Direct Party and Representative Voting (DPR)

'First Past the Post' (FPTP) and DPR voting

DPR Voting - simple, practical, yet powerful electoral reform

‘First past the post’ (FPTP) has many disadvantages, is 'undemocratic', but also has some advantages.

In choosing a voting system to replace FPTP, the flaws and benefits of the existing system, and the replacement system need to be examined. FPTP is liked because it uses the single member constituency. Voting is simple.

FPTP favours a 'two party' system of politics. A third party with national support spread widely cannot achieve votes in the parliament proportional to its national vote. However a small regional party with strong support in a very limited geographical area can be over represented in the parliament. FPTP can (and has) produced an electoral result where the party able to form the Government was not the party to win the largest number of votes. (UK General election 1951).

The result of the 2010 UK General election was

Con
Lab
Lib Dem
UKIP
BNP
SNP
Green
Sinn Féin
Democratic Unionist
Popular vote
10,703,654
8,606,517
6,836,248
919,471
564,321
491,386
265,243
171,942
168,216
Percentage
36.1%
29.0%
23.0%
3.1%
1.9%
1.7%

0.9%

0.6%
0.6%
Seats won
306
258
57
0
0
6
1
5
8
see full results

Conservative 10.7m votes - 306 seats, Labour votes 8.6m - 258 seats, Lib Dem 6.8m votes - 57 seats.

It took on average approx

35,000   votes to elect one Conservative MP.
33,000   votes to elect one Labour MP
120,000   votes to elect one Lib Dem MP
80,000   votes to elect one SNP MP

Small National parties
1.7m votes - 1 seat
(UKIP, BNP, Green )
Small regional parties
0.34m votes - 13 seats
(Sinn Féin, Democratic Unionist )


Clearly FPTP is not a form of proportional representation. The results are widely seen as unfair, and undemocratic.

As a replacement for FPTP, DPR Voting is a form of proportional representation that keeps the attractive elements of FPTP - the single member constituency and the simplicity of voting and counting. Unlike other PR systems, no changes to the number of constituencies are needed. It is a direct replacement for FPTP.

  FPTP 'First past the post' is fundamentally flawed, it ignores too many votes  
 
Our voting system is not designed to reflect the way we think about politics in our party based representative democracy.
When we vote, we want to achieve two objectives:
Firstly, we vote for a party to form a national government.
Secondly, we elect an individual to represent the local constituency.
In the FPTP system these two objectives are conflated in one vote. This does not allow full expression of our views.

The shortcomings of the system are compounded by the way we count the result.
We elect a number of individuals, and once elected, we form a parliament from the elected individuals, and arbitrarily give them each equal elected status, ignoring all the votes cast in the election for both winning and losing parties/candidates. A majority of one counts equally with a majority of 10,000. Similarly 10,000 votes cast for a losing candidate are completely ignored.

If we conflate the questions of party and representative, and then confer one equal vote on each elected MP, we ignore the total numbers of votes cast in the election and the result is almost inevitably unfair, unrepresentative and undemocratic.

  
FPTP
- is not certain to produce a fair democratic result
- leads to adversarial politics.
- focuses on the Party, not the Candidate
- leads to Tactical Voting
- is unfair to minor parties
- puts all the focus on Marginals
- results in Safe Seats
- is unfair to Independent Candidates
- gives too much power to the Whips and the Central Party organisation.
FPTP
- maintains the single member constituency
- is simple to understand
- more likely to result in single party Government
- is quick and easy to count
- tends to keep extremists out of Parliament
- avoids small parties exerting undue power
- avoids the ‘appointment' of MPs through a Party list system
 
 
DPR voting has the advantages of FPTP without the disadvantages
FPTP is not certain to produce a democratic result.
The Government is not necessarily formed by the party that wins the most votes. Certainly the strength of the parties in the Parliament does not reflect the votes cast. Third parties suffer badly. With two closely matched parties, the system can give victory to the party with the fewer votes.
Comment – DPR voting ensures that the Government has votes in parliament proportional to the number of votes it wins in the election. With DPR every vote makes a difference.
FPTP leads to adversarial politics.
FPTP tends towards a two party system, and politicians tend to portray complex issues as black and white. Since they don't need to work together, party advantage tends to drive the debate.
Comment – DPR voting leads to coalition governments that have to win majority support for their legislation, resulting in more cooperation between parties, and less, better legislation.
FPTP focuses on the Party, not the Candidate
The voter has one vote both to express a preference for one candidate, and at the same time, one party to form the Government. For this reason it is not clear that the results reflect the will of the people . Where there are several candidates from several parties a minority of votes is often enough to elect the ‘winning candidate'. All the voters who did not vote for the winning candidate, often a majority, contribute nothing to their choice of party's strength in the Parliament, or to electing a Candidate.
Comment – with DPR voting the choice of candidate is separate from the party vote. The voter is free to choose the best candidate, regardless of party label. It is possible to vote for, and elect a candidate from one party when the constituency as a whole casts a majority of votes for a different party to form the Government.
Leads to Tactical Voting
Frustrated voters inevitably try to exploit the flaws of the system. This can result in voters deliberately voting for a party they do not want to form the Government, as a way of voting against a rival party when it is clear that otherwise their vote will be wasted.
Comment – with DPR voting there is no tactical voting. Since your ‘Government' vote adds to the strength of your chosen party, your Candidate vote only selects the MP for the constituency.
FPTP is unfair to Minor parties
Minor parties with a significant share of the popular vote nationwide but with widespread rather than concentrated support may not be represented in the parliament.
Comment – With DPR voting, minor parties have a better chance of being represented in parliament for two reasons. A minor party may have at least one charismatic or clearly outstanding candidate, who can be elected under DPR because the party label is a less significant factor in influencing the voters decision in the Representative Ballot, and therefore being able to represent their party in parliament. Secondly a party may qualify to have one representative in the Parliament by getting more votes than the threshold. see automatic representation. A party with one MP would still have voting power reflecting the total votes cast for the party rather than the single MP elected. It is still true that in terms of MPs, minor parties would, depending on voter behaviour, have proportionally fewer MPs than one of the largest parties. However, they would have parliamentary votes proportional to their total votes polled.
Focus on the Marginals.
Elections tend to be decided by the change in a few marginal constituencies. Parties therefore direct their resources disproportionately to the areas. This can border on the corrupt, or the suspicion of corruption when resources are diverted to a marginal constituency instead of another similarly qualified area.
Comment – with DPR voting there are no marginals. Every vote counts regardless of where it is cast.
Safe Seats
FPTP results in safe seats where the incumbent MP appears to be fireproof. This results in many voters feeling their vote is wasted, that there is no point in voting. The MP may not give the attention to the constituency that it deserves, since re-election is virtually automatic.
Comment – with DPR voting there are no safe seats since the election of the MP is not linked to party labels. The only safe seats are those held by MPs who manage to convince their constituency that they are by far the best candidate and will continue to be the best MP.
Independent Candidates
Under FPTP it is very difficult to be elected as an independent, except in a by-election when the future of the Government is not at risk. However the single member constituency favours the independent candidate's campaign. Generally voters are inclined to vote for the party of choice, so the lack of a party label adds to the difficulty of getting elected as an MP.
Comment – DPR voting removes the significance of the party label and thus makes it easier to be elected as an independent. With DPR the single member constituency is maintained.
FPTP gives too much power to the Whips and the Central Party organisation.
Under FPTP the party label is crucial to being elected. The MP's future depends on the party, and as a result there is little sense of independence. Deselected MP's have little success standing as independent candidates in opposition to a new party candidate. The Central Party organisation, by appointing a candidate to a ‘safe seat' virtually appoints an MP.
Comment – with DPR voting there is much greater sense of independence since the representative election is not dependent on party voting. Well known respected MP's may well be elected on their merits regardless of party label.
Constituency Boundaries and fair elections.

FPTP and many electoral systems have problems with how constituency boundaries are drawn.
DPR Voting avoids this problem.

The result of an election will depend on the electoral system employed. Most electoral systems will give different results depending on how constituency boundaries have been drawn. As a result, constituency boundaries can and do have a significant affect on the result of a general election. A sorry consequence is that political parties can spend great efforts trying to ensure that they obtain maximum advantage from any constituency boundary revision exercise.

There are substantial difficulties in drawing boundaries so that they can be seen to all to be fair to all sides – in practice it is virtually impossible.

The shortcomings of the FPTP system are compounded by the way we count the result.
We elect a number of individuals, and once elected, we form a parliament from the elected individuals, and arbitrarily give them each equal elected status, ignoring all the votes cast in the election for both winning and losing parties/candidates. A majority of one counts equally with a majority of 10,000. Similarly 10,000 votes cast for a losing candidate are completely ignored.

Direct Party and Representative Voting (DPR Voting) is a PR system which incorporates a party vote (to determine the party of Government) that is aggregated nationwide, and a Representative vote (to elect the local constituency MP).

Because all the party votes are added up nationwide it doesn't matter where the vote is cast. As a consequence DPR Voting is not sensitive to constituency boundaries. Furthermore every vote makes a difference to the result.

Voting is simple and intuitive, and counting is straightforward and quick. It is a PR system with the simplicity of FPTP and without the drawbacks of ‘conventional' systems.

 
The perceived benefits of FPTP (compared with some forms of PR)
FPTP maintains the single member constituency
The single member constituency is maintained, which makes the MP more closely associated with a relatively smaller constituency.
Comment - With DPR voting the single member constituency (and existing boundaries, if required) is maintained.
FPTP is simple to understand
FPTP is a very simple system, both to vote, to count, to administer, and to understand.
Comment – DPR voting is similarly simple, both to vote, count, administer and understand.
FPTP tends to result in single party Government
FPTP tends to result in single party Governments with clear majorities able to push through programmes of legislation despite opposition (although this may not be an accurate reflection of the levels of party support).
Comment – DPR voting like other true PR systems more accurately reflects levels of support for the different parties and thus is more likely to produce coalition Governments.
FPTP is quick and easy to count
'On the night' results make for election excitement. Immediate results engage the electorate in the process.
Comment – DPR voting is similarly quick to count, so that election night coverage would be little changed.
FPTP keeps extremists out of Parliament
FPTP keeps all smaller parties out of parliament, until recently, even the Green party.
Comment - There is a greater chance that small parties will be represented in Parliament with DPR voting. The barrier to Small Party representation depends on the threshold level that is set. In addition an outstanding candidate, regardless of party, has a better chance of being elected under DPR and this could boost small party representation in parliament.
FPTP avoids small parties exerting undue power
FPTP avoids a proliferation of small parties which are then able to exert undue influence within a ruling coalition.
 Comment - DPR voting does not encourage the proliferation of small parties.
FPTP avoids the ‘appointment' of MPs through a Party list system
While FPTP does not use Party Lists, candidates appointed to ‘safe seats' become ‘appointed MPs.
Comment – DPR voting does not employ Party Lists (but see the special case of Automatic Representation), but also has no safe seats. Candidates are elected or re-elected on their perceived merits.

DPR Voting is a direct replacement for FPTP in the UK. It would involve only the smallest change to our current FPTP system. It would preserve the relationship between MPs and their constituents on the basis of a method of constituency election which is familiar. DPR Voting would achieve greater equality for the voter, greater voter choice, and a significant increase in proportionality at minimum cost and disruption. It could be simply and powerfully presented to the electorate as a fairer electoral system for Westminster.

DPR Voting - simple, practical, yet powerful electoral reform


Back to top