 |
| This is the result popularly regarded as, roughly, what happens with P.R. |
The
recent British election has forcefully reminded me of how very unfair
our ‘First Past The Post’ electoral system is Indeed, "this election has thrown the spotlight on to the electoral system as the result was the most disproportional on record,” said Darren Hughes, the chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society." The Labour Party has won the election and is now in Government, with about 34%
of the vote but has 65% of the total seats. The Reform Party and the Greens, won nine seats between them (just over 1%), with a combined vote share of about 21%. Twenty-four thousand votes would get you a Labour seat; a Reform candidate would need one million; a Green, 485,000; a Conservative, 56,000. It is an interesting paradox that the Liberal Democrats, the longest-serving proponents of proportional representation, are the only party that, had it been implemented for this election, would have ended up with about the same number of seats.
I don’t begin to understand how the P.R. System actually arrives at these figures but it does seem generally Not Right or Fair! With this in mind I have searched online as to exactly what Proportional Representation actually means in practical terms. I will summarise the results of my little investigation which are altogether so much more complicated than I ever imagined!
1. First Past The Post. F.P.T.P.
Voters select preferred candidate; candidate with most votes wins. A perfect First-Past-The-Post would mean that if a Party gained 40% of the votes, it would gain 40% of the seats.
2. Alternative Vote. A.V.
 |
| Nigel Farage, Chair of Reform. Elected as M.P. 2024 at his 8th attempt. He benefitted from proportional representation from Tony Blair's introduction of P.R. for the 1999 U.K.'s European elections that year. His previous style in E.U. Govt or in campaigning has always been disruptive. |
3. Supplementary Vote. S.V.
Very similar to A.V. though voters are limited to a first and second preference choices.
4. Single Transferable Vote. S.T.V.
Voters rank candidates 1,2,3, etc. Voters can choose one or as many as preferred, from list. Each candidate needs to reach a quota based on minimum number of votes calculated according to the number of seats and votes cast. First preference votes are added up, with candidates achieving the quota, elected. Candidates with fewest first preference votes are eliminated and their votes reassigned to second preference indications.
5. Additional Member System. A.M.S.
 |
| Liberal Democrats' 2024 intake; a record number. |
I have omitted many details from each brief summary on the grounds of readers’ sanity but frankly one can see the various strands in the different electoral processes and the intended impartiality of each system. In spite of my previous sneering about the present British system, one can see the difficulties of deciding on a fairer process and the convenience and ease of First-Past-The- Post. If only it were fairer!
 |
| It is unlikely that Sir Keir Starmer will choose to reform the electoral system which has just given him a huge Parliamentary majority. It would be rather akin to turkeys voting for Christmas. |
with about the same number of seats. Zoe Williams. Guardian
No comments:
Post a Comment