Comments on: Euro election: How did the pollsters do?

By: Paul H-J

Paul H-J — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:34:25 +0000

Tony / Gray

Yes, I should have been more precise in stating that it is the system used for the Euros that is indicted, ratehr than PR in general.

Tony, beware Brown’s “offer”. If I may quote Cicero: “Timeo Danaos et dona ferrentes”.

Mitterand introduced PR for the Chambre de Deputes
in the early 80s for no reason otehr than he feared a wipe-out at the polls. His party lost the election anyway (even under PR), but the price was 36 Deputes for Le Pen’s Front National. The system was promptly changed back to the traditional two-round FPTP system. As I have argued elsewhere, that system gives (almost) every voter the chance to choose both their first preference, and, if that is but a small minority view, to have a say as between the two leading candidates.

We should recognise that no electoral system can be “perfect” since it will always be necessary to reconcile a variety of differing viewpoints. But some are less imperfect than others.

By: Gray

Gray — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:04:44 +0000

A proviso I feel I should add: Pure PR is, IMHO, toxic due to the degree of fragmentation involved. I think it should be paired with either a separate (as opposed to linked) FPTP element (as in Japan) or some form of a majority/winning premium, regionally or nationally, like Greece has (and most assuredly not like Italy, which gives one party an automatic 55% of the seats). The danger of severe factionalization/fragmentation is something that really should be avoided if possible; 6-month government-formation periods are not good for anyone at all.

By: Gray

Gray — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 07:52:55 +0000

@Tony:
What I would suggest, honestly, is some system for overall PR followed by “approval voting” for members of the list. Those on the list with the most votes get elected in order, with the caveat that if members receiving less than a given share of the approval vote for that list (say, 1/3 or 2/5 of the highest approval or ballots with approval marks) are disbarred and the party is required to tap someone not on the list to fill the gap.

I suggest this because the list system is fine, but there should be the ability to sack someone such as Neil Hamilton regardless of position on the list (especially if a party only lists a partial list). I know parties will encourage people to vote approval for all or to go in order, but I see the inability of voters to reject a member as the biggest weakness in any PR system.

By: Colin

Colin — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 07:51:29 +0000

Tony-surely “every vote counts” under FPTP.

It counts in a given constituency,which is the level at which the majority is expressed under that system.

By: Tony Dean

Tony Dean — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 06:00:32 +0000

@Paul H-J
You wrote: If ever one wanted to find an indictment of PR, these Euro-elections provided it.
I agree, but it is not specifically the fault of PR, but the d’Hondt closed list version of it.
I find myself in a dilemma over Electoral Reform. I like the more potent “hire and fire” methods of election which gives power to voters rather than parties post polling day. However, I resent the fact that my vote has never counted towards anything. Always living in safe seats of one side or another, I have either voted for a winner with a majority so large he didn’t need my vote, or a loser whose votes went straight in the bin after the count. Can anyone suggest an electoral system which means every vote counts towards electing “somebody” but also gives every voter’s vote potency in “hiring or firing” a Government? I do not know of one?