An interesting article. I agree with you about local government in particular. England and Wales ought to use STV like Scotland and NI assembly elections. Get the electorate used to that, and then introduce it to Westminster. The blessed constituency link is maintained, and being multi member, the constituent has a choice of mp, or councillor to consult.
One thing missing from this analysis is that any injection of proportionality is likely not just to favour small parties, but also might lead large parties to split. So both the Tories and Labour favour FPTP because it means that people who might have split off into their own separate parties have to stick about because leaving means electoral annihilation.
If we'd had a degree of proportionality back in 2019, for instance, you can argue that the Change Group would have had greater success than they did, as would the One Nation Tories sacked by Boris Johnson, and you'd have expected a centrist party to have at least moderate presence in Parliament.
The problem for the Tories is that the emergence of a rival right-wing party appears to *already have happened*, and FPTP means Reform are in danger of eating their lunch.
I maintain that one of David Cameron's stupidest mistakes was to campaign against AV. Under FPTP, a strong UKIP party is a threat for a Tory facing a fight with Labour, because UKIP votes take away from Tory votes and stay away for good. Under AV, though, UKIP may get a number of first preferences, but you'd expect a good number of them to then transfer back to the Tories. It's exactly the sort of system you'd want if you're a mostly centrist party but want support from more extreme voters.
The big issue from the last election is turn out and degree to which the collapse of the Conservative Party led its previously reliable voters to give up and stay at home and vote for no one.
At the 2011 referendum on voting systems PR was rejected by 2:1 and the turnout lessons from PR run elections are mixed. In 2021 turnout in the Scottish Parliament elections was 63.5% where the contest reflected the recovered relevance of the Labour Party and the fact that it was perceived to be a high stakes election between parties offering distinct programmes. In Wales on the same day turn out was just 46.5% in what was a much quieter election with no great enthusiasm for either party.
If the Tories want to interest and reinvigorate their core vote, never mind speak to a wider cohort, they need to listen to electors and devise a calm, realistic political programme they can offer to electors. Reaching for issues that are at best of marginal interest to most voters isn’t going to get them there. (Much as Westminster bubble columnists might enjoy it.)
The Welsh system does have a constituency link! Closed lists for each constituency. They're rather large, it has to be said. If such a system came to England I'd prefer 3 members per constituency instead of 6. Further from a pure PR result but a closer link, but either way the MP or Senedd member has a constituency
Since they are using 6-member seats, it would've been better if they had used STV. But Labour doesn't like STV, because it means the voters get to choose which of a parties candidates is elected, and not the party hierarchy. Labour's instincts are against democracy.
An interesting article. I agree with you about local government in particular. England and Wales ought to use STV like Scotland and NI assembly elections. Get the electorate used to that, and then introduce it to Westminster. The blessed constituency link is maintained, and being multi member, the constituent has a choice of mp, or councillor to consult.
One thing missing from this analysis is that any injection of proportionality is likely not just to favour small parties, but also might lead large parties to split. So both the Tories and Labour favour FPTP because it means that people who might have split off into their own separate parties have to stick about because leaving means electoral annihilation.
If we'd had a degree of proportionality back in 2019, for instance, you can argue that the Change Group would have had greater success than they did, as would the One Nation Tories sacked by Boris Johnson, and you'd have expected a centrist party to have at least moderate presence in Parliament.
The problem for the Tories is that the emergence of a rival right-wing party appears to *already have happened*, and FPTP means Reform are in danger of eating their lunch.
I maintain that one of David Cameron's stupidest mistakes was to campaign against AV. Under FPTP, a strong UKIP party is a threat for a Tory facing a fight with Labour, because UKIP votes take away from Tory votes and stay away for good. Under AV, though, UKIP may get a number of first preferences, but you'd expect a good number of them to then transfer back to the Tories. It's exactly the sort of system you'd want if you're a mostly centrist party but want support from more extreme voters.
The big issue from the last election is turn out and degree to which the collapse of the Conservative Party led its previously reliable voters to give up and stay at home and vote for no one.
At the 2011 referendum on voting systems PR was rejected by 2:1 and the turnout lessons from PR run elections are mixed. In 2021 turnout in the Scottish Parliament elections was 63.5% where the contest reflected the recovered relevance of the Labour Party and the fact that it was perceived to be a high stakes election between parties offering distinct programmes. In Wales on the same day turn out was just 46.5% in what was a much quieter election with no great enthusiasm for either party.
If the Tories want to interest and reinvigorate their core vote, never mind speak to a wider cohort, they need to listen to electors and devise a calm, realistic political programme they can offer to electors. Reaching for issues that are at best of marginal interest to most voters isn’t going to get them there. (Much as Westminster bubble columnists might enjoy it.)
> At the 2011 referendum on voting systems PR was rejected by 2:1
No it wasn't. The public was given a choice between two non-proportional systems. There was no way for the public to vote either for or against PR.
No one was offered PR IN 2011. AV is just an instant run off system that removes tactical voting
The Welsh system does have a constituency link! Closed lists for each constituency. They're rather large, it has to be said. If such a system came to England I'd prefer 3 members per constituency instead of 6. Further from a pure PR result but a closer link, but either way the MP or Senedd member has a constituency
Since they are using 6-member seats, it would've been better if they had used STV. But Labour doesn't like STV, because it means the voters get to choose which of a parties candidates is elected, and not the party hierarchy. Labour's instincts are against democracy.
I imagine all parties hate that! Even the Libdems if they were actually at risk of being in power. d'Hondt is more likely to happen as a result
It was the Lib Dems who made STV the voting system used in Scottish local government, so they can't hate it that much!
They do seem less likely than Labour to pick a leader their own voters dislike, I suppose