Proportional Representation: We The People
I’m delaying what had been intended to be the first posts for this column yet again because this story caught my eye…
The Story
The Proportional Representation voting system has been rejected by ministers because it wouldn’t boost turnout:
“A review of PR voting in Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish and European elections said voters were confused.
The report said PR had resulted in more parties being represented in the devolved administrations but also had a tendency to produce coalition governments.
If PR was introduced in Westminster elections, constituencies could be represented by more than one MP, said the review.
But there is no guarantee PR would increase turnout in a general election or make Parliament more diverse, the report says.
It also warns that it could cause complications between the House of Commons and the House of Lords.” (BBC)
What Is PR?
Very basically, PR is a voting system by which seats in the legislature is supposed to be very closely matched to votes. In a pure PR system, a party who gets 35% of the votes also gets 35% of the seats. Of this, this isn’t always possible in real life, where there are often minimum vote percentage requirements for a seat - examples of this is the 4% minimum in Sweden and the 1.5% limit in Israel - hence votes don’t always equal seats.
The idea behind PR is to equally distribute seats according to votes, to make the legislature a ‘true reflection’ of the voter’s intentions. But what it also does is almost certainly mean that there isn’t a majority.
A Bad Thing For The UK
PR would be a bad thing for the UK. It simply would not work within our political system. To replace the plurality [first-past-the-post] system we use with proportional representation would be a disaster. We need to have a party with a majority in parliament for our government to work. We have a parliamentary system, and thus the government is inextricably linked to parliament. It is from parliament that it gains it’s legitimacy and power.
The ‘Westminster model’ political system requires effective government. If there is no majority held by one party in parliament, the government cannot govern. The very oppositional nature of our political system that goes with it ensures that. Coalitions do not work - Britain has never had a coalition government outside of wartime, even when the opportunity has arisen.
But Isn’t PR More Democratic?
One of the main claims made by proponents of proportional representation is that it is a “more democratic” form of voting system. But it isn’t within a parliamentary system. When we vote for our MPs, we are in reality voting for a government. We want - and need - an ‘effective’ government. They need to be able to push their policies through parliament, or else they are not “governing”.
One of the things that PR takes away from the people is the ability to choose their own government. We the people don’t get to choose our government under a PR system. Instead, we get a government chosen by the political elite amongst themselves, trading policies and power for their own gain, not what the people voted for. Government is no longer strong or decisive, not weak and riven by oppositional forces, with each of the coalition parties pulling in a different direction.
It also grants the largest amount of power to the small parties rather than the largest. They become with the ones who hold the government in the palm of their hands - just look at the example of Romano Prodi’s governemnt teetering on the edge of collapse because of the withdrawal of support by the leader of a party with three seats. Just three. How is it democratic that the entire Italian government can be brought down by a tiny tiny party like that?! This is, of course, also the reason why the Lib Dems are the only major British party to support the introduction of PR in Britain - because it will grant them the power of kingmaker.
It’s Not All Bad, Though
So does PR have no place in the world? No, of course not. It works in specific situations, such as in countries where society itself is riven - such as the Netherlands - and it also suits political systems where the executive is elected separately from the legislature. Secondary chambers are also well-suited to the use of PR. One of the things I want is for the House of Lords to be elected by proportional representation, based on the percentage of the vote gained by each party at a general election.
Conclusion
Proportional representation has it’s place - but that place is not within the House of Commons. If you wanted to introduce PR to the British political system, the entire thing would have be redrawn, wiping away everything that has existed before and replacing it all anew - which would be an absurdity.
The plurality voting system has its faults, but there is no denying that it is the best for us and our situation.
Article Series - Proportional-Representation-for-the-UK
- Proportional Representation: We The People
We are never going to agree on this subject, obviously, as I support electoral reform. However, it would help if those who took your position actually bothered to read the report rather than a BBC story that repeated a spun press release.
Your text: “A review of PR voting in Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish and European elections said voters were confused.”
Real text: “We do not find, on balance, any evidence to suggest that voters find one voting system easier or more confusing than another voting system.”
That is why this line was pulled from the BBC article.
The report also deals in some considered detail with the points you make, and notes that “We do not find a difference between PR systems and FPTP in terms of delivering stable and effective governments”. Britain has had coalition governments in office in Scotland from 1999-2007 as well as the Welsh Assembly government in 2000-03 and since 2007, which have generally been successful governments. The ’small party as kingmaker’ argument is very overdone, and it happens in FPTP too - what about the Ulster Unionists in the 1970s and 1990s? And surely to be a proper strong government a party needs a real public mandate of a bit better than 35% of the vote - constantly harping on about being ’strong’ is usually a sign of weakness. FPTP also sometimes gets the wrong winner in close contests - just ask Al Gore about that.
If you actually cared about “we the people”, you would instead be as incensed as us that the Government should be so dismissive of voters. Not only did the Govt not ask any voter what they think of elections, but they now give no opportunity for either the public or their elected representatives to openly debate this balanced report and give our own verdicts. In fact Michael Wills is complacent - nay contemptuous - enough of voters to say “we [have] the firm belief that the current voting system for UK general elections works well”, without even asking voters. The system may work well for MPs like him. But whether you are for or against reform, you should at least enter into an open dialogue / debate with the electorate before reaching any decision. And that decision should not be left simply to the politicians and parties with a vested interest in the status quo. We the people deserve better than that.
[...] week The Thunderdragon defended of the First Past the Post electoral [...]
[...] last article in the “We The People” column was a response and comment about PR by the Thunderdragon, following the ministerial rejection of Proportional Representation for [...]