Some comments in this thread on the upcoming British General Election – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=313089 – got me to thinking. A lot of posters in that thread are fed up with Labour and favorable to the Liberal Democrats but, for strategic reasons, will vote Labour anyway if they live in marginal seats that might go Tory. Well, there’s a way to eliminate that kind of dilemma permanently. One of Tony Blair’s 1997 campaign promises was to hold a national referendum on electing the House of Commons by proportional representation (the “multi-member district” version if it, IIRC). It’s a promise he still hasn’t kept. If such a referendum were held, would it pass? What’s the state of British public opinion (if any) on this issue? Presumably everybody who has ever even considered voting for the LibDems would vote yea, but would that still be a minority of the electorate? I understand opponents of PR argue that PR would create a “tail wagging the dog” situation – i.e., it is unlikely there would ever be a majority party in the Commons every again, and every government would have to be a coalition government; the LibDems would still be the smallest party in Parliament, but they would be in a position to offer to go into coalition with either the Tories or Labour, and on the LibDems’ terms. Some people don’t think it’s fair the smallest party should have that much power. Does this argument have a lot of traction with the public?
BTW, It’s no secret that I personally want such a referendum to happen – not because British politics are any of my business, but because I want PR in America. If such a referendum was held, the American news media would have to cover it (they couldn’t plausibly ignore it, like they did when New Zealand moved to PR – the UK is the Mother Country, after all). And to cover it they would have to explain to the American people what PR is. Most Americans (including elected officials!) have never even heard of it. Once I tried to sound out a state legislature candidate on her position on PR, and she assumed I mean racial gerrymandering.
How could that be? It was a campaign issue in 1997. And you already use PR for elections to the European Parliament, don’t you? As well as to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly, and, I believe, local elections in Scotland.
Also, we’ve had it in Northern Ireland for years. It seems strange to have a different method of voting in different parts of the UK.
I think it’s more likely to pass in a referendum than to be introduced through a vote in Westminster - the larger parties don’t want it as it would cut the number of seats they could win.
Yeah, well, the problem is, a referendum has to be approved through a vote in Westminster. It’s a chicken-egg problem. (In many states in the U.S. a group can seek to amend the state consitution by gathering petition signatures to put an amendment referendum on the ballot – cutting out the elected officials entirely. I don’t think you have anything like that in the UK.)
Multi-member electorates with proportional representation is certainly one solution to the problem. Personally I think that there is another fundamental flaw in the British voting system which is somewhat easier to rectify, since current electoral boundaries and so on can remain as they are.
The current system is first past the post. By adopting a preferential system instead, you can give the electors the opportunity of casting a protest vote while still not risking the election of the candidate that they really don’t like. In the example given in the OP, you can vote for the Lib-Dem candidate, then if he/she gets the lowest number of votes and is eliminated, your vote then counts for the Labour candidate.
You end up with the candidate that the majority dislikes the least!
I’m guessing this would still require a referendum, but perhaps one more likely to pass.
What you’re describing is called “instant-runoff voting.” It’s still first-past-the-post, not the same thing at all as PR (in terms of practical results, the LibDems would not likely win any more seats under it than they do now); but it does simplify “strategic voting” decisions in elections where there is only one seat to be filled. See this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=261969
I think a referendum on PR would sail through, assuming that people actually go to vote in the referendum. The main danger would be that it may not be an issue that can energise people to actually vote for.
I think that, right now, if there was an option on the ballot paper for a hung parliament with Labour as the largest party and Lib Dems holding the balance, that option would get a landslide.
Lib Dems would obviously campaign in favour of PR, presumably Labour as well. I think the Conservatives would oppose (otherwise how would they ever be in government again?) but it would be interesting to see on what grounds.
There’s no way Labour would campaign for it at the moment. As has been pointed out earlier, it was in their 1997 manifesto - but they’ve had waaay to much fun with their three-figure majority since then. (In 1998, they did have the full commission/report/whatever into possible PR systems, but then quietly forgot about it.)
Avenger is right, the Tories would probably oppose as any governing coalition would likely be between Labour and the Lib Dems. However, it is worth pointing out that the current British electoral system is stacked significantly against the Tories, as Conservative held constituencies tend to be larger than Labour held ones.
Hence, if there was some way of avoiding a Labour-Lib Dem coalition, the Tories would be all for PR.
Well, maybe, but for it to appear on a referendum it will have to pass through the Commons first. So, in the hypothetical situation, presumably Labour will be campaigning for it.
I’m sure it must hold some attractions to Labour. Under the present system, sure they have three figure majorities now but, sooner or later the pendulum will swing and we’ll see a Tory government with a decent majority through 38 or 40% of the national vote. A move to PR would entrench the progressive centre-left majority in government. And lets face it, nothing the Lib Dems say is offensive to Labour, all they do is promote policies that most Labour members wish their party would adopt.
I think there’s a decent chance that we could see a move on this early in the next parliament - Blair is keen on his legacy and this could be it.
Hard to see what that would be though. Actually I think that PR could quite quickly split the Conservative party - there would no longer be the electoral glue to hold together the euro-sceptic right and the Ken Clarke-style one-nation tories.
I think a right-wing party encompassing UKIP and the right of the Conservative Party and campaigning on an anti-European platform and a SDP style party in the centre would be quite likely.
We’ve only had it for one European election - and the successes of Ukip and the BNP dominated the headlines then.
It’s not that simple. The bias towards Labour is a fairly recent development (at other times, there’s been a bias the other way). The Labour vote is more spread out, whereas the Tories’ is more localised and concentrated. Labour-leaning constituencies generally have lower turnouts. The post-1997 dearth of Tory seats in over-represented Scotland & Wales also provided a Labour bias - this, at least, will vanish this week.
The British people would not in the foreseeable future at least vote for PR. It’s against their fundamental sense of fair play, and it might be added, their anti-intellectualism. I say the latter because PR is deemed to be a complex cluster of options that just doesn’t fit the British psyche. Keep it simple, let the best man win; in the meantime (naturally) we’ll do our best to stack the deck our way.
For a good insight into the British political psyche, read anything by Anthony Trollope. Phineas Finn is an excellent starting point.
How does your patronising statement fit in with the facts that:
a) We already have it for Euro, local and Scottish elections and people don’t seem to have any problems using or understanding it here (already pointed out upthread)
b) When the people of Scotland had the chance to vote on a PR parliament with tax-raising powers, the Yes-Yes camp won by a landslide.
Hmm? Do you think the good people of England so much less savvy than us Scots? I certainly don’t.
And what is this ‘they’? Are you British or not? Do you include yourself in your ‘anti-intellectual’ camp here?
I understand he was one of former PM John Major’s favourite reads. This alone would rule out my ever reading it. I suppose that makes me a snob. Sigh.
The dearth of Toerag MPs in Scotland goes back at least to the 70s and the first resurgence of the SNP. I have been looking for figures to back this up and have given up. My feeling is Labour have been overwhelmingly the main party in Scotland since 1974 or so though.
Our ‘over-representation’ did not prevent us having to suffer 11 years of Thatcherism which we predominantly did not vote for. A good argument for PR I think. And a great vote winner for the SNP and the Scottish Parliament by-the-by.
It still faintly annoys me I confess to hear Tories referred to as the Opposition when in my political world (ie Scotland) they are actually the fourth or fifth party in most constituency. Labour, LibDem, SNP, and even SSP normally poll ahead of the Tories here.
Good account of Scottish representation at Westminster here .
Seems like 1960 was the turning point for the Tories north of the border. This despite Scotland being easily the most conservative-with-a-small-c part of the UK, IME.
Thanks for your link. It seems to indicate that I was right and that distaste for voting Tory is far from a recent phenomenon here. Your second point would seem to indicate you have forgotten that NI is (still) part of the UK!
Why? The principles of PR - ie. the people get exactly what they vote for - seem intuitively more fair than a government getting a large majority on 40% of the vote.
How could that be? It was a campaign issue in 1997. And you already use PR for elections to the European Parliament, don’t you? As well as to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly, and, I believe, local elections in Scotland.