i take it you've all seen this on the news or on here..nick clegg and protesters for PR today in london

[Heathcliffscathy]

I've been out tonight and not seen the news...i don't know what the coverage has been, but this is nick clegg accepting the takebackparliament petition...hope he's really listening

here

Yeah. There's another thread on it in politics somewhere. It may have disappeared down to the bottom somewhere by now though.

Twas a very interesting moment.

Selfish people propping up the ego of a selfish man.

Let's sort the important things ouit first and then worry about the voting system.

Parliamentary democracy and their elections are first and foremost a way of providing legitimacy, not economic policy.(I say this as an economist.)

The expenses scandal was a complete non-issue in terms of economics, but a large issue in terms of legitimacy.

If you don't have legitimacy a lot of other things (including fiscal policy) become more difficult to achieve.

If you support democracy, you need to recognise legitimacy. At present, most people are unhappy about the electoral system and we need further debate.

I find it very ironic that those happy with the current system are also upset about decision making in Europe. Anyone consistent should really be concerned about both, or neither. When they're not, it's worth asking about self-interest.

A lot of decision making in Europe is made by those who haven't been elected and where there is no direct accountability to the electorate, and I think it is legitimate to question it - I don't see why we shouldn't have an election to appoint a commissioner given the amount of power they hold.

(This is dangerous for the UK's reputation in europe, I admit. In order to avoid the risk of a real nutjob, they should have spent some considerable time in Europe first and actually understand the decision making process in order to work within it.)

A lot of decision making in the UK is made by MPs, who are elected. However, in order to elect a Labour MP you need 33k people to vote for them. In order to elect a Tory MP you need something like 35K people to vote for them. The tory party is very unappy with this and see it as the main problem with the electoral system. However, it takes 120k people to elect a Lib Dem and UKIP (much as I dislike them) managed over 3% of the vote and no seats.

Agree that there are a number of issues here that the currently most vocal group in favour of PR haven't necessarily isolated.

First, there's the fact that the LDs projection of seats was about 90 with 29% of the vote, whereas Labour would get 240 off the same percentage. I absolutely agree that is not fair. PR would fix this, but it would also have given the BNP about 8% of however many seats the LDs ended up with. So then you get into open/closed list geekery and spending 5 mins on the electoral reform society's website should disabuse you of the idea that PR is worth doing.

Second, there's LD supporters' disappointment that they actually didn't make any gains this time. They lost seats, but maintained their 23% share across the country. You can make a guess why but you can never prove it - one reason might be that people got to the polling booth and realise the number three guy is just not going to make it, so to make sure of kicking out #1 you have to vote for #2. Or they decided the policies didn't add up in the end.

Third, and I haven't heard much from the LDs on this, is the boundary change/constituency link/size of government issue. I personally want to be voting for an MP who is representing our part of the country in Parliament. Where possible, obviously, and I realise that constituency business tails off if you are a minister. I think there could easily be 20% fewer MPs. And I don't see why boundaries can't be a lot more flexible in re-sizing according to numbers on the electoral roll at a point frozen at say three months before. Large numbers of new registrations close to an election have got to be on the dodgy meter, and 'transfers in' ie people moving house just before an election are balaced with a removal on a register elsewhere and probably quite few in number.

Lex ... the BNP got 1.9% of the vote, not 8%. Most PR systems have methods to stop things fragmenting too far - be that a constituency (under alternative vote or single transferrable vote) or a threshold under a list-based system. Those that don't (e.g. Israel) end up very polarised. I think that UKIP would end up with seats, but I doubt the BNP would.

(I think that setting some limits to parliamentary privelege and standards (e.g. removing protection for racism, inserting tolerance into the oath to the queen) would make it very difficult for any elected BNP representative to take a seat.)

Your second point is valid, and why we've got to be careful in estimating outcomes from current vote share. The 23% lib dem vote is probably an underestimate of their support in a straight lib-lab-con choice, but add the greens in and it will also change things.

The constituency size thing is the 35k versus 33k issue. It's important and valid to consider, but it's a very minor compared to the 35k versus 120k one. To me, it's a little like torturer complaining about having to do unpaid overtime

If you want to set boundaries 3 months before an election, you need to give about 6 months notice. Realistically, this means no snap elections - quite a big constitutional change to put without a referrendum.

Humbug

I agree about the deathbed conversion of Labour when it comes to PR. Insincere, but reform is ultimately going to need it to be in one of the biggest party's interest. Otherwise, it's labour and the conservatives each waiting for the electorate to get tired of the other. We then get swings of policy from one party to the next, and less consistency over time.

(By this token, a small c "conservative" position might be argued to support PR, since it does reduce the chances of a lunatic policy lurch. However, it's not in our big c conservative's interests to acknowledge this!)

By "right" I was meaning the murdoch media and the tories. Following 30-40% of the electorate is not majority rule, and that's still not getting through.

MrJusta, I'm with you on this - my 8% point was a rough calc of the BNP votes total (560k) against the LDs total (6.5m).

PR with threshold would completely debar independents and single-issue candidates, who this country has a strong history of returning. Look at vote share for the BNP or UKIP against the 42k vote total of the Alliance party guy in NI who ousted Peter Robinson (I think). Or the Wyre Forest independent who stood for Kidderminster Hospital but by all accounts did an al round good job as an MP.

If it's a list-based system, yes. However, I think something that retains a constituency link (such as STV) would be more likely.

I would imagine that a list-based system is more likely for the lords rather than the commons.

agree re utter and total and unjustifiable hypocrisy of cons wrt europe and then PR.

can't they see that their attitude to electoral reform is TRANSPARENTLY self interested and nothing whatsoever to do with the national interest...'we believe in democracy, but only insofar as it doesn't lose us seats!'

ok, sorry to dumb down the thread - but if we did have pr who would be pm today? am i right in thinking it would still be Cameron as they got the most actual votes?

Nancy - we can't be sure as we don't know how people would vote. It would depend on who could get 50% of the electorate - via their representatives - behind them.

In systems with lists (i.e. where you vote for a party, and the top X people on their list get elected), there's often a threshold below which votes don't typically count. In New Zealand, for instance, it's 5%.

Cameron, even with his natural support from UKIP and his tame unionists, only has 39% of the vote. Adding in the BNP as would get him to 41%. He would need the Lib Dems and if electoral reform wasn't an issue, he might get them too.

At present though, Cameron wouldn't have a natural mandate under PR as he can't command a majority. The 'natural' majority is centre/centre-left rather than the centre-right of the tories.

Who else, it's hard to say. Probably one of the Labour leader or Clegg. I say "Labour leader" as Gordon Brown would probably never have been a Labour leader under PR. Paddy Ashdown's comment today was probably correct - (paraphrasing) that it's just not in Gordon Brown to work well with others.

"And they do so because they would lose power through it, atlantis."

"can't they see that their attitude to electoral reform is TRANSPARENTLY self interested and nothing whatsoever to do with the national interest...'"

If this election had PR we probably would have ended up with a Conservative government, if you add together the votes of the conservatives, ukip, the bnp, throw in a good mix of Lib dems (who didn't want brown) and yes even a good few labour supporters (who didn't want clegg) then you would have probably come out with a conservative majority.

But I don't like it because, under the current system you vote for the guy you want to win, it's a straight race, your guy's against the others, Pr means you could end up with the Harriet Harman senario (the leader of the house race) a lot of the time you end up with the 'default' candidate that nobody really wanted.

We will have a parliament of 'second' choice candidates.

Paraphrasing my earlier response - if Cameron had the policies that he's got now (FPP) there's no chance in hell that he'd get lib dem support in a PR system.

As for the first and second choices ... I think you need to reduce your medication a touch.

I voted for my second choice candidate, atlantis. I couldn't even vote for my first choice, thanks to the system in place.

Do you live in Fulham?

and following up the "your guy versus theirs"

At the moment, it's not that .... oversimplifying in a similar way, it's one of our guys getting a split vote versus your guy getting all of his.

" oversimplifying in a similar way, it's one of our guys getting a split vote versus your guy getting all of his. "

I like to oversimplify, it makes life easier.
So someone who gets a first and second can scrape in over someone who gets 'almost' the majority of firsts, that's not democracy, that's hedging your bets. It doesn't elect the person who is actually wanted by the majority, it allows someone else to bypass the popular vote.

No I don't live in Fulham.

If they got the majority of firsts, it would be moot. However, they don't.

Ultimately, alternative vote comes down to what majority rule would be if it was a one on one competition. Sometimes we have to compromise on who the "ones" are, but thems the breaks.

If voting at the moment means I can't even vote for my number 1 choice, then doesn't that weaken your argument?

Anyone think that if it was put to a referendum both staunch Labour and staunch Conservative supporters would be likely to vote 'no thanks'... since they have the most to lose with the demise of FPTP? And would this unlikely alliance add up to more than 50% of the electorate?

The BNP was unlikely to have got a thing under either Alternative Vote or Single Transferrable Vote. Under a list-based system, they are unlikely to get over the threshold.

I keep hearing this, but it's a straw man!

That analysis only holds if it's list based - which not even the electoral reform society suggests. Even if it's list based, a threshold would count out the vast majority of the "little" seats.