool labour MP with a UKIP co rep, presumably on most issues they would vote different ways. Effectively the UKIP voters (some 4000 of them) would be able to block the labour voters (some 30,000). This would clearly be unfair.
:

This is where the PV bit comes in. By giving each rep the voting power proportional to the number of votes earned the Liverpool situation would only see the UKIP rep "tempering" the labour rep's vote from 30,000 to around 26000. In the Gower where the two reps both have around 15,000 votes they would be blocking each other, but I would argue that this reflects the real split in the voters.
:
Of course, if the issue in hand was something that the two reps could unite on, say a tidal barrage in Cardiff bay, the combined votes of the Gower reps would be 30,000 or so, roughly equal to the Liverpool rep.

Your obserevations on STV are understood, but in reality are equally relevant to FPTP and your own favoured, dual member.

I disagree with your assessment. In the example you created, there are four parties. Voters would choose one, or a second choice or a thrid or a forth. There is no obligation.

And yes, STV provides a means of picking a single member. But a single member with more overall support than it would have under FPTP.

I agree that a STV selected single member would probably have broader support than a FPTP selected single member.
:
Where we seem to be "at loggerheads" over is the degree of representativeness of a single candidate picked via STV has V's that of two representatives picked via "first two past the post".
:

In my opinion, a single rep can never provide the same level of representativeness as two.
:
To take Liverpool again, the representativeness of the lab and ukip reps is 34000 (assuming they could ever agree) which is greater than the representation provided by the lab rep on their own.
:
In addition, the role of representatives is not just about voting on issues, they are also there for constituents to see and raise their concerns with. To offer advice and to lobby on behalf of their constituents.
:
This is actually the core of the DR system.
:
How would a labour voting single mother on benefits feel if she wanted to raise her concerns about welfare cuts to her STV selected conservative representative? What about the business man worried about new employment laws with a STV selected labour rep?
:
With DR, there is a good chance that the co-representative would be, if not the constituent's first choice, then at least close enough for the mother and business man to feel comfortable visiting. You may even get the situation where voters chose to visit one candidate for one issue and the other for another, the business man might go to the con rep for labour law changes but the labour rep to voice h's support for the hunting ban. The mother might visit the labour rep for the welfare issues but the con rep over immigration.

 

[Surfinjo]

Thinking outside of the box for a moment.

We have 500, (or so) seats.

Every year, 100 seats, evenly scattered throughout the country, are up for election. The winners sit for 5 years

The following year, a diffent set of 100 seats, evenly scattered throughout the country are re-elected for 5 years.

And so on.

 

[Cody]

Please add only two terms as Prime Minister to your brave new world.

 

[Surfinjo]

Please add only two terms as Prime Minister to your brave new world.

Nice idea. But the discussion is about potential voting systems.

The reality is, the issue will probably never be discussed again in most of our lifetimes. The one time it was put to the vote, hardly anyone even bothered.

 

[Surfinjo]

Here's a good example of the STV election system at work. Thanks to the recent trend for land slide victories for the SNP in bi-elections, the successful candidate manages to get elected on the first round, so there is no need to count the second preference votes.

As you can see, the loosers won a total of 1150 votes between them, meaning the winner was the overall winner

With STV, which they use, had the winner not achieved enough support on the first round, the candidate with the lowest support, would have been eliminated and second preference votes would have been added.

Similar results have occured in the other three local bi elections in Scotland, so little need to post the results, unless someone really wants them.

 

[beelbeebub]

That's not a great example of STV, as you said, the winner won in one round!
:
So the result would be the same in FPTP as well!
:
However, the winner got 68% of the vote (enough for a FPTP and STV single round win) so he will represent that constituency with (an admittedly healthy) 32% almost 1/3rd of the electorate who didn't vote for him.
:
Under DRPV, the second representative would be Scot Labour with 549 votes, making the representation between the two a whopping 82%!
:
Now this isn't a great example as the ideological gap between SNP and Scot Lab is not huge, so many of the Scot Lab voters who didn't get their "guy" in would still be ok with the SNP guy.
:
Imagine for a moment the Scot Con and Scot Lab results were reversed, so the Scot Con chap was the second place.
:

In this case the ideological gulf between the two candidates is probably much greater (maybe even irreconcilable).
:

Under DRPV, the 15% or so of Scot Con voters would have a representative to go to. The Scot LAb and Scot Green would probably get on ok with the SNP rep.
:
The SNP guy would still have considerable clout as under the PV part, even if his Scot Con co-rep opposed him, he would still have plenty of surplus votes, reflecting the fact that this constituency is strongly SNP.

 

[Surfinjo]

The winner achieved an over all majority.

The winner got 4.7 times the votes of the Labour candidate. A clear win by any standards. Labour only achieved just less than 1/5.

The Tories only achieved 1/6. yet under DRPV the Tories would still loose. (Weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth).

It's also a little disturbing that under DRPV, a candidate who looses so resoundingly, would end up winning a seat, with the same powers and democratic mandate as the winner.

Sadly, in democracy, some loose. STV ensures that the winner at least gets the support of the overall majority.

 

[Adept]

Proportional vote without party managed order is what creates proper democracy. Voting for "people" rather than picking a party and then selecting a candidate from within that party is problematic.

Proportional voting creates a true multi-party system and it means that every vote matters.

 

[beelbeebub]

The winner achieved an over all majority.

The winner got 4.7 times the votes of the Labour candidate. A clear win by any standards. Labour only achieved just less than 1/5.

The Tories only achieved 1/6. yet under DRPV the Tories would still loose. (Weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth).

It's also a little disturbing that under DRPV, a candidate who looses so resoundingly, would end up winning a seat, with the same powers and democratic mandate as the winner.

Sadly, in democracy, some loose. STV ensures that the winner at least gets the support of the overall majority.

Maybe, I'm not clear, under DRPV, in your example the co-rep would be scot lab, but when it came to a parliamentary vote, say on issue the SNP and Scot Lab were on opposite sides of, the SNP person would have ~2500 votes and the Scot Lab ~500 votes making the total votes for the constituency some 2000 in the SNP direction.
:
If the two reps voted the same way the constituency would have some 3k votes.
:
The allocation of each rep's voting "power" is vital. If each rep had a single parliamentary vote (as now) then it would be unfair.
:
The example you have is not great because the winner is clear under any system.
:
Say you had a result where the 1st place Conservative had 51% of the vote, the second place Lab 40% in a small constituency. In that case the majority winner under STV is the Tory, but that ignores a huge chunk of he eke to rate who n only have a rep they voted against, but that rep has the same power as the Labour rep next door who won a landslides of 80% in a massive constituency.
:
Currently the SNP are hugely over represented in parliament having near 9% of the votes but only 4% of the vote. Nearly as many people voted for UKIP as for the SNP.
:

 

[Surfinjo]

:
The example you have is not great because the winner is clear under any system.
:
Say you had a result where the 1st place Conservative had 51% of the vote, the second place Lab 40% in a small constituency. In that case the majority winner under STV is the Tory, but that ignores a huge chunk of he eke to rate who n only have a rep they voted against, but that rep has the same power as the Labour rep next door who won a landslides of 80% in a massive constituency.
:
Currently the SNP are hugely over represented in parliament having near 9% of the votes but only 4% of the vote. Nearly as many people voted for UKIP as for the SNP.
:

That's the point though. In any system there are winners and loosers.

As for the SNP being over represented, all Scots are over represented. That is one of the principal anomalies of Westminster. That can easily be solved by ending the union.

The SNP didn't get 4% of the vote they got 1454436 out of 4,285,323, 34%. They won 95% of the seats.

While the number of seats they managed to win may seem unfair, we must remember they have been on the loosing end of that system, while the Tories and labour were on the winning end, for many many years.

It doesn't justify the system, it does demonstrate that there are winners and loosers.

Moreover, the Tories got 51% of the seats with 37% of the vote while Labour got 36% of the seats with 30% of the vote.

We can wring our hands but giving a seat with equal rights and powers to potentially, someone with almost no support at all, is just stupid.

The only effective system would be a dramatic increase in the number of seats. That would balance out the relative strengths of each of the major blocks. And like it or not, people tend to think in groups.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The SNP didn't get 4% of the vote they got 1454436 out of 4,285,323, 34%. They won 95% of the seats.

While 4,285,323 may be the number entitled to vote, not everyone voted. The turnout in Scotland was 71.1%, i.e. 2,910,465 voters. The SNP got 1,454,436 votes - 49.97% of the Scottish vote.

 

[Julissa Silver]

49.97% of the Scottish vote.

You don't get much more of a mandate from the masses in modern politics (outside of Zimbabwe and Russia) than ~50% registered voter consent.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You don't get much more of a mandate from the masses in modern politics (outside of Zimbabwe and Russia) than ~50% registered voter consent.

The SNP polled 1,454,436 which equates to 33.94% of the total electorate in Scotland, but only 71.1% turned out to vote so they polled about 49.97% of those that voted in Scottish constituencies. The average number of votes per candidate was 24,651.

Similarly, the Conservatives polled 11,334,576 votes which equates to 24.4% of the total electorate in the UK, but only 66.1% turned out to vote so they polled 36.9% of those who voted in the UK. The average number of votes per candidate was 17,519.

Lastly, UKIP polled 3,881,129 votes. Their average number of votes per candidate was only 6,220 by comparison.

 

[Julissa Silver]

The SNP polled 1,454,436 which equates to 33.94% of the total electorate in Scotland, but only 71.1% turned out to vote so they polled about 49.97% of those that voted in Scottish constituencies.

Yeah, you know what? I totally misread your previous post. I'm sure you can guess how!

Stuff today into a gunny sack, I'm going back to bed. >_<

 

[beelbeebub]

That's the point though. In any system there are winners and loosers.

As for the SNP being over represented, all Scots are over represented. That is one of the principal anomalies of Westminster. That can easily be solved by ending the union.

The SNP didn't get 4% of the vote they got 1454436 out of 4,285,323, 34%. They won 95% of the seats.

Yes but the election was for the UK parliament in Westminster.
.
The SNP got votes 1.45million from a total of 30.7 million cast or around 4.75% but got 9% of the votes in parliament
.
Contrast with UKIP who got 1.1million votes or 3.6% but only got a fraction of a % of the votes.
.

While the number of seats they managed to win may seem unfair, we must remember they have been on the loosing end of that system, while the Tories and labour were on the winning end, for many many years.

It doesn't justify the system, it does demonstrate that there are winners and loosers.

Moreover, the Tories got 51% of the seats with 37% of the vote while Labour got 36% of the seats with 30% of the vote.

We can wring our hands but giving a seat with equal rights and powers to potentially, someone with almost no support at all, is just stupid.

Agreed, if the co-rep had equal voting power in parliament that would be stupid.
.
But that is not the case with DRPV.
.
Under FPTP the Conservative MP for Gower (15862 votes or 37%) has the same voting power as the Labour MP from Liverpool Walton (31222 votes or 81%). That's daft, especially as the second place labour candidate in the Gower polled 15835, 27 votes less that the eventual candidate. So for lack of 28 votes Labour lost an MP or 1/650th of the votes in parliament.
.
The key point about DRPV is that each representative's vote in parliament is not 1/650. It is the number of votes they polled.
.
So in the last election there were 30.7million votes, and the Gower ConMP has 15,000 (or so) as would the Gower LabMP. The Liverpool Walton LabMP would have some 30k votes, and his UKIP co-rep would have only some 4k.
.
Let me reiterate that point. Regarding DRPV, your statement (which I agree with) "...giving a seat with equal rights and powers to potentially, someone with almost no support at all, is just stupid." does not apply.
.
Here are some figures from simulations of the past 2 elections. I can't simulate a STV version because the information (obviously) isn't available

2010	FPTP MPs	FPTP %	DRPV %
Con	306	47	44
Lab	258	40	32
LD	57	9	20
DUP	8	1	1
SNP	6	1	2
SF	5	1	1

2010 Statistics	FPTP	DRPV
Lowest representation	29%	54%
Highest representation	72%	96%
Number of seats above 2/3rds representation	6	>600
Median representation (50%tile)	47%	75%

2015	FPTP MPs	FPTP %	DRPV %
Con	330	51%	46%
Lab	232	36%	36%
LD	8	1%	4%
DUP	9	1%	1%
SNP	56	9%	6%
SF	5	1%	1%
UKIP	1	near 0	4%

2015 Statistics	FPTP	DRPV
Lowest representation	25%	47%
Highest representation	81%	92%
Number of seats above 2/3rds representation	17	>600
Median representation (50%tile)	50%	75%

Notice how DRPV tends to reduce the power of the top first 2 parties and boosts the power of the 3rd and lower parties.
.
Also note how the representation (calculated as the % of the constituency who voted for the eventual representative or representatives) in DRPV is almost always above 50% (one constituency in NI managed to only get 47% in 2015. The next lowest was 55%. In fact all but 10 constituencies had representation of greater than 60%.
.
Under STV, assuming that everyone votes for their 1st choice as now in about 320 constituencies, there would be a run off, the remaining 330 odd would get a candidate at the first pass.
.
That means that for about half (320) the constituencies the MP selected under STV would have be less than 50% of the voters 1st choice.
.
The STV will eventually select a candidate but they may be some people's 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice. Even then with the 50% threshold you may get a candidate after 3 or 4 rounds who has 51% of the votes of those who bothered to get as far as 4 candidates.
.
The key metric is this. Imagine that after the candidate had been selected (by whatever method) you visited each voter (who voted) and asked "are you happy with the candidate selected Y/N?".
.
Under STV, that number could still be less than 50%, under DRPV that number will be (statistically) greater than 50% and often over 66%.
.
I submit that DRPV offers greater "representation" as defined by the method above than STV, FPTP, AV, PR or any other method (except Triple Rep!)
.

The only effective system would be a dramatic increase in the number of seats. That would balance out the relative strengths of each of the major blocks. And like it or not, people tend to think in groups.

The DRPV system would double the number of MPs (assuming the constituencies were kept the same)
.

 

[Surfinjo]

.
Under FPTP the Conservative MP for Gower (15862 votes or 37%) has the same voting power as the Labour MP from Liverpool Walton (31222 votes or 81%). That's daft, especially as the second place labour candidate in the Gower polled 15835, 27 votes less that the eventual candidate. So for lack of 28 votes Labour lost an MP or 1/650th of the votes in parliament.
.

.

No, now you have gone wrong.

Both MPs represent their constituencies. That is the point of winner takes all.

My current MP is a Tory. She represents me and other non-Torys as much as those who voted for her. She is one representatives and if she fails to do her job, as the last tory we had, 20 odd years ago, she will loose her seat

In any multi member constituency system, however it is elected, the lazy, apathetic representatives will hide behind the hard working ones. More over, the temptation will be for MPs to compete with each other at the expense of the constituency.

 

[beelbeebub]

No, now you have gone wrong.

Sorry do you mean wrong about the figures, pretty sure they're right.
:
Or do you mean wrong about it being an oddity that an MP elected by a whisker on a small turn out in a small constituency, has just as much of a vote as an MP selected by a landslide. The Liverpool MP had twice as many people voting for him as the Gower MP. He polled a clear majority of victory V's the Gower's majority that is barely big enough to fill a bus.

Both MPs represent their constituencies. That is the point of winner takes all.

In theory the MP should represent their constituents, but party voting being as it is.....
:
To take the Gower, if we assume that the conservative voters want to repeal hunting laws and the labour voters don't, the single MP cannot represent the views of the labour voters on this issue. Even if everyone in the Gower is anti hunting, their MP may vote for it to toe the party line.

My current MP is a Tory. She represents me and other non-Torys as much as those who voted for her. She is one representatives and if she fails to do her job, as the last tory we had, 20 odd years ago, she will loose her seat

In any multi member constituency system, however it is elected, the lazy, apathetic representatives will hide behind the hard working ones. More over, the temptation will be for MPs to compete with each other at the expense of the constituency.

This is where I think you are wrong.
:
Remember the voting power is directly tied to your votes. Say you were the UKIP co-rep in Liverpool Walton, ok you were second by a massive margin (4k to 30k) but every vote you pick up helps. Under the current FPTP, a win is a win. Once a candidate has a big enough margin to be "safe" why bother with extra work? If you have a majority of 5k, working hard to make it 6k does nothing. That's why party loyalists are parachuted into "safe" seats where a cabbage with the appropriately coloured rosette would win.
:
With the PV bit of DRPV, grabbing extra votes is crucial, not only to the overall party score where your 4 or 5k votes might be the difference, but also to your own standing within your party. After all who do you think gets the leaderships ear? The chap with 30k votes or 4k votes?
:
The direct use of the constituents votes also ties the rep to their voters. After all if your rep votes in a way you don't like it is very directly tied to your vote.
:
I would also propose that the incentives are there for the two candidates to try to work together as by doing so they increase the "clot" of their constituency.