Tactical Voting Reform
February 10th, 2010I was reading a blogpost today by Labour MP Tom Harris, who I am inclined to like purely because I confuse him with Labour MP Tom Watson. In it, Harris decries the Liberal Democrats’ proposals for electoral reform.
Electoral reform looks to be coming, and it’s long past time. The current First Past The Post system magnifies majorities — any party winning 51% of the vote in every constituency will have 100% of the Parliamentary seats. (A cynic would think that this is why incumbent governments have been so far unwilling to change it.) In the last election, for example, the Liberal Democrats got 22% of the popular vote, but 18% of MPs, whereas Labour got 35% of the vote and 41% of MPs. A common proposed solution is Proportional Representation (PR), which is what happened at the European Parliament election: each constituency has multiple seats, which are doled out to best match the proportion of votes for each party. This would obviously benefit the Lib Dems and penalise Labour.
The Lib Dems are apparently proposing a Single Transferable Vote system, a form of PR where you also get to nominate a second choice. Harris says they’ve drawn up some ideas for how to divide up these new mega-constituencies that are designed to favour their own MPs as far as possible:
They want electoral reform, not for their own good – oh, no! – but for the good of the nation. … So, rather than leave the drawing of the new boundaries to a politically-neutral body such as the Boundary Commission, the LibDems have helpfully done it themselves. … Simply gerrymandering LibDem-held constituencies using the excuse that their MPs tend to represent rural areas simply isn’t honest. Not that we expect honesty from the Liberals, of course (a prize to the first commenter or Tweeter who claims that by attacking the Liberals I’m betraying my fear of the threat they pose).
Which is all well and good. Possibly they have cynically chosen this variant of PR and this map to maximise the benefit to their party, although the epic smackdown in the comments suggests otherwise. For some reason, I’m inclined to irrationally disregard his opinion because he uses the word ‘gerrymandering’ I have no earthly idea why. But, let’s have a look at Labour’s proposal.
Labour are suggesting Alternative Vote (AV). Here, someone disillusioned with Labour but rightly disgusted by the Conservatives might vote Lib Dem, but nominate Labour as ’second choice’. In most constituencies that would count as a Labour vote. This is obviously better than a system where left-wing voters are split between two parties and a right-wing minority can seize power, but given how much of Labour’s decline in support has been defection to the Liberal Democrats, it doesn’t look entirely selfless either.
Meanwhile the Conservatives, who despite their own best efforts are still favourites to win the election, don’t seem keen on reform at all, although this could be a part of their cunning electoral strategy of not doing or saying anything at all unless pressed, and then repeatedly U-turning until nobody knows what their position is.
A Heresy Corner commenter for some reason calling him or herself Wasp Box suggested The Report of the Independent Commission on the Voting System as a source of good, unbiased information, and the proposal in there is called Alternative Vote Top Up, which I think is AV with a pool of ‘top-up’ MPs attached to no constituency who would be selected to make sure the overall party numbers were about right. This report was commissioned by Labour, with the Lib Dems’ support, and neither of them are now following its recommendation. So maybe the Liberal Democrats have chosen the system that will benefit them the most, but even granting Harris that, the Lib Dem proposals are a lot better than those of his party, whose own report describes them as “unacceptable”.
I’d say all three major parties are pushing systems that would work out well for them. Quelle surprise. But to me, that just makes Harris’ condescending and sarcastic tone grate that much harder, especially since he’s attacking the one party whose self-interest is nearest to the public interest.
Tags for this article: Parliament
[?][More Help]
February 11th, 2010 at 22:11
After Boris Johnson got elected on the basis of second preference votes, I wouldn’t count on Lib Dem voters automatically switching to Labour to keep the Tories out.
February 12th, 2010 at 03:21
Nor would I, to be honest, but if Labour can pin their hopes on anything, I reckon that’s it.
March 2nd, 2010 at 16:49
Many of the problems with our electoral system come from trying to choose both an MP and a Government with one vote. We need one ballot paper with one vote to elect an independently minded MP in a single member constituency, and one vote to choose a PR Government. Multimember constituencies are not necessary or desirable. Direct Party and Representation Voting is the way forward. That way everyone has a vote with real choice and power.
March 2nd, 2010 at 18:11
I’m not convinced.
First of all, your website is awful and the explanation of your system confused, badly punctuated, and conflated with an apparently unrelated and undefined ’swipecard’ system.
I’m not sure I’m comfortable with giving MPs different voting weights. From the 2005 results, Labour MPs would have .85 votes each, Conservatives would have 1.02, Lib Dems would have 1.21, and the lone Ulster Unionist MP would have had 2.5 votes, equivalent to 3 Labour MPs. His constituency would have an absurd amount of power. A single MP from a small or new party might end up with five times the vote of a government minister, a disproportionate power which he could abuse with no regard to his manifesto or party line and nobody would be able to stop him for five years.
The exemption for ‘free votes’ would, I think, be impossible because there’s no difference between a ‘free’ and ‘whipped’ vote except in the pressure put on MPs by their parties. I also worry that an MP with two-thirds of a vote would be less likely to bother rebelling against a whip. Instead of voting for an “independently-minded” MP, you’re choosing from a list of party-line proxy voters.
March 2nd, 2010 at 23:31
It’s too complicated! I found it confusimg myself when I visited the website: how on earth are you going to make this comprehensible to “the man in the street”?
March 10th, 2010 at 13:57
I want a fair voting system, but one I understand. I want to vote for the best party for the Government, but also for the best MP. Voting must be simple. Every vote should count.
Direct Party and Representation Voting (DPR) has the virtues of ‘First Past the Post’ but not the vices – it is just as simple – but it delivers Proportional Representation Government.
It gives the voter the chance to vote separately both for a party to form the Government and for an MP to represent the Constituency. Every vote does count.
To argue that a move to AV would then lead to a better PR system seems wishful thinking.
The merits of the different systems are endlessly debated and it has got us nowhere. There is no consensus because people are put off by complex voting systems. Others are put off because of the upheaval the new systems would cause. Others just don’t want a fair voting system.
It has been shown that there is a public majority for a fair voting system in principle. There is no agreement on how. The key to public support is a system that every one, voters and politicians, understands.
MPs also have to vote for it. A reform that retains the existing electoral machinery and structure, thus not immediately threatening MPs and their campaigning organisation with redundancy, might just find a consensus. You cannot ask the Turkeys to vote for Christmas.
To achieve a consensus, a system must have as many virtues as possible, and at the same time, none of the vices. It must also be so easy and natural to introduce that it will seem like no real change at all when it comes to an election.
more about Direct Party and Representative voting (DPR) at http://www.dprvoting.org
March 10th, 2010 at 14:06
I agree that AV is not the solution, but the Independent Commission on the Voting System recommend Alternative Vote Top Up and to be honest that sounds like the best proposal I’ve heard.
It would be nice to be able to support my preferred party without supporting their local Parliamentary candidate, but candidate selection is a party matter. Possibly I could join the party and have a say; I’ve never looked into it. Trying to build it into the election system would, I think, be fruitless. It feels pointless to simultaneously vote for someone to be an MP and for them to have as little say as possible once there.
March 17th, 2010 at 09:04
Andrew,
With AV plus you have some ‘local’ MPs and some party list MPs. In my view, having two sorts of MPs is not ideal. Also the Constituency boundaries would have to be redrawn, so it requires a substantial change to the structure and mechanics of the election. This sort of complexity makes the democratic process more opaque, when it needs to be simple and transparent.
DPR voting requires no such changes and maintains the single member constituency and the simplicity and transparency of FPTP.
The results of voting for both the candidate and the party would be interesting. It would influence the ‘safe seat’ which might continue to return a large haul of votes in the party vote, but if the MP was strongly disliked, the MP could still lose the seat.
The relative votes between the winning party and candidate in the constituency would keep continual pressure on the MP not to ignore the constituency. This again might well influence the party’s constituency organisation in the selection of the candidate.
Unless you separate the party and representative votes, how do you vote when the party you want to see in Government puts up an undesirable local candidate, or crook (eg expenses scandal)?
March 17th, 2010 at 09:34
Further to your March 2nd. Thanks for the feedback.
Swipe card voting – I envisage a machine readable card with embedded chip giving the name of the MP and the vote value. (Machines are probably better at adding up decimals and keeping a record of who voted for what.)
You say you are not comfortable with an Ulster Unionist having a vote value 2.5, equivalent to 3 Labour MPs. This arithmetic just corrects the overrepresentation of Labour voters and the under representation of the UU, ie it reflects the number of people who voted for the Ulster Unionists. Isn’t that more democratic than the arbitrary results that the current system gives?
Re small parties. If a new small party had votes spread widely and thinly, it is possible they would get no MPs. Of course this happens at present and so there is a barrier to new parties when they start up. And yes, when that new party does get its first MP, all those thinly spread votes would give that MP extra voting strength. That way their votes do count. I don’t imagine you are more comfortable with the votes cast for small parties being wasted?
Re the Independent-mindedness of the MP. I don’t think the arithmetic would be the influencing factor on how independent an MP would feel. The candidate focussed election would inject a degree of independent thinking. The MP is no longer just a party appointee.
Apologies if my punctuation is not up to scratch, or if I make the system sound complicated. It is really very simple and requires virtually no change to our existing system, so it should be very easy to understand and implement, as well as to vote and administer.
March 17th, 2010 at 10:28
I take your point about ‘whipped’ versus ‘Free’ votes. The distinction would have to be formalised.
For the sake of transparency this would seem to me to be a good reform to make. If the party wants its MPs to vote according to the party line, as opposed to their conscience, this should be out in the open. So yes, some rules would have to be drawn up.
March 17th, 2010 at 10:37
Yes, I don’t like whipping either, but what can you do? Introducing a formal system won’t stop people using the current one.
Re. swipe card voting: Of all the problems in Parliament, this isn’t one. Here is the complete voting record of a random MP (David Tredinnick; he’s as random as they get) on the vexed issue of whether gay people are the same as proper people: http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn=David_Tredinnick&mpc=Bosworth&house=commons&dmp=826&display=motions
I don’t see any part of that that’s broken.
Re. small parties: no matter how large a minority he gets, I’m uncomfortable with the idea of one man having six votes in the Commons. With AV+, a party’s voting power is increased by adding more MPs, which means that each MP is equally powerful. You say “having two sorts of MPs is not ideal,” but I think having one sort with voting powers ranging from .7 to 5.0 is far worse. The party’s power might be democratic, but the individual’s is not.
How’s this for an idea:
Each party nominates, independents can stand as, and you can vote for: one local MP, one minister for each cabinet post, and a PM. I’m not sure how well a cross-party cabinet would co-operate, but it would solve the undesirable-local-candidate issue and it would allow you to vote on more than one issue.
March 17th, 2010 at 14:03
Using a machine readable card to record and count votes is just a way of making it easy. It doesn’t change anything. It’s not solving a problem.
I accept your position about the exceptional minor party leader who might get to vote on behalf of all the people who voted for that party.
In practice the political landscape would have changed a great deal with PR government, so the power of a single individual to change the vote on a government bill is going to be limited.
For ‘Free votes’ the vote value reverts to 1.
I take your point that how Free votes and Government bills are formally distinguished is important.
If I understand your voting idea, it sounds as though it would be a very long Ballot Paper. Over 20 Cabinet posts?