I found this article really helpful in its framing of the arguments between FPTP and PR, but in common with most analyses, it does not define PR. Is it possible/realistic to shown a comparison between the various forms of PR and FPTP and how each performs in relation to the issues that you describe?
Hi Paul. Glad you enjoyed it. The PR example in the graph is a Dutch style model, where we just divvy up seats in the Commons to reflect the proportion of votes won, assuming opinion polls directly translated into them. Because we have relatively few parties and lots of seats this is easy to do with simple rounding. But in most PR-style systems there would be a threshold (say five percent) and there might be a ranked choice voting system, so you can't translate opinion polls simply into seats.
I think a wise Keir Starmer would introduce PR for local government in England and Wales first (like STV used in Scotland and NI). Then, once bedded in, offer it for Westminster. We probably wouldn’t then need a second chamber, as policy would be more consensus driven. If need be, we could have a smaller fully appointed second chamber nominated by the devolved nations and regions.
People asked the same question about Canada. In 1993, the governing Progressive Conservatives went from more 150 seats to 2 seats. This was in part because they split into three wings: a Quebec wing, a western wing, and an everywhere else wing. By 2003, these wings had partly re-united, by 2006, the Conservatives won a minority government and achieved a majority in 2011. Was Canada a dictatorship in the meantime? No. One party won most of the seats for nearly 20 years, but there were elections every 4-5 years. The very fact of free and fair elections belies the possibility of it being a dictatorship.
UK, the Conservatives may be down to fewer than 100 seats on July 5. But this does mean not mean a dictatorship.
Well Ben, an interesting take on our “rotten broken system” of democratic politics, as one distinguished ex-politician tells us it is. I submit that your conclusion that our democracy is in fine working order missing the point, as it is not rooted in an analysis of all the available performance data. Like polling data on record levels of distrust or participation levels with many choosing not to vote or register, a sure sign of an unhealthy democracy . You say nothing on quality of governance - for it lacks competence and morality and is not serving the people or the nation well. The democratic process is indeed rotten and broken. I argue that this is because it does not involve the people in any significant way. It was never designed to, not unsurprising as the version we operate was designed in very different times. But time has not stood still and we can now reformulate the procedures to make it relevant to the 21st century. This is where the energy needs to be.
I dispute the idea that PR isn't inherently more democratic, your point that the electorate cannot pick a governing party as there always has to be a coalition just isn't true, if the electorate really wanted to pick a governing party they can by electing a party with over 50% of the vote and this can happen e.g. Jacinda Ardern
Totally agree with much of your article, but I am not convinced that even FPTP elections “matter in terms of actually electing the person who makes decisions”.
The apparent unwillingness of the Civil Service and the Judicary to, respectively, deliver or allow radical change (left or right) in a timely manor, could be viewed as a desirable check on political vandals or an outrageous challenge to democracy.
PR seems likely to deliver much weaker Governments and so strengthens the other parts of the State - which are self-appointed, self-perpetuating and undemocratic.
The loss of the pendulum of power, in which the winner gets both a strong mandate to govern and nowhere to hide if they fail to deliver, also takes away the electors’ ability to fire the Government.
Read your piece after reading this one https://app.prospectmagazine.co.uk/story/66929/content.html On a related topic, we seem to have created metro mayors without paying overmuch attention to how they are held to account. That probably doesn’t matter too much at the moment because they have limited powers (although Teesside is the obvious counter example) but if Labour are genuinely committed to “giving away control” then it will.
This was so interesting to read Ben - thank you. One question. You point out that it's miserable being in opposition in the UK, for the simple reason that you can't do / change much. Do you think that our system would be better (more democratic) if the opposition had more power?
Your points on PR are fascinating - hadn't ever considered the drawbacks.
Blair devolved extensive power to unelected non-parliamentary bodies. These seem all to be self perpetuating left wing big state and unaccountable.
Starmer seems certain to reinforce them, appoint more and seek to rig Parliament so reversing his preferred arrangements is all but impossible.
Will the Prof admit that, at some point, such arrangements will amount to a dictatorship and can he tell us when that tip over will happen; what re the key indicators.
Derailing here, with a question that confirms irresistible temptation to make UK/US parallels, maybe: could and will the US become a dictatorship (or at the minimum, is Trump's second term going to seriously damage American democracy), as some liberal commentators (off the top of my head, Anne Applebaum, but other voices warning to that effect, and not just from millenarian wokesters) seem to suggest.
Thank you for such a balanced and easily-understood explanation!
My view is that our highly imperfect system works best with a governing party with a reasonable but not excessive majority, and a reasonably cohesive opposition party, or parties. The governing party doesn't become its own opposition, and the actual opposition parties are able to apply a sensible measure of scrutiny, hopefully resulting in better and 'tighter legislation.
.....which makes it all the more interesting that we've had 14 landslide GEs between 1900 and 2019, or an average of one every 8.5 years (albeit clustering in several key periods). Dictatorship? No. Imbalanced and imperfect? Definitely.
I found this article really helpful in its framing of the arguments between FPTP and PR, but in common with most analyses, it does not define PR. Is it possible/realistic to shown a comparison between the various forms of PR and FPTP and how each performs in relation to the issues that you describe?
Hi Paul. Glad you enjoyed it. The PR example in the graph is a Dutch style model, where we just divvy up seats in the Commons to reflect the proportion of votes won, assuming opinion polls directly translated into them. Because we have relatively few parties and lots of seats this is easy to do with simple rounding. But in most PR-style systems there would be a threshold (say five percent) and there might be a ranked choice voting system, so you can't translate opinion polls simply into seats.
I think a wise Keir Starmer would introduce PR for local government in England and Wales first (like STV used in Scotland and NI). Then, once bedded in, offer it for Westminster. We probably wouldn’t then need a second chamber, as policy would be more consensus driven. If need be, we could have a smaller fully appointed second chamber nominated by the devolved nations and regions.
People asked the same question about Canada. In 1993, the governing Progressive Conservatives went from more 150 seats to 2 seats. This was in part because they split into three wings: a Quebec wing, a western wing, and an everywhere else wing. By 2003, these wings had partly re-united, by 2006, the Conservatives won a minority government and achieved a majority in 2011. Was Canada a dictatorship in the meantime? No. One party won most of the seats for nearly 20 years, but there were elections every 4-5 years. The very fact of free and fair elections belies the possibility of it being a dictatorship.
UK, the Conservatives may be down to fewer than 100 seats on July 5. But this does mean not mean a dictatorship.
Well Ben, an interesting take on our “rotten broken system” of democratic politics, as one distinguished ex-politician tells us it is. I submit that your conclusion that our democracy is in fine working order missing the point, as it is not rooted in an analysis of all the available performance data. Like polling data on record levels of distrust or participation levels with many choosing not to vote or register, a sure sign of an unhealthy democracy . You say nothing on quality of governance - for it lacks competence and morality and is not serving the people or the nation well. The democratic process is indeed rotten and broken. I argue that this is because it does not involve the people in any significant way. It was never designed to, not unsurprising as the version we operate was designed in very different times. But time has not stood still and we can now reformulate the procedures to make it relevant to the 21st century. This is where the energy needs to be.
I dispute the idea that PR isn't inherently more democratic, your point that the electorate cannot pick a governing party as there always has to be a coalition just isn't true, if the electorate really wanted to pick a governing party they can by electing a party with over 50% of the vote and this can happen e.g. Jacinda Ardern
Hi Ben
Totally agree with much of your article, but I am not convinced that even FPTP elections “matter in terms of actually electing the person who makes decisions”.
The apparent unwillingness of the Civil Service and the Judicary to, respectively, deliver or allow radical change (left or right) in a timely manor, could be viewed as a desirable check on political vandals or an outrageous challenge to democracy.
PR seems likely to deliver much weaker Governments and so strengthens the other parts of the State - which are self-appointed, self-perpetuating and undemocratic.
The loss of the pendulum of power, in which the winner gets both a strong mandate to govern and nowhere to hide if they fail to deliver, also takes away the electors’ ability to fire the Government.
Many thanks for this really clear analysis.
Read your piece after reading this one https://app.prospectmagazine.co.uk/story/66929/content.html On a related topic, we seem to have created metro mayors without paying overmuch attention to how they are held to account. That probably doesn’t matter too much at the moment because they have limited powers (although Teesside is the obvious counter example) but if Labour are genuinely committed to “giving away control” then it will.
This was so interesting to read Ben - thank you. One question. You point out that it's miserable being in opposition in the UK, for the simple reason that you can't do / change much. Do you think that our system would be better (more democratic) if the opposition had more power?
Your points on PR are fascinating - hadn't ever considered the drawbacks.
Blair devolved extensive power to unelected non-parliamentary bodies. These seem all to be self perpetuating left wing big state and unaccountable.
Starmer seems certain to reinforce them, appoint more and seek to rig Parliament so reversing his preferred arrangements is all but impossible.
Will the Prof admit that, at some point, such arrangements will amount to a dictatorship and can he tell us when that tip over will happen; what re the key indicators.
Derailing here, with a question that confirms irresistible temptation to make UK/US parallels, maybe: could and will the US become a dictatorship (or at the minimum, is Trump's second term going to seriously damage American democracy), as some liberal commentators (off the top of my head, Anne Applebaum, but other voices warning to that effect, and not just from millenarian wokesters) seem to suggest.
Thank you for such a balanced and easily-understood explanation!
My view is that our highly imperfect system works best with a governing party with a reasonable but not excessive majority, and a reasonably cohesive opposition party, or parties. The governing party doesn't become its own opposition, and the actual opposition parties are able to apply a sensible measure of scrutiny, hopefully resulting in better and 'tighter legislation.
.....which makes it all the more interesting that we've had 14 landslide GEs between 1900 and 2019, or an average of one every 8.5 years (albeit clustering in several key periods). Dictatorship? No. Imbalanced and imperfect? Definitely.