General / Off-Topic Alternative voting system for UK Parliment

[beelbeebub]

here's a proposal for an alternative to the current "first past the post" (FPTP) voting system used for electing MP's and hence forming governments in the UK parliament.
.
I'd like some feed back on it, potential flaws and problems.
.
To keep things smooth please abide by a few rules when replying
.

• Please stick to a technical discussion on the merits or flaws of the system
• Please keep party politics out of it
• Please no "sack all MPs" or "all MPs are crooks" etc, yes some MPs are crooks, but that's not the issue here

.
Ok on with the show, to keep things readable I've placed examples and "asides" in spoiler tags
.
The system is the "Dual Representative, Proxy Vote" system or DRPV.
.
First some preamble.
.

Spoiler

I believe that the system of constituents picking a person to represent them in Parliament is a good one. Systems of proportional voting (e.g. Israel) rely on party lists which I believe to be a bad thing as it relies to much on internal party politics.
.
Where the current system falls down is that by selecting the representative on a simple "who has the most votes" you almost guarantee that a significant minority (or even majority) of voters are represented by someone they did not vote for.

.
Dual Representative
.
DRPV is identical to the current FPTP system up to the point that the votes have been counted.
.

• UK is divided into constituencies, they could be the same as the ones we currently have
• Candidates stand in each constituency to represent each constituency in Parliament
• Candidates can be chosen by a party or independent
• Voters vote for their chosen candidate on a single chosen date
• The number of votes for each candidate are counted

.
At this point in the FPTP system the candidate with the most votes is selected to be come the single representative (MP) in parliament for that constituency.
.
Under DRPV, the top two candidates are selected as the dual representatives for their constituency.
.
Example

Spoiler

So say there are 3 major parties, Red, Green and Blue plus some fringe parties Black and White
.
If the vote shares were as follows
.
Red 32%
Green 31%
Blue 30%
Black 5%
White 2%
.
Under the FPTP system the constituency would be represented by Red despite twice as many people voting for "Not Red" than voting for "Red".
.
Under DRPV A Red and a Green representative would be selected, meaning that, between the two they covered 63% of the voters or nearly 2/3rds. In fact even if the vote was almost evenly split between the parties, the representation would be at least 40%. In practice typical UK voting patterns would make the representation almost always over 50% and mostly over 75%.

.
Proxy Vote
.
So 2 MP's have been selected for every Constituency in the UK.
.
Under the current system each MP has 1 vote in Parliament, making for easy vote calculations but meaning that an MP who "squeaked in" with a slim majority in a small constituency with a poor turnout, has the same power as a representative who won by a landslide.
.
Example

Spoiler

the Conservative MP for Gower, with a margin of 27 votes or 0.06% of the votes has the same vote (and can "neutralise") as the Labour MP for Liverpool Walton, with a majority of over 25k, or over 70% of the votes.

.
Under the DRPV system each MP has the number of votes in parliament that they collected in their election
.
Example

Spoiler

the Gower MP would have 15,862 votes and the labour co-representative 15,835 whilst in Liverpool the labour MP would have a whopping 31,222 votes and their UKIP co-representative 3,445 votes.
.
In this case on issues where the conservatives and Labour were split, Gower would "neutralise" itself, which is fair enough as the constituency was more or less split. On the other hand on issues where the two parties were in agreement they would have over 30,000 votes between them, as much as the Liverpool Walton Labour MP.

.
The government would be formed in the same manner as now, by whoever commands the most votes, which may not be the same as the most MPs.
.
Potential advantages of DRPV over FPTP
.
In terms of the mechanics of voting, it is exactly the same as now, there are no second choices, runoff or party/candidate choices.
.
Similarly, there are no transferred votes, run offs or complex mathematics in selecting the representatives, just pick the top 2.
.
Most constituents will have a representative they voted , and given the make up of politics it's likely that even if your chosen candidate was not selected one of the candidates will lie close to your views.
.
The PV part strengthens the link between the constituents and the MPs the representatives are literally proxy voting for their constituents. A voter see their representative using their vote on legislation.
.
Potential disadvantages with DRPV in general
.
As far as I can see (and this is why I'm asking for feedback) there is only one major disadvantage with DRPV, cost. We would have more MPs which would inevitably cost more.
.
Some rough calculations

Spoiler

The current cost of MP's salaries and pensions is around 150m/year. Lets say, including the recent pay rise, plus expenses of 250k/year/MP somewhere around the 350million mark. This would double to around 700m although some savings might be made by reducing the number of constituencies (500 would be nice giving an even 1000 MPs). That's roughly 305million a year extra. To put that in context, the government collects somewhere around 1750million a day in taxes, so the extra cost of MPs would be approximately 5hours per year or (I believe the NHS costs 2bn a week in round numbers) 1 day of the NHS.

.
However I think that the extra cost in not large (approximately 1 day of NHS expenditure) in the context of government expenditure.
.
I have run some simulations on the 2010 and 2015 elections to show the difference DRPV would have made.

Spoiler

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%

Some "Headline" statistics.

• In 2015 the highest representation achieved by FPTP was 81%, under DRPV 140 constituencies would have had greater representation. In 2010 the highest FPTP representation was only 72% whilst under DRPV most (over 480) constituencies would have had greater representation than that.
• In 2015, under FPTP, nearly half the constituencies had less than 50% representation. Under DRPV there would have been only one, Belfast South at 47% (although the representation under FPTP was only 25% in that constituency)
• In both 2010 and 2015, DRPV would have provided at least 75% representation for most (more than half) of constituencies.

.
Thank you for your time and I look forward to your comments

 

[Surfinjo]

There was a proposal for a not dissimilar system which was put to a national referendum in 2012. The problem is, there was practically no discussion over it, no campaigns, the only word that was was made about it was that it was pointless.

Personally it was a system I preferred and have done so since the 70s. Trouble is, the Torys didn''t understand it, the Labour Party had most to loose and the Libs acted all haughty because it wasn't their preferred system.

STV.

4 candidates for example. You vote for your first preference, your second and so on. There is no obligation to vote for more than one.

First round of voting, if no single candidate gets more than the threshold, (say 50%), the one with the lowest number of votes drops out and the second preference votes are added to the first preferences.

The process continues until one candate gets more than the threshold.

One way ensure more democracy is to drastically increase the number of MPs. Currently there are 500 for the UK. That could be increased to, for example, 10,000. The herd principal would then iron out anomolies.

 

[beelbeebub]

There was a proposal for a not dissimilar system which was put to a national referendum in 2012. The problem is, there was practically no discussion over it, no campaigns, the only word that was was made about it was that it was pointless.

Personally it was a system I preferred and have done so since the 70s. Trouble is, the Torys didn''t understand it, the Labour Party had most to loose and the Libs acted all haughty because it wasn't their preferred system.

STV.

4 candidates for example. You vote for your first preference, your second and so on. There is no obligation to vote for more than one.

First round of voting, if no single candidate gets more than the threshold, (say 50%), the one with the lowest number of votes drops out and the second preference votes are added to the first preferences.

The process continues until one candate gets more than the threshold.

One way ensure more democracy is to drastically increase the number of MPs. Currently there are 500 for the UK. That could be increased to, for example, 10,000. The herd principal would then iron out anomolies.

with respect, i'm not sure that you've quite got the drift behind DRPV, it has some major differences from STV.
.
1) the voting processes are different. DRPV uses the exact same system as currently used. frankly this is about as simple as it's possible to be. STV, whilst far from difficult, does represent a step up in complication.
.
2) the counting processes are very different. DRPV is identical to the current system, again very simple and transparent. STV, as you described has multiple "recounts" and is far less transparent.
.
3) the crucial, and main difference, is the selection of the two most popular candidates as MPs under DRPV, rather than a single least objectionable under STV. imagine going for a group meal where there were 4 dishes on offer. under DRPV the two most popular dished are served to everyone. so most people get their favourite dish. Under STV everyone might get a dish that was nobody's favourite, or even second favourite, but maybe the third favourite. You can argue if having most people get their favourites whilst some get a choice between their least favourite is better or not than having a single choice that is not anyone's favourite but the point is there are clear differences.
.
4) the PV part of DRPV is significantly different from the current systems and would, I think, be difficult to use with STV or any system where the vote counting system is not simple and transparent.
.
As far as I can see, nothing similar to DRPV has been proposed (i'd be happy to be corrected) and I think it offers some potential benefits not offered by "mainstream" options like AV, STV, PR etc.
.
I'm interested in comments to see if I've missed anything.

 

[huwthomas]

I'm not sure if you'd agree that this is a drawback, but it still leaves smaller parties under-represented. Even a party that secures significant numbers of votes but mostly comes third, would be locked out ... similar to what generally happened to the Liberals in the UK, over recent decades.

I did wonder about an MP's "voting power" being based on the party's national vote rather than on the local constituency vote; that way the MPs of an under-represented third (or nth) party would wield influence in proportion to the democratic backing their party had received. Would be interesting for UKIP at the moment

 

[Surfinjo]

But we lose the single member constituency.

It will change the political system. Potentially placing two representives with entirely different views fighting each other over constituency issues.

Two could potentially be elected with opposing mandates. Each MP generally representes a number of local issues when he is elected.

It's unlikely there will be any voting reform in the near future, simply because of the way the STV vote was handled. After arguing for voting reform since WW2, the Liberals, under Clegg, hardly even bothered to campaign.

 

[Patrick_68000]

If I can allow myself, the parliament also needs renovation work ...

 

[beelbeebub]

I'm not sure if you'd agree that this is a drawback, but it still leaves smaller parties under-represented. Even a party that secures significant numbers of votes but mostly comes third, would be locked out ... similar to what generally happened to the Liberals in the UK, over recent decades.

I did wonder about an MP's "voting power" being based on the party's national vote rather than on the local constituency vote; that way the MPs of an under-represented third (or nth) party would wield influence in proportion to the democratic backing their party had received. Would be interesting for UKIP at the moment

First, I don't think it's a drawback to minimise the smaller parties. Pure PR, which "represents" all parties directly in proportion to their vote share tends to result in coalitions which rely on single issue and fringe parties to rule. This gives these parties a disproportionate power. An example would be Israel where "settler" parties wield an influence way bigger than they should. As by nature smaller parties tend to be the more extreme, this can make the national politics much more extreme.
.
For example imagine that the conservatives were just short of a majority and UKIP had the dozen or so MPs needed. A UKIPCon government would be much much more extreme with immigration and Europe than just the conservatives.
.
Looking at my simulations of 2010 DRPV tends to magnify the power of the most voted for party, and reduce the power of the least voted for. In that respect it is like FPTP. However the effect of FPTP is much more extreme converting vote shares of 30% into vast majorities.
.
DRPV seems to be much milder, and actually would have benefited the LDs in 2010 , doubling their power at the expense of the larger parties.
.
Essentially DRPV solves the problem of a party that often comes second by a whisker not getting any representation despite having a large vote share

 

[Alien]

If I can allow myself, the parliament also needs renovation work ...

I know you're saying that in jest ... but in reality it's really not funny http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33184160

 

[Surfinjo]

.
Essentially DRPV solves the problem of a party that often comes second by a whisker not getting any representation despite having a large vote share

As does STV frankly, while maintaining the single member constiuency

 

[ReijaBones]

I know you're saying that in jest ... but in reality it's really not funny http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33184160

Don't worry, we'll make it back by completely reversing the welfare budget and taxing everyone that has children, earns minimum wage or lives on council estates with a TV bigger than five inches.

 

[huwthomas]

An example would be Israel where "settler" parties wield an influence way bigger than they should. As by nature smaller parties tend to be the more extreme, this can make the national politics much more extreme.
.
For example imagine that the conservatives were just short of a majority and UKIP had the dozen or so MPs needed. A UKIPCon government would be much much more extreme with immigration and Europe than just the conservatives.

In the UK the third party has traditionally been the more centrist one, while power has been in the hands of (relative) extremists. That aside, if we engineer things to deny representation to a substantial group of voters because we consider their views as too extreme, we are not on a good path IMO.

But if we start from the position that a two-party system is the desirable way to run things, then your proposal has great merit

 

[Patrick_68000]

I know you're saying that in jest ... but in reality it's really not funny http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33184160

Yes I'm kidding of course, and I also know that the works are pharaonic and the costs are gigantic. In all cases, it is necessary to preserve this marvelous edifice

 

[beelbeebub]

But we lose the single member constituency.

It will change the political system. Potentially placing two representives with entirely different views fighting each other over constituency issues.

Two could potentially be elected with opposing mandates. Each MP generally representes a number of local issues when he is elected.

It's unlikely there will be any voting reform in the near future, simply because of the way the STV vote was handled. After arguing for voting reform since WW2, the Liberals, under Clegg, hardly even bothered to campaign.

.
Apologies for the delay in answering, busy day AFK!
.
Yes, it will get rid of the single member constituency.
.
Could you expand on your reasons for rating the loss of a single member constituency so highly?
.
Yes two MP's with opposing views could be elected. In fact, it is almost guaranteed that at least in some areas the views of the two representatives will diverge.
.
This would be problematic if each representative had a single identical vote in parliament. As you mention they could pull in opposite directions and nullify each other.
.
This is why the PV, proxy vote portion of the idea is so important.
.
If we look at the example I gave, Gower would have had a Labour and a Conservative MP with near enough the same number of votes (only 29 votes separated them) at about 15k each. This reflects the fact that Gower is split in terms of views. Under FPTP over half the constituency would be unhappy with their representative. Assuming that STV resulted in a Labour or Conservative representative, that would still be the case. In a real sense, Gower is split 50/50 on issues where the Cons and Labs are opposed. It would be fair to say on such issues that the Gower can't contribute to the decision because it's voters are fairly evenly split, it would have to say "sorry I'm equally for and against this issue, so the decision has to be made elsewhere". On the other hand Liverpool Walton, with it's landslide support for a Labour representative (30k) and barely any support for any other party (UKIP co-rep with 4K votes) could be fairly said to be firmly on Labour's side on issues.
.
However, representatives are also supposed to be representing their constituency and not just the party line. Imagine there was an issue in which the Gower representatives were united, possibly in opposition to their parties. lets say the proposed tidal lagoon in the Cardiff bay. it may be that both Lab and Con parties are for it as it would generate huge amounts of power for the nation and reduce carbon emissions (lets not get into an argument if that is true or not, lets just assume it was). However, if both the Gower representative united against this issue, they would go have a combined power near equal to the Liverpool Walton Labour rep with a massive 30k vote.
.
I see this as providing an incentive for representatives to try to come to an understanding with their co-representative. Politics is about finding a compromise path from many disparate views. Anything we can do to encourage this rather than the points scoring punch and judy show we have now would be a better thing.
.
This effect would hopefully extend to candidates trying to get elected. it is no longer enough to squeak in with a slim majority of 1k or so. A candidate will do well if they work to be as inclusive as possible. Even in "safe" seats like Liverpool Walton, there is an incentive for parties to jockey for second position. In the last election the Labour candidate clearly didn't give a toss (my area is solidly conservative, to the extent of other parties not even getting a look in). She was parachuted in from Lambeth ("I grew up in Oxfordshire, which is just like herefordshire!" - no it's not, they're nothing alike) struggled to understand the local issues and gave off the air that she she thought we were a load of bumpkins (she may not have been wrong!). Under DRPV, fighting for second place would be worth it.
.
As an analogy ('cos I love analogies!). Imagine you are catering for a group meal. There are many different tastes and dietary requirements, there are some veggies, some with various intolerances, some religious practices to take into account. If you could only provide one dish, it is highly likely that it would be very few people's favourite and unpalatable to many. If you provide two meals, you have a much better chance of satisfying more people. The meat eaters are happy with the kosher chicken meal. The veggies are happy with the spicy nutloaf. The gluten intolerant can have the nutloaf, as can the spice lovers. Those who hate spices can have the chicken. . Sure the veggie spice haters are left in the lurch are gluten intolerant spice haters, but you can still cover more bases with two than one.
.
The dual representatives also can cover more ground and see more constituents than a single representative.

 

[beelbeebub]

In the UK the third party has traditionally been the more centrist one, while power has been in the hands of (relative) extremists.

I guess the extremes are defined by where you put your centre! Obama is considered a somewhat leftist (a dangerous, secret Muslim, foreign national communist by some) in the US, where in the UK he would be much more middle ground.
.
Under DRPV, the third tends to get a boost, in 2010 the LD's would have jumped from 9% to 20% almost doubling their power. it does tend to reduce the power of geographical parties, e.g. the SNP in favour of parties that stand in many constituencies.
.

That aside, if we engineer things to deny representation to a substantial group of voters because we consider their views as too extreme, we are not on a good path IMO.

But if we start from the position that a two-party system is the desirable way to run things, then your proposal has great merit

.
It's not about denying "substantial group of voters because we consider their views as too extreme" representation. If a party can garner enough support, in enough areas to become the second party it will get representatives. If it can mobilise many votes to come a close second it will get more power.
.
In theory PR gives a true reflection of the national thoughts, but as we all know from the ED forums, small groups can make loud noises. Imagine if ED was controlled by the forum group mind! It would be awful. Israel has shown what happens with PV. A small group can deflect the national direction for one goal that is detrimental to the majority of the population.
.
I don't believe 2 party politics is the way to go. if you want two party politics then FPTP is the way to go. DRPV leans towards 3 party politics. Triple representative Proxy Vote (TRPV) leans towards 4 party etc.

 

[Cody]

In all cases, it is necessary to preserve this marvelous edifice

I tend to disagree, but that's another topic!

 

[Patrick_68000]

I tend to disagree, but that's another topic!

I understand your disagreement, but I see also the magnificent beauty of this palace which is part of the world's treasures

 

[EdzUp]

One thing I think we can all agree on no matter the mode we will always get screwed over by the MP's that are 'supposed' to represent us what we need is not a change of voting ideals but removal of the whole government way of doing things and rethinking the entire ideal of democracy because at present its a closet dictatorship all we do is vote for the next one every time. After all the dust settles they then ruin the country for three to four years and spend the last year undoing the wreckage to make it look like they are brilliant, then the next group does exactly the same thing.

Surely if we want to actually get something done we need to get rid of this idea that we need a bunch of over payed idiots who dont have two brain cells to rub together between them to represent us all they could ever represent is their own ideas and money making schemes which is all they are good at. Personally I would like to have a revolution and get rid of parliament entirely surely in the 21st century we can come up with something that the people actually want to vote for rather than 36% actually vote and they call it a majority vote.

 

[Surfinjo]

.
Apologies for the delay in answering, busy day AFK!
.
Yes, it will get rid of the single member constituency.
.
Could you expand on your reasons for rating the loss of a single member constituency so highly?
.
.

There really isn't any more to add. Except to say, voting reform is not going to be an issue in the near future. The one opportunity that was presented, none of the parties, including the Liberals, even bothered to campaign and the issue wasn't so much defeated as died of neglect.

It's an issue that crops up when the current system produces a resyult people don't like. That, of course, will continue. A reformed system of any kind will eventually be raked over.

Malcolm Bruce admitted in Parliment that he and Dewar had designed a voting system for the Scottish parliemnt to prevent an SNP majoirty and ensure permanent coalitions. The last two Parliements have returned an overall SNP majority so Bruce stood up in Westminster and with a straight face, said he thought the electroal system should be looked at again!

Therein lies the problem. The temptation to design a system to create the result you want.

Added to the experience that, on the one occasion when reform was proposed, hardly anyone even bothered to campaign for it. The Liberals got their 50 odd seats and a place in government, forgetting they ever propsoed voting reform.

So, FPTP it remains. It isn't perfect but it does produce a result near to the wishes of the majority. If you look at the table below, More people supported the Tories than anyone other party.

The anomoly is, of coruse the Scots vote. The Scots always have been over represented at Westminster. There are a number of reasons for this, not least the now largely defunt, treaty of union of 1707.

The solution is however, quite simple. Let Scotland go.

 

[Cody]

The solution is however, quite simple. Let Scotland go.

I'm reluctantly inclined to agree - as would many in England now, I'd wager.
Another referendum is inevitable, and another after that if the SNP don't get the result they want. If 'twere done, etc...

 

[beelbeebub]

There really isn't any more to add. Except to say, voting reform is not going to be an issue in the near future. The one opportunity that was presented, none of the parties, including the Liberals, even bothered to campaign and the issue wasn't so much defeated as died of neglect.

true it's not on the table at the moment, and the last attempt was very half hearted from all sides.
.
However, that shouldn't stop other systems being developed.

It's an issue that crops up when the current system produces a resyult people don't like. That, of course, will continue. A reformed system of any kind will eventually be raked over.

Malcolm Bruce admitted in Parliment that he and Dewar had designed a voting system for the Scottish parliemnt to prevent an SNP majoirty and ensure permanent coalitions. The last two Parliements have returned an overall SNP majority so Bruce stood up in Westminster and with a straight face, said he thought the electroal system should be looked at again!

Therein lies the problem. The temptation to design a system to create the result you want.

There is always that temptation to do that. In this case I had 2 drivers.
1) to increase the number constituents who are represented by their first choice candidate (hence the DR part)
2) to take account of the number of voters who voted for a representative (the PV part)
.
In my case as a nominally rural conservative, this voting system would be worse for me. In particular it would have given UKIP, a party who I dislike and I suspect many of it's candidates would dislike me, many more seats.
.
On the other hand UKIP did poll some 12% of the vote share, so it seems wrong they only get 1mp or less 1/6% of the voting power.

Added to the experience that, on the one occasion when reform was proposed, hardly anyone even bothered to campaign for it. The Liberals got their 50 odd seats and a place in government, forgetting they ever propsoed voting reform.

So, FPTP it remains. It isn't perfect but it does produce a result near to the wishes of the majority. If you look at the table below, More people supported the Tories than anyone other party.

FPTP is far from perfect, in several occasions in the past the majority party hasn't been the one with the popular vote share. It also can produce landslides from small differences in vote shares.
.
On the plus side FPTP is simple and easy to understand and tends to reduce coalitions, but it can result in constituencies where the vast majority of votes are represented by a candidate they opposed (or at least didn't vote for) and constituencies where some voters' votes are effectively wasted.

The anomoly is, of coruse the Scots vote. The Scots always have been over represented at Westminster. There are a number of reasons for this, not least the now largely defunt, treaty of union of 1707.

The solution is however, quite simple. Let Scotland go.