Comments on: Cameron pushes his own reforms

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 08:41:23 +0000

If I was bringing in AV+ or SV+ I would do about the same.

I meant to write 130.

By: Ben Raue

Ben Raue — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 06:24:43 +0000

If I was designing an AV+ model for the UK, I would reduce the number of constituencies to 500, with 150 top-up seats. I would then distribue top-up seats according to the nine English regions with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland being their own regions. This would produce much better proportionality while maintaining a large number of constituencies and some local connection for MEPs.

By: Ben Raue

Ben Raue — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 06:23:06 +0000

A couple of points, Tom.

20% of the House of Commons is not 150. If it was, then there would be 750 seats in the House. It’s more like 130.

The Jenkins Commission did not propose electing top-up seats by EP constituency (although I think that would be a good idea). Instead he proposed breaking up the UK into 80 regions, including 65 in England. Even Northern Ireland would be broken up into 2 regions. In this case, the number of top-up seats ends up being averaged out as 1-2 seats per region (although some areas could conceivably have 3.

The Jenkins model would not include any ‘overhang’ seats like in NZ and Germany. If you did, there would be a massive number of overhang seats. Using the D’Hondt model, you give the seat to the party who has the most votes when you divide their votes by the number of seats they have already won plus one. The Jenkins model credits parties with the constituency seats they have alread won before the seats are distributed.

What this means in practice is that the 1 seat in most regions will go to the major party who is underrepresented. In most counties one major party holds the vast majority of seats, while the other is largely locked out. In a few regions where the Liberal Democrats are relatively strong (without many seats) or where the number of constituencies for the major parties are representative of the vote, they would win the seat. I can’t see parties like the Greens winning any. Consider Oxfordshire, where the Greens are relatively strong in the town of Oxford. 4 seats are held by the Conservatives, and one each by the Liberal Democrats and Labour. The one top-up seat for that region would probably go to Labour, with a small chance it would go to the Lib Dems.

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 04:55:20 +0000

If 20% of the next House of Commons was the top up then that would be 150 seats. This is 6 seats more than twice the number of MEPs they are electing this year. At these numbers it would be conceivable that they were elected according to the same electorates as the MEPs. On that basis, if the 5% threshold was regional, then the Tories and LibDems would be topped up in the North, Labour and the LibDems in the South, the Greens (and any other region they scrapped over the threshold) in London and SNP/Plaid (if they didn`t crush Labour) and the Tories in Scotland and Wales (respectively). Northern Ireland would probably get an Alliance MP and the other parties would share the other 5 or 6.

Labour seems to favour supplementary voting (a first and second round of preferences and all eliminations in one go) over the use of numbers.

The preferencing in England would favour the LibDems. The effect in Scotland and Wales would be harder to determine. In Northern Ireland the unionist parties would get the vast majority of each other`s preferences as would the Nationalist parties with some leaking to the Alliance.

By: Stephen L

Stephen L — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:07:39 +0000

While AV+ is far from perfect I’d certainly get behind it. A few reasons: It would avoid the situation where a party with less than 40% can have a thumping majority, as can happen now. While it would not give small parties a fair share of the seats it would mean they could probably get one or two in their strongest areas, giving them a foothold in parliament. If the Greens elected good people they’d build from there. The BNP would probably expose themselves badly and hopefully self destruct. Finally, by getting people used to preferential voting it would make it easier to make further change, rather than being an end in itself.

By: Ben Raue

Ben Raue — Wed, 27 May 2009 11:55:32 +0000

Simon, it’s worth noting the AV+ would have a much lower proportion of MPs elected by lists than Germany and New Zealand. So most MPs would still be elected by constituencies. In addition the top-up seats would be decided on relatively local regions (65 in England), so the top-up MPs would be a lot less distant than they are in Germany or New Zealand.

I see that as a problem, since it means that there is very little proportionality in the system. It would provide a little bit of balance between the major parties, but would ultimately not change massively. Indeed, the preference part of AV+ would have much more impact than the proportional representation part.

By: Simon Baptist

Simon Baptist — Wed, 27 May 2009 10:04:28 +0000

I’m beginning to understand how direct-election republicans felt in the referendum! Alan Johnson has been pushing the party list-style AV which came out of the Jenkins report, giving it a bit of default momentum. Of course being a Tasmanian Hare-Clark fan I love being able to choose my representatives within parties as well as between them. I worry that an AV system would just end up like EU parliament etc with a pile of party hacks filling up the positions (nothing against party hacks, I used to be one!). If there was a referendum on AV+ then I’d be pretty torn deciding whether to accept it or wait for something better. The momentum in the UK is building pretty strongly for ‘something’, but it’s more an opportunity for the electoral reformers to run off the back of the expenses scandal rather than any real desire for reform. So maybe we’ll just have to run with whatever we can get.

By: Antony Green

Antony Green — Wed, 27 May 2009 02:32:44 +0000

Love the limitation of the use of the Royal Prerogative. Straight from Tony Benn’s agenda. But I suspect above all else this is aimed at limiting the power of a government to sign treaties under soveriegn power without having them approved by Parliament, and for that read forcing a government to get parliamentary approval if it goes any further into Europe.

By: Stewart J

Stewart J — Wed, 27 May 2009 01:12:55 +0000

Oh, when I said federated system, I was thinking about the creation of “states” out of UK counties or somesuch. The EU regional system does at least provide some balance for population densities, something a county based system would have real problems doing. Counties, while having some of the service delivery features of states, don’t have the historical features (or historical baggage, some might say) of states.

And on the whole “Responsible” Government thing, I actually think it half works in the UK – look at how many MP’s vote against their own party on issues! However, as it has a real tendency to move to a US or Australian style of party government, the theory of responsible government on which the whole Westminster tradition is based begins to break down

By: Stewart J

Stewart J — Wed, 27 May 2009 01:07:34 +0000

Regarding an elected Lords along the lines of the Senate – I’m hoping you aren’t meaning a federated system, and just the PR version. However, with 738 members you’d only need 0.13% to elect. I suspect that it would switch to one based on the EU system, but even that would entail some regions (like the South East) having somewhere around 100 Lords (or Senators, or whatever…), so the only feasible way would be to cut the numbers dramatically, including getting rid of the Lords – Spiritual altogether.

However, I would suggest that without bi-partisan support it will be difficult to establish an elected Lords, just as it would be difficult to get PR, Alternative Vote or other systems introduced for the Commons. While the Conservative Party continue (like some Liberals here) to see it in their advantage, they will continue to support FFP.