Direct Party and Representative Voting (DPR)

Updated January 2012 |

Direct Party and Representative Voting (DPR) Blog

DPR Voting - simple, practical, powerful electoral reform

Posted 26 January 2012
MPs workload and the number of MPs in the Commons
How do MPs cope with the correspondence from constituents? Some better than others. Clearly dealing with constituency business, whether correspondence, surgeries, or constituency related matters, is demanding. Reducing the number of MPs and thus increasing the average size of the constituency will make it more difficult.

In addition, the change will tend to make our non proportional electoral system even less proportional (fair) *. In practice because the sizes of constituencies are being equalised the short term effect will be to make it even less fair for the Lib Dems. As regards Labour and Conservative, Conservatives will gain and Labour will lose, but both hugely gain from using the FPTP system at the expense of the Lib Dems and other smaller nationwide parties.

Conversely increasing the number would make the system (a bit) more proportional (fairer). It would also make it easier for hard pressed MPs to keep up with constituency matters. This seems a dubious reform.

* If you are not sure about this, consider an extreme increase in numbers of constituencies. As the number of constituencies increases the FPTP system will tend to be more proportional as the number of voters in each constituency tends towards one. If every voter became an MP the parliament would be entirely proportional! Similarly if the number of constituencies is reduced, the system becomes even more unfair as the number of constituencies tends towards one, finally returning one MP and a one party government!

Posted 21 January 2012
Open Primaries

It is reported that the independent-mindedness of Totnes MP Dr Sarah Wollaston has put the Tories off their open primaries policy.

The aim of Open Primaries to re-engage the public with the political process should be applauded. The underlying problem is that Politics has become a top down activity. This combined with our electoral system leads to frustration and subsequent disengagement with the political process.

More independent-minded MPs could be part of the solution, but Open Primaries probably isn’t, because the FPTP voting system conflates the vote for the individual with the vote for the party. Knowing what political parties really stand for is difficult enough anyway. Removing the power from a political party to choose the candidate just makes this worse. The cost of running primaries also seems to be a step in the wrong direction.

A change to the electoral system, to one that encourages the election of more independent minded MPs, as well as independent MPs, is a better solution.

Posted 4 January 2012
Lords Reform - the 450.

It has been suggested by the Joint Lords Reform committee that the reform of the House of Lords should reduce the size of the House to 450 peers rather than 300. This seems an eminently reasonable amendment and, if it helps achieve a sensible system of reform, is to be welcomed.

However there is still a strong division on the topic of appointed and cross bench peers. I still hope the coalition will allow us to vote for Independent peers who would be selected by an independent commission. This would be good for democracy both in terms of electing the house, and to optimize its effectiveness.

I think the coalition, or rather Nick Clegg, is on the wrong track arguing for STV. Far better to choose Party List PR (including the Independent list) It is the most common form of PR and most appropriate for the second chamber. We don't need a constituency based election. Peers concerns and accountability should be purely national, not constituency. For constituency issues we have our MP, so lets maintain this difference between the two houses.

Posted 30 December 2011
Lady Boothroyd and Lords Reform.

On the Radio 4 Today programme, Lady Boothroyd, the Guest Editor objects to the Lords reform proposals.
She cites the problems of competing mandates, too much party politics, and the problem of independent crossbenchers.

Why can’t we also vote for Independent Lords? The easiest way would be by PR List – the most common form of PR electoral system around the world, to include the opportunity to vote ‘Independent’ rather than for one of the political parties. An independent Commission could select the Independent candidates prior to each election. The opportunity to vote independent could be a useful democratic safety valve.

Closed list PR (no separate constituencies) would clearly differentiate between the mandate of the Lords and the individually elected constituency representatives in the Commons.

Posted 24 December 2011
Significant current scandals, and those yet to come.

In no particular order

Top salaries and bonuses - boardroom and shareholder individual responsibility
The multiple between top and average pay
Lawyers fees - the cost of the legal process
Medical negligence claims against the NHS
Care and treatment in the NHS
"No win, no fee" personal injury compensation
Democracy and the voting system
Lords reform
Political party funding
The domestic energy market and pricing
The Tax system and its inefficiencies and complexities
Subsidies for new energy generation schemes
The amount of crime fuelled by Drugs
The availability of drugs in prison.
The power of the press barons over political parties, politicians and the police.
The power of the press to influence the National Agenda
The structure of the banking system.
Unsustainable business models, big money and corruption in sport

Posted 22 December 2011
High salaries and bonuses - a solution.

The 'Today' programme on Radio 4 says that there have been no suggestions for how to solve the problem of very high salaries and bonuses. I disagree.

Firstly recognise that this is not just about banking. It is about rewarding different parts of our economy, and balance.
What is a sustainable difference between the average paid employee and the top paid? I suspect a multiple of something not much more than 20 is near the optimum. We are way over the top.

The Government should act because

1 People will not believe the Government when they say we are all in this together if they do nothing to address this issue. The Government will be blamed.
2 Very high salaries, judged by top salaries relative to average salaries, corrode our society, and could lead to even more social unrest.
3 These top salaries unbalance important drivers in our economy.

They encourage employment in financial services. There is less incentive for the best people to make a career in other economic sectors eg manufacturing. It does not encourage the small business start ups. There is less incentive for people to risk their own money by setting up their own business.

The Government has to lead. It should not regulate salaries - it can't set salaries - but it can use the tax system to good effect.

A new form of Employer's National Insurance should be payable at a special rate on all salaries over (say) £500K. The Tax should be payable by the company on the total salary package, with no offsets or allowances.
The rate could be introduced at a modest level and revised annually in the budget.

Fairness:
This tax does not single out bankers. It applies to all employees.
Any company can easily avoid the tax by not paying any salary packages above £500K.
If the company chooses to pay an employee at a rate above this figure the employee pays no extra tax. It is the company that pays.
It leaves the decision on top salaries where it should be, with the remuneration committees and shareholders. \

This combined with other suggestions for transparency in top salaries and reform of remuneration committees would have the effect of putting in a glass ceiling on top salaries, which could be adjusted to maintain a multiple with average wages.

A fiscally neutral solution: This tax increase could be balanced by a comparable reduction of employer's NI contributions for the lower paid.

Posted 12 December 2011
The standing of MPs

MPs do important work for their constituents, but when it comes to the election, naturally enough the question of which party should form the next Government looms large, and the hard work put in by many MPs comes second to voting for the party.

We should have a voting system that recognises that an election is about both Parties and MPs, and doesn’t conflate the two issues. The voting system should be able to reward a hardworking MP while still allowing the voter to express a party preference.

Another aspect that damages the reputation of MPs is the adversarial nature of our politics, and the ‘worse than playground’ behaviour of MPs in the chamber. To change this we need a form of PR.

PR and the single member constituency? MPs elected on merit?

We should choose Direct Party and Representative Voting – DPR Voting – to replace our FPTP Voting system. It would rejuvenate both our politics and the standing of our MPs.

Posted 9 December 2011
FPTP and European Politics

The UK, (FPTP electoral system) stands alone. Europe (PR electoral systems) appears doomed …..

Does FPTP keep the UK at arms length from Europe? Will FPTP enable the UK to survive the latest economic crisis? Will democracy in Europe survive unscathed? How democratic is FPTP?

Your opinion of FPTP may depend on your ideas of democracy. FPTP gives you a binary choice – A or B
Generally speaking, if you don’t want to vote for A or B, your vote is wasted. This contributes greatly to a sense of disillusionment with politics. Other factors are safe seats where MPs are in effect appointed to parliament by the party, and elections that are decided by a few votes in marginal constituencies.

If, despite the system, opinion is divided equally between three parties, FPTP does not cope well.

FPTP is said to have the advantage of an electoral multiplier effect that results in strong Government. What is democratic about this concept, especially when we are talking about a system that can hand government to a party that does not get the most votes? Erratically or alternately selected government is no substitute for democracy.

The good things about FPTP are the single member constituency MPs and the simple voting and counting. We should keep these aspects but introduce a more proportional system where every vote makes a difference. Democracy is more important than any policy outcome.

Posted 2 December 2011
Should local people determine the pay and expenses of their MP?

The Chancellor has raised the question of whether public sector pay should be determined on a regional basis. This already happens to a limited extent for London. Is there a case for determining the pay and expenses of MPs on a local basis?
Their pay and expenses could be funded out of local taxes, and scrutinised locally.

Setting levels of pay and expense guidelines within an overall framework might also have benefits. After all, every constituency is different. For example, a remote Scottish constituency might expect to incur higher travelling costs both two and from, and within the constituency, whereas an inner London constituency might have a quite different cost profile.
If you get what you pay for, it would be best for local people to decide what they want, how much they are prepared to pay, and whether or not they are getting value for money.

Yes, this would mean some constituencies paid more than others, but there is already competition for some seats that are perceived as attractive. Recognising that all constituencies are not equal, it would be an interesting extension of local accountability.

Posted 21 November 2011
Party Funding and Electoral reform

While the Government is looking at party funding, isn't it time to change the rules for registration of election candidates?
Get rid of the £500 candidate deposit and increase the number of signatures required.
Secondly registration of Political parties - any registered political party should be able to demonstrate a minimum level of political support in terms of signatures. We have 419 registered political parties in the UK according to Wikipedia. Time to introduce the requirement to be able to show some degree of support.

Posted 20 November 2011
Electoral systems and political change

Challenging any theory is good. It either comes out stronger or is demolished. My piece for 'On Procedure and Politics' part 1 and part 2 (!) dealt with some queries about DPR Voting. It made me think more about the underlying philosophy of voting systems. Voting systems should be an integral part of a democratic system. They should not be seen as a way of achieving a policy outcome. Rather they should not prevent a beneficial outcome.
Chosing an electoral system because it would ensure more MPs with any particular characteristics or background, even if this seems an attractive outcome, seems flawed. Rather we should choose a voting system that does not have barriers to their election. Getting them elected is a job for the people. Choosing an election system in order to achieve a particular policy outcome risks incurring the law of unintended consequences.
We should not judge an electoral system harshly because it does not solve all the ills of the world. The aim of reform should be to remove inherent bias and built in distortion.

Posted 19 November 2011
Reasons to be fearful - top pay.

The world is an increasingly dangerous place. How far is our society from the edge? In the coming months I suspect we will find it is closer than we realised.

One of the most dangerous issues is that of top pay. There is a moral issue here and it is not about banking per se. The question is what is a sustainable difference between the average paid employee and the top paid? I suspect a multiple of something not much more than 20 is near the optimum. We are way over the top. Society has to act on this. We have to respond, rather than wait for anarchy.
The Church has got involved, but confuses the issue with concerns about banking. Public opinion polls will tell you there is a head of steam in the public at large. The great and the good are speaking up, but so far the coalition seem impotent. The Government has to lead. It should not regulate salaries -it can't set salaries - but it can use the tax system to good effect.

Employer's National Insurance should be payable on all salaries over £500K. Tax payable on the total package. No allowances.
The beauty is that it then becomes a tax that companies can easily avoid by not increasing salaries to more than £500K
If the company chooses to pay an employee at a rate above this figure the employee pays no extra tax. It is the company that pays. This combined with other suggestions for transparency in top salaries and reform of remuneration committees would have the effect of putting in a glass ceiling on top salaries, which could be adjusted to maintain a multiple with average wages.

To sweeten the introduction it could be fiscally neutral by a comparable reduction of employer's NI contributions for the lower paid.

Posted 6 November 2011
Reasons to be fearful - the Tobin tax is not the answer.

The proposal for a Tobin tax leaves me a bit confused.
What will it achieve? Will it make our banks safer? Will it curtail bank remuneration packages?
I don't think it will contribute much to either objective.
Safer banks - separate the highstreet banking from investment side.
Bank remuneration - it's not just banks.
Will a Tobin tax raise tax revenue? Yes, but where will this revenue come from? Ultimately it comes from us all.
The banks will pass it on. It will cause them and us a problem if it is implemented unilaterally.
The argument is that the amount of tax on each transaction will be tiny so the banks, and ultimately we, will just never notice it..
It sounds like a stealth tax.

Posted 28 October 2011
PR without the baggage

Despite the referendum, when people voted solidly to retain FPTP, I am not convinced that FPTP will continue to enjoy widespread support. Yes, people can see the advantages, and flaws, in FPTP, and when faced with a manic campaign, with claim, counterclaim and confusion, better the devil you know ...

The devil will bite back, perhaps at the next election, perhaps the one after. I don't think people will accept a result that looks anything like the Gore - Bush result. If one party gets a majority in parliament that is not backed up by popular votes the public will call foul.

The difficulty is choosing and accepting an alternative system. Most PR systems have too much baggage to attract universal support. Whether it is complicated voting or counting, multimember constituencies or party lists, it takes a lot to get your head round. As with all electoral systems, like the comedian almost said, 'it's how you count them'

DPR Voting has very little baggage. Admittedly you have two votes, but they are both completely straightforward - they do what they say on the can. Counting is also simple, transparent, and quick. With very little change we could solve most of the problems of FPTP while still retaining our familiar electoral system. Keep all the best of FPTP and get rid of all the unfairness.

Posted 10 October 2011
Local Democracy week - Oct 10th to 19th, 2011

Disillusioned with politicians? Just not interested in electoral systems? Can't see the connection?

With our FPTP electoral system, many MPs are elected purely on the strength of their party's popularity. They may also be hard working, but if they were lazy would you vote for the other party? If you want your party to form the Government, and that is most people's motivation for voting, you might vote for the party even if thecandidate was lazy, stupid or dishonest. Or you might just not bother, which isn't surprising in the circumstances.

FPTP doesn't give you a fair choice. It conflates your vote for your preferred party with your vote for an individual to represent you as the MP for the constituency. Separate these two aspects of voting and we would get better politicians and fewer disillusioned voters.

Just one of the reasons why FPTPis bad for our democracy.

Posted 4 October 2011
Constituency boundaries, communities, gerrymandering, and the electoral system


Did you see Matthew Engel in the Financial Times on Oct 1st?
‘Our onset of US-style gerrymandering is a terrible mistake’ is an excellent article about the implications of the boundary redrawing exercise.

Mr Engel points out that there are practical and democratic disadvantages for MPs and electorate when constituency boundaries do not coincide with natural communities and local authority areas.

Equalising the size (electorate numbers) of constituencies sounds fair and common sense, but in practice will not make our dreadful FPTP electoral system much fairer. It will benefit the Conservatives. For the Lib Dems who already need three times as many voters to get one MP compared with Labour or Conservatives, it will make the system even worse.

Lib Dem MPs survive by working hard for their local community. ‘The more stable, clearly defined and close knit the constituency, the better they do.’

Ideally all constituency boundaries should enclose stable clearly defined communities that coincide with local authority areas, for both practical and democratic reasons.
We should choose an electoral system that makes this possible without becoming grossly unfair, and at the same time encourages the election of MPs who work hard for their community.

The system should be able to accommodate natural demographic change. We should not need an expensive boundary commission making impossible compromises to shore up a fundamentally flawed electoral system.

DPR Voting is perhaps the only single member electoral system that makes this possible.

Posted 30 September 2011
Reducing the size of the House of Commons.


What should the size of the House of Commons be?

Should the numbers of MPs be dictated by the size of the chamber? If so a further reduction is necessary, but that would not be right. There have been around 650 MPs, the current level since 1800, so it hasn’t changed much since the Palace of Westminster was built. The population is now around four times higher than it was.

It is not obvious why the number should be reduced. Equalising the number of constituents and reducing the number of MPs might seem fairer. It will benefit and be fairer to the Conservatives. It will make it less fair for, and disadvantage the Lib Dems. Labour will lose seats (they are relatively over represented).

Elections won’t be fairer until we change the electoral system.

Posted 28 September 2011
Ed Miliband – Apologies and ‘bargains’.


Do apologies for past mistakes enhance the stature of a party leader? Do they mean anything? All the party leaders have made their apologies. We can all have a view of the past, but an apology doesn’t mean much unless it is for personal actions for which the person speaking is directly responsible. And what does ‘taking responsibility’ mean if there is no resignation or demotion?
We need a leader we can trust with a vision of the future and a coherent plan for change.

And so to ‘new bargain’. For a start we will have to redefine the term. A bargain to many people is something that looks good, is much cheaper than expected, and rapidly falls apart leaving a sense of disappointment, to be replaced fairly soon by a new ‘bargain’.

Perhaps that’s what we tend to buy, so that’s what we will tend to get.

Posted 27 September 2011
Com Res Opinion Poll .

The Coalition Government is hardly still in the honeymoon phase, so it is perhaps surprising that the Conservative party is ahead in the latest polls. (Com Res poll for The Independent 27/9/11)

With the Liberal Democrats struggling with 12%, some in the Conservative party may argue that this supports their argument for a more true blue blooded policy. They are mistaken.

Rather it suggests that broadly speaking (and that is the best that opinion polls can do)
1) Floating Labour voters partly blame the former Labour Government for the mess.
2) ‘Floating’ Lib Dems have deserted the party - they don’t like being associated with rightwing policies.
3) ‘Floating’ Tory voters are comfortable with a Tory administration moderated by the Lib Dems.
Our economic problems are going to last long enough for the coalition to attract much more, if not all, of the blame. Ignoring the vagaries of the election system, opposition parties should only need to look credible to do well at the next election.

In turbulent times, the danger for all the political parties is both internal and external. Extreme turbulence could lead to extreme change.


Posted 13 September 2011
Boundaries and constituencies - Electoral Reform in the UK.

Equalising the size of constituencies combined with FPTP improves relative proportionality between the two largest parties, but makes overall proportionality worse for the smaller parties.

Reducing the number of MPs, combined with FPTP, tips the system in favour of the two largest parties at the expense of the smaller parties.

If we want a fairer system it is plain to see we need to get rid of FPTP. Voting reform failed because AV was a poor alternative to FPTP. AV didn’t address the issues. If the referendum had been ‘Should we replace FPTP?’ it would have been carried.

Perhaps a contributory factor to the referendum failure is that there is no umbrella group for electoral reformers. The Electoral Reform Society should be the natural home for all campaigners for electoral reform. It isn’t. It occupies the divisive position as a partisan lobbyist for STV and as such should change its name.

Electoral reform in the UK needs a genuine umbrella group to focus on the fight against FPTP.

Posted 12 September 2011
The Boundary Commission change proposals.
With the current electoral system, regular changes to constituency boundaries are necessary to try to maintain the fairness of the system. Having roughly equal numbers of electors for each constituency sounds fairer. In practice it is a hopeless task.

FPTP is always going to give a disproportionate result.

The unfortunate side effect of constant changes to boundaries is that it is no longer possible to retain boundaries that relate to communities. In some instances this causes irritation, in others real anger – such as in Devon and Cornwall, the Isle of Wight, and the Highlands of Scotland.

It is worth bearing in mind that the only way to retain the single member constituency and deal with the problems of constituency boundaries is to adopt a new voting system – DPR Voting.

Posted 8 September 2011
Lazy incompetent or dishonest MPs - conflating the vote for the MP with the vote for the Party

see Guardian and The Independent reports today

The answer to the problem of lazy incompetent or dishonest MPs should lie with the ballot box.

Our electoral system does not readily address the problem of lazy incompetent or dishonest MPs because the existing voting system conflates the vote for the MP with the vote for the party.

Do you vote for the party of your choice or do you vote for the candidate you want to be your MP?

Our electoral system presents voters with this dilemma and asks them to vote for a party they don't support in order to get rid of a bad MP. For many that is too much to ask.

Choose an electoral system that doesn't conflate these two electoral issues (DPR Voting springs to mind) and voters would very quickly solve the problem.

Posted 7 July 2011

Phone Hacking and the Media

Apart from the illegality of the phone hacking, there are also the issues of secret corrupt payments, and a huge media organisation that has power over the police and the politicians. This is only possible when a media organisation becomes too big. It requires the Government to introduce new legislation.

Part of the solution is to prevent any individual or organisation from having a financial interest in more than one newspaper or TV company. Similarly board members should only sit on one media entity board.

Secondly, corrupt payments are only possible if they are kept secret.

Details of all payments made by Newspapers/broadcasters or other media for information should be filed with and audited by an independent regulator, and the amount and payee and information obtained made public, say, six months after the payment.

This doesn’t mean an end to stories for cash, just an end to stories for secret cash.

Posted 12 June 2011

Explaining DPR Voting

I have rewritten the general explanation of DPR Voting on the Main page to show how the vote values for each MP derive from the underlying principles. Comments are welcomed.


Posted 17 May 2011

An elected House of Lords

The broad political makeup of the House of Lords should reflect the overall party political makeup of the country, so Peers should be elected rather than appointed by political parties/party leaders.

The form of election has to be quite different from the election to the House of Commons since they are two very different bodies with different constitutional roles.
The House of Lords is a revising chamber for legislation put forward by the Commons. Their view should be national, not local, so there is no reason to have small constituencies.

The House of Lords should be populated with people with a wide range of experience, and achievement behind them. They also need to understand the legislative process. A track record of making party political donations should be ignored.

Firstly, an Independent commission should vet all potential candidates to decide if they have the necessary qualifications. These approved candidates should be identified as sponsored by a political party or Independent.

Secondly, Election should be by closed Party List, but because Independent Lords are an important element of the revising chamber, in addition to the different political parties being on the ballot paper, the people should have the opportunity to vote ‘Independent’ to elect peers from the ‘Independent list’ prepared by the independent commission.

This is a proportional form of election. The electorate would not need to make judgements about the individuals. Individuals would not need to campaign. The political parties would have some involvement in who becomes a Peer. The element of Independent peers would be as great or as large as the public sees fit, as would, conversely, the number of party political peers.

I accept the 15 year term with one third of the House elected each 5 years. This could coincide the European elections, or possibly with a General election, if the 5 year fixed term Parliament survives. 15 years allows peers not to have to worry about re-election, but accountability should be there with a recall mechanism.

This form of election has not been proposed for the Commons, and it is unlikely that it ever would be, so choosing Closed Party List as the method would not pre-empt or affect any future electoral reform changes for the House of Commons, and would make the distinction clear between the two chambers.

Posted 12 May 2011

The Referendum Question

We should have followed the New Zealand example. The referendum question should have been a non binding question ‘do we want to change the voting system.’
There would be a much better chance of getting a YES result, because the referendum would be all about FPTP, and not about AV. With a YES vote in even a nonbinding referendum we would be on the road to PR.

Posted 10 May 2011

AMS - The Additional Member System

Although the comparison between DPR Voting and FPTP has been relevant prior to the AV Referendum, the decisive rejection of AV has made the comparison between DPR Voting with the Additional Member System (known as Mixed Member Proportional outside the UK) worth further attention.
In AMS the party vote is used to elect additional members, each with one vote, to the house so that when these members are added to the constituency FPTP elected members, the overall composition of the house is much more proportional. These additional members are elected from a party list.
The system has much to recommend it.

The objections to AMS relate to the election of the additional members
• Arguably Party List MPs are accountable to the party leadership rather than the voters.
• Having two different types of representative creates friction between them. In Wales and Scotland, for example, AMs and MSPs elected via the regional lists can be seen as different, and in some way inferior to constituency MPs, it is said.
• To allow for the additional members, the number of constituency MPs has to be reduced and consequently the size of the constituencies has to be increased.
• Sometimes a party wins more seats via the constituency vote than it is entitled to, proportionally speaking. In Germany and New Zealand, but not in the UK, extra seats are allocated to the other parties to redress the balance.

DPR Voting is very similar to AMS but in DPR Voting there are no additional members. The voting power of the constituency MPs is adjusted to make the party voting power in the parliament proportional.
As a consequence
• All MPs are constituency MPs. No party lists are required.
• No change is required to constituency boundaries. In fact changes to boundaries would be less frequently required with DPR Voting
• Party voting power is closely proportional. No party would gain an advantage over any other.

Thus the principal objections to AMS do not apply with DPR Voting.


Posted 7 May 2011

Strong Government

An electoral system that tends to result in one party having a majority of the voting power in the parliament even when this is not reflected in the votes cast is said to favour ‘strong government’. If this result is easily reversed so that with a small change in the votes cast, a big swing from one party to the other results, this is often said to favour ‘Accountable Government’. This is put forward as one of the main advantages of FPTP elections.
In practice this pendulum effect tends to favour a two party democracy. When there are three or more parties, the election results may become increasingly erratic.

The suggestion that a particular electoral system is intrinsically likely to result in strong and accountable government, and that this is desirable, should be challenged.

Firstly, whether or not this is desirable is a question of democratic philosophy and party politics.
Secondly the way voters cast their votes will be influenced by many things, including the expected result under the existing electoral system. Thus to speculate as to the result of an election under a different electoral system is just that – speculative.

What does seem to be correct is that the FPTP system is unstable in terms of the electoral result, because a small change in the number of votes cast has a disproportionate affect on the overall result.

An electoral system should gauge the level of support for the different parties accurately.
The measured level of support should be reflected in the voting power of the parties in the Commons. The system should not depend on tactical voting for voters to see that they have got what they have voted for (collectively).

In a democracy we should accept the result that reflects all the votes cast, and not try to build some instability into the electoral system to produce a decisive result.
If the people don’t give any one party a majority of votes, why should there be a majority government by a quirk of the system?

Posted 5 May 2011

AV Referendum Day

It sounds as though the NO vote will win. I agree with Lewis Baston on the LSE website that the campaign for electoral reform will continue, but I suspect it will have to regroup and rethink. Stuart Wilks-Heeg and Stephen Crone also make the point that the general public are ambivalent about proportional representation.
We need a new way of debating electoral reform that avoids the pitfalls experienced in the referendum campaign. Public awareness of the issues has to be improved. Having said that, I can't see the public embracing STV if they are asked the question. Any PR system has to be simple (and seen to be simple)

Posted 1 May 2011

An interesting post on the LSE Politics website

We should stay with the first past the post voting system: it maintains the link between voter and elected MP, while AV makes it much less clear - Grégoire Webber
From the article: 'The simplicity of FPTP is both its virtue and vice: electors are asked to make the difficult choice—for many, a choice never without hesitation—to select one candidate, on the strength of the candidate’s person, the officially affiliated party, the unofficially affiliated manifesto, the party leader, or some uncertain combination. The constituency’s representative is the one favoured by more electors than any other, which has never been taken to mean that the representative speaks only for those who cast a ballot in her favour.'

Posted 30 Apr 2011

Voters want local candidates

'What do the academics say? The voters want local candidates' - see Lib Dem Voice
Source paper: The Politics of Local Presence: Is there a Case for Descriptive Representation? Sarah Childs, Philip Cowley (a paper about ethnic and gender politics and localism)
Voters want local candidates. You can't make candidates local by just increasing the size of the constituency. Is it reasonable to infer that voters want single member constituencies?

Posted 25 Apr 2011

DPR Voting

DPR Voting - recent blog posts.

April 21 : Election systems – let’s not limit our options
April 20 : On procedure and politics


Posted 16 Apr 2011

How should we deal with our corrupt press?

The Phone Hacking scandal engulfing the News of the World should not end in a series of Civil Actions. We need to take action to get rid of the corruption within our print media.
For a start we should shed light on the practice of Newspapers paying for information. This maybe a perfectly legal and even ethical thing for a Newspaper to do. But this is not always the case.
I would like to see details of all payments made by Newspapers for information - who was paid, how much, and for what information, placed on a public register within 6 months of the payment being made. If it is in the Public Interest the newspaper and the payee will be able to justify the transaction.

Posted 14 Apr 2011

How would DPR get on in a referendum compared with STV?

DPR Voting has advantages over STV which would be significant in a referendum.
Voting is as simple as FPTP. Counting is just as simple. The results are also transparent – the MP for the Constituency is elected as now. The Party vote is comparable to an opinion poll result with percentages for each party. The General Public are familiar with all these simple concepts.
In terms of electoral administration very little has to change to the election process – no change to constituency boundaries is required.
DPR Voting has the unique advantage that every voter makes a difference to the result.
The public will vote for that.

Posted 13 Apr 2011

Why the referendum will be lost

Vernon Bogdanor in the Guardian (April 11)says that this is the referendum that no one wants. - ' AV, then, alters little; and it leaves most voters cold.' He reinforces Robert Hazell's views.
This referendum may well die of apathy. Electoral reformers have to learn lessons from this referendum.

Posted 9 Apr 2011

Why the referendum will be lost

Interesting piece from Prof Robert Hazell of the Constitution Unit giving Five reasons why the AV referendum will be lost.
The conclusion I draw is that in order to change the electoral system, any new system has to be easy for the voter – simple voting and counting, and the result must be transparent.
The system we choose has to be demonstrably different, rather than being a compromise.
It has to offer a unique and distinctive benefit that addresses a clear shortcoming of the existing system, and although the system should right existing wrongs, it must not be biased to one party compared with another.
We will see.

Posted 6 Apr 2011

Validation of a Coalition Parliamentary Programme

Simon Heffer in todays Daily Telegraph suggests a 'Coupon Election' to validate a Coalition programme. In effect a rerun of the election where the coalition parties do not nominate any candidates to compete against the sitting MP in the constituencies they won in the first election.

Posted 4 Apr 2011

Validation of a Coalition Parliamentary Programme

Even for those who favour coalition politics, there must be some embarrassment that each coalition partner enters into Government to implement a coalition programme which is a hybrid of the manifestos of two different parties for which there is no direct electoral mandate.

Is the following a possible solution?
Any Coalition Government programme must be approved or rejected by the public in a referendum, as follows. The referendum choice would be
a) To approve the Coalition Programme , or
b) To approve a minority Government programme by the leading non coalition party.
Timetable: The referendum to be completed within (? 6 ?) weeks of the date of the election.
Pros -
Plugs a gap in our democratic process.
Imposes a timetable on the coalition making process.
Constrains the coalition partners in devising their programme- they have to seek its approval.
The alternative would, presumably, not be attractive to the electorate except in extreme circumstances.
cons?
There would be an interregnum of 6 weeks or so (but if a coalition is to be formed, there would be anyway.)
The ultimate alternative if no coalition could be formed within the timetable would be a new election
Comments?

Posted 29 Mar 2011

Comment on the AV Referendum

Our existing FPTP electoral system is a roulette wheel of a system, which favours a black or red result. Vote any other colour and your vote is ignored. AV may be better, but it is far from ideal. Much better still is Direct Party and Representative Voting where every vote makes a difference

Posted 21 Mar 2011

Full facts on AV

A useful general link, and a specific article about checking some facts on AV
I liked the description of AV
" Perhaps the best way to conceive of it is as a selection process involving the entire electorate in which all votes are allocated to a diminishing slate of candidates in each round of voting. Each round is therefore effectively a new ballot, and all the votes for the highest-ranked candidates remaining are given equal weight, regardless of the position that originally occupied on a voter's ballot paper. "

Posted 13 Mar 2011

No to AV takes lead in referendum campaign

When we finally get the result of the referendum what analysis of the results will be possible? Will psephologists be able to determine the percentages of YES and NO voters who voted because they ‘don’t want AV, they want PR’, and be able to compare this with the percentages of YES votes of people who really want AV, and NO votes who really want to keep FPTP, as compared with those who voted YES or NO just because they want to kick the Government, David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Ed Miliband, politicians generally, etc.?

Or will we be none the wiser?

Posted 16 Feb 2011

The new breed of maverick Tory MPs

They see themselves first and foremost as constituency champions and only second as party animals – if at all
See Paul Goodman in the Guardian
If you favour PR, but would like to see more independent minded MPs in single member constituencies, the electoral system to campaign for is DPR Voting.

Posted 15 Feb 2011

The Voting referendum 'will cost £250 million' claim 'NO' campaigners see Telegraph
'An unnecessary reform of our voting system' see Telegraph view
What price democracy?

The purpose of an electoral system is not to find spurious ways of producing a Government with a clear majority over all others. You could just toss a coin, although with TV coverage, trial by combat might be more entertaining and perhaps even generate substantial revenues....
We have a diversity of opinions which can’t be contained within two parties so we need a political system that copes fairly with a number of parties. A single party can win a big majority in the Parliament in a PR election if it wins enough votes. If it doesn’t, why should it expect to be handed power by the electoral system?

Posted 8 Feb 2011

The FPTP or AV referendum: Peers vote to make referendum binding only if the voter turnout is above 40 per cent

Not a problem. A majority for AV, but turnout less than 40% would show the problem is in the question. FPTP has to go, and PR is then very much on the agenda.

Posted 4 Feb 2011

The FPTP or AV referendum

We are being offered the choice of continuing on into a brick wall or a diversion up a cul de sac. Referendums should be YES or NO about retaining the status quo, rather than YES or NO to one of many possible policies.

Posted 29 Jan 2011

Corruption and phone hacking, intrusion into privacy, and suggestions of Police complicity

The antidote to corruption is the spotlight of public scrutiny. All payments for information by journalists should published including the amount, the recipient and sufficient detail of the story to put the payment into context, within 6 months of the payment. There would be no compulsion for Journalists to disclose information about sources when no payment, either cash or in kind, has been made.

Posted 29 Jan 2011

Fairness - sharing the pain

We need a new form of politics where Governments embrace opposed viewpoints and work out innovative policy solutions for the good of the country. This means painful compromises because every policy is painful to someone. Not every policy can be fair, it's a subjective judgement, but the Government will be judged by the fairness or otherwise of its overall achievements.

Posted 28 Jan 2011

A comment on AV

I wonder about second preferences under AV. Does a second preference vote express a positive desire for that candidate/party to be elected? Probably not, because otherwise that candidate would have received the vote as a first preference. Rather it is a tactical vote to stop another candidate being elected. Can we then say that the elected candidate had more than 50% support of the electorate?

Posted 25 Jan 2011

Voting reform inside the Commons

The voting system within the Commons should be reformed. The way MPs vote at present with MPs having to break off and dash around the Commons is …is quaint, old fashioned, a waste of time and money and hopelessly inefficient. It is time to introduce an electronic voting process, preferably so that MPs can vote electronically from anywhere within the Parliamentary Estate. Results and voting records would be available almost instantaneously. (31/1/11 addition) Caroline Lucas has proposed something similar in her report 'The Case for Parliamentary Reform' to be debated in the Commons on Feb 3)

Posted 18 Jan 2011

Tom Harris MP on the Alternative Vote

Tom Harris recognises the conundrum at the heart of our voting system - do we cast our vote to elect a local representative for the legislature, or do we vote to elect a Government? (And another thing) He recognises that the voting system needs to be appropriate to the task and favours FPTP rather than AV or STV. I don't know whether he has heard of DPR Voting.

Posted 17 Jan 2011

Reform of the House of Lords

I favour a strong independent element in the Upper House. Try this

An Independent Commission would select all candidates (independent and party sponsored). Peers would be selected on merit, not as part of a patronage system. Each party then prepares a list of their approved candidates in preferred order. The Independent Commission would do this for the independent candidates. This information would be publicised.
Say the Upper House should have 300 ‘peers’. Each peer could be elected for three parliamentary terms.
One third of peers would be elected at each General Election. ie (say) 100 (This assumes fixed term 5 year parliaments)
At General Elections, voters mark an ‘Upper House’ voting paper with one vote for their preferred party or vote ‘Independent’.
For each percent of the vote they win, each party (and independents), would get one peer from its list elected (or pro rata if it was decided to have more than 300 peers).
If a peer resigns (or is sacked for misdemeanours or non attendance) there would be no ‘by-elections’, just fewer peers until new peers are elected at the next General Election.
This would result in an elected house with the best people being elected with the element of patronage much diminished since candidates would have to be put forward by the Independent commission. Once elected, peers would have a sufficiently long term of office to ensure they focus on the long term rather than their re-election.

Posted 4 Jan 2011

FPTP or AV or PR?

The debate on electoral reform assumes that we have to use either FPTP, or AV, or a form of PR.
With the DPR voting system, you have PR to elect your Government, and FPTP (or even AV – it matters much less) to elect your MP. It is so much simpler than any other PR system, and gets rid of arguments about constituency boundaries.

From the Blog Archive

Posted 22 Sept 2010

The referendum on voting reform

The choice between electing the most popular candidate (FPTP), and electing the least unpopular candidate (AV).
It's not the way to elect a Government. AV is just as certain as FPTP to give power to one or more of the parties out of all proportion to the votes they win. Is that a choice?

Posted 21 Sept 2010

'All MPs should have one vote each. Otherwise some MPs would have more power than others.'

This is an argument some people come up with as an objection to DPR Voting. Many agree that DPR voting would be an excellent system in every respect, but the idea of MPs of different parties casting votes of different values when voting on Government bills seems strange.

Why should each MP have the same voting power as every other?
'Tradition?' 'Because MPs won't accept anything else!' 'Because it is democratic....' 'Because people won't understand it' 'Because otherwise it makes the counting complicated' ... none that stand up to scrutiny.

There is no inherent reason why each MP should have the same voting power as every other MP. After all, they represent different sized constituencies, win different numbers of votes, and they will have different majorities.

'One MP one vote' results in disproportionality. The simplistic results of 'one MP, one vote' for each constituency are aggregated so that each party ends up with a total voting power out of proportion to the votes cast. In this respect FPTP is one of the worst systems. It has been argued that AV could be as bad.

With FPTP, and AV, you have an unfair electoral system where one party gets more voting power than is justified by the votes cast.
All the other PR voting systems try to find ways around this. The result is complexity, confusion, unpredictability, tactical voting, and at best, a result that only approximates to Proportional Representation..
With DPR Voting the voting power of the MPs of each party is scaled to reflect the extent of their electoral success. Remember, with DPR voting this scaling only applies for voting on Government supported bills.

It has to be said again. Why should all MPs have an equal vote? The consequences are undemocratic.

Posted 13 May 2010
The PR Twitter Challenge - more submissions
Fairer than first past, easier than STV, one vote for the MP and one for the party. It's DPR - keep your constituency and your vote.

Posted 13 May 2010
The PR Twitter Challenge - more submissions
How can we elect an effective Legislature and an Executive with only one vote? We can't. We need DPR

Posted 13 May 2010
AV is a disaster for voting reform
 Can someone explain how a referendum on AV is going to contribute to a fairer voting system (and how should we vote?)
Vote ‘for', and we are stuck with a different unfair system.
Vote ‘against', and voting reform is kicked into the long long grass.

Posted 13 May 2010
The PR Twitter Challenge
A letter in The Independent May 12 : "May I propose a Twitter Electoral Reform Test? We should adopt a system of proportional representation only if it can be summarised in 140 characters or less."
For DPR Voting I came up with a very hurried effort: "DPR: Elect MPs as now + an extra Party vote decides the votes each party has in Parliament. Share these votes equally among the party's MPs."
Can you do better? I am sure someone can, but I doubt they can do it for STV. Anyway, the challenge is on.


Posted 3 May 2010
Betty Boothroyd on 'The World at One'
Did you hear Betty Boothroyd on the World at One' today eloquently advocating a change to a PR electoral system? She did not advocate a specific PR system. She made the interesting point about the convention for the election of the speaker which effectively prevents a competition, and thus the constituents concerned do not have a free choice to vote for the party of their choice. If DPR Voting was the selected system this problem would not arise. I can't think that that would be true for any other voting system. Do you think she has DPR Voting in mind as her preferred system?

Posted 21 April 2010
How can FPTP be defended in three way party politics?
 FPTP has one big advantage – the Single Member Constituency, (and the second is it's simplicity) but if three parties get 30% of the vote, or anything like that, it breaks down, and so with the latest polls has lost credibility.
If you want a form of PR, but see disadvantages in multimember constituencies and party lists, and at the same time believe that MPs should be elected on merit, not just party label, you need Direct Party and Representative Voting (DPR).

Posted 19 April 2010
New poll by Power2010 shows real hunger for reform (see article by Pam Giddy)
More and more people want electoral reform and also want to clean up politics.
We need an end to wasted votes, safe seats, campaign by marginal constituency and tactical voting. We need to shift power from the Government, to the Parliament. We need higher calibre MPs who are more independently minded. We need MPs who are elected on their personal merits, not just because they have the right party label.

One of the reasons our electoral system is rotten is that we are forced to ignore the qualities of the individual candidates and focus on voting for the party. It is not that we have forgotten the Expenses Scandal, It is just that the Electoral system doesn't allow us any freedom to do anything about it.
When you vote for a constituency representative on the basis of party label alone, you will get some lazy, incompetent, even corrupt MPs.
You also get MPs who hesitate to vote except in accordance with the wishes of the party whip.

Whatever Government we get from this unpredictable election must tackle electoral and parliamentary reform.
We need an electoral system where MPs are elected on their own merits and thus can be more independent minded.
We need an electoral system where everybody can vote for the party of their choice and know that their vote will not be wasted.
We need a system which would allow voters to vote directly both for the best party and for the best constituency representative – Direct Party and Representative voting.


Posted 16 April 2010
Doctor, Doctor…,
The patient has a severe case of an unfair voting system.
Dr Brown suggests an AV placebo (well you won’t be any worse off …).
Dr Cameron says ‘Buck your ideas up - there’s nothing wrong with you!'
Dr Clegg is keen to try out radical STV surgery, which involves amputation of your constituency and then stitching on several others, and the whole procedure is so complex only an expert in this specialist field will have a clue what’s going on.
They haven’t grasped that what the patient needs is simple practical electoral reform that everyone can understand – one vote for the party to form the government, one vote for the representative to be the Constituency MP. This is Direct Party and Representative voting (DPR).
A very small change, but just the treatment the patient needs – no invasive surgery, no drastic medication regime. In fact for the patient, voting can carry on pretty much as normal.
Admittedly life won’t be quite the same again for the Doctors and the rest of the political class. They will have to retrain, and they should start by learning about DPR voting.
Fortunately for us all, it is really ever so simple.

Posted 14 April 2010
web comment
"That DPR system looks like a very interesting proposal which would certainly encourage more people to vote.
I had not come across it before.
One reason that we have had the MPs expenses scandal is that it is not really MPs that we vote for at General Elections but parties. So MPs do not feel so answerable to the electors.
This DPR would give MPs more authority in Parliament to hold Govt to account. Possibly some difficulties in appointing MPs to Select Committees but I am sure that could be overcome."


Posted 9 April 2010
From Twitter - Direct Party and Representative Voting would seem to be the simplest and fairest electoral system.



DPR Voting - simple, practical, powerful electoral reform


Back to top