Voting Systems

[Severian]

In the UK Election campaign, electoral reform is becoming a big issue.

 

At the moment we have a first-past-the-post system, where each individual seat has a restricted voter pool (by geographic area) and the candidate with the most votes wins the seat. This can lead to situations where a party with just 30% of the vote but voters concentrated in a fixed number of constituencies, can win the election, in preference to a party with 40% whose voters are all spread out.

 

The Labour party is suggesting an "Alternative Vote" system, while the Lib Dems would prefer a Single Transferable Vote system, or as a compromise, the AV+ system. The conservatives want no change.

 

You can find details on different forms of PR at the Wikipedia page, but I think this page is better.

 

I am interested in both your opinions on different voting systems and your experiences with these systems where you live. Which one do you think the UK should adopt?

[ParanoiA]

Good link Severian. I like Single Transferable and Preferential. I have no experience with anything other than FPTP. I'll be watching this thread. I'm sure Skeptic will have some input and should be interesting.

[Mr Skeptic]

To be honest, the number of wasted votes is appalling for a democracy -- and first past the post is the worst offender possible, especially with districting. My favorites are approval voting for its simplicity and instant runoff voting for its thoroughness. I'm a bit unsure about proportional representation.

[jackson33]

Actually Severian, it's the same in the US with our Congressional House (lower chamber). The reason being, that person elected is intended to represent those in that district (geographical area), not necessarily any other district or in fact necessarily the interest of the Nation. The end result for the decisions of that Chamber then the consensus of the NATION, not any particular district, State or Nationality, the total governs for...Reverse your scenario a bit, and assume that spread out 30% (Lib/Dems) was concentrated, then they would in deed vote in near 30% of the seats.

 

Skeptic, as mentioned in the UK's case, it's not really a wasted vote. Some districts will elect Lib/Dems or potentially in the US 'Independent' Candidates', can by choice "caucus" (work with), with any party they choose. In the US, feel sure by demographics in the UK, they have many districts with the different demographics (age, race, religions, interest etc.) which are then REPRESENTED, which is democracy for themselves.

 

If anything is unfair in the UK System from what I understand, are in the choosing of Candidates, which tend to follow personal heritage, status, maybe even the sense of entitlement, which if correct would be a cultural thing, not necessarily a procedural problem. My opinion...

[Severian]

If anything is unfair in the UK System from what I understand, are in the choosing of Candidates, which tend to follow personal heritage, status, maybe even the sense of entitlement, which if correct would be a cultural thing, not necessarily a procedural problem. My opinion...

 

Anyone can stand in the UK election. All they have to do is put up a 'deposit', which is £500, and have 10 people (eligible voters) to nominate them. It is just that the electorate tend to only vote for candidates supported by one of the big parties and the parties are obviously selective on who they choose.

[Dak]

The Labour party is suggesting an "Alternative Vote" system

 

Problem with this is that there's still wasted votes, but rather than 'your vote for Lib-Dem is being ignored' you get 'your vote for Lib-Dem is being transfered to the Labour party'. iow, parties will still rule with minority support, but this fact will be obfuscated somewhat.

 

Single Transferrable Vote at least lets you choose where your vote goes, but you still end up with a minority party ruling because the smaller parties have their votes transferred to the bigger parties, who themselves will be too big to lose a round and have their votes transferred.

 

Both of them solve the psychological impact of wasted votes (i.e., removes the incentive to only vote Lab' or Con') but are still both unproportional.

 

Is there any reason we can't just pile all the votes up, and if you get x% of the votes, your party gets x% of the power?

[JohnB]

The Australian systems are all modifications to the "Instant Run Off" or "Preferential" systems.

 

Many who aren't used to this system have some very wrong ideas about it. There is often talk of "Preference Deals" or "Allocating Preferences" that lead people to believe that the political parties say where the votes go. This is untrue.

 

In a preferential system, if there are 5 candidates you number the squares 1 to 5. Preferences are allocated according to how you mark the paper. The voter's decision is final.

 

However, before the election each party has to decide how they will reccommend voters distribute their preferences. These are given out on polling day by the Parties as "How to Vote cards". Preference deals only effect the cards. The voter can follow the cards or choose to ignore them and vote in the order they see fit.

 

In some elections we use "Optional Preferential". There is a line drawn across the ballot paer and all the voter needs do is place a "1" above the line. If they choose to vote in that manner, then the preferences are distributed according to the wishes of the Party.

 

If the voter chooses to, he or she may vote below the line and fill in each of the boxes on the ballot paper. If filled in this way, preferences are distributed according to the numbering assigned by the voter, and the Party's preferred order is ignored.

 

This system was introduced to reduce the number of "Informal" or "Spoiled" ballots caused by having large numbers of candidates on the Ballot Paper. While there are normally only a small number of candidates for a State or Federal Lower House seat there can be many candidates for a Senate seat. With 80+ candidates to number sequentially, mistakes crept in and the number of Informal votes rose. By allowing voting "Above the Line" we removed this problem.

 

There is the argument that this method hands the preferences to the Party to distribute, however those who vote "Above the Line" would normally vote according to the how to vote card anyway so it doesn't really make any difference.

 

Personally, I vote below the line every time.

 

As a voting system, I like it and think it very superior to "First Past the Post".