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.

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.

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

That said, I do agree that PR can cause severe headaches because a major swing in the vote doesn’t necessarily alter the coalition needed to form the government. For example, Labour+Liberals/LibDems has been greater than the Tories in every single post-war election save for 1955 (and then only likely due to the low number of candidates that the Libs posted, as combined they were only .6% short of the Tories while the Libs left over 500 seats uncontested). Though PR would undoubtedly alter voting behavior (a ‘permanent coalition’ situation would lead to the combined vote of the two shrinking somewhat as they become largely interchangeable), the possibility of a “permanent grand coalition” or a “permanent ruling coalition” is probably worse than what we have now.

While there was much heat generated about the fall in Labour’s share of the vote, if one looks at each of the regions and compares what seats changed hands, it becomes evident that the biggest change in number of seats won by each party was due not to the rise or fall in votes cast for any given party, but the reduction in the overall number of seats available.

Of the 12 regions in the UK, there was no change whatsoever in the distribution of seats in four (incl N. Ire), while in four others the change was purely down to the reduction of seats.

Only in the case of those regions where the BNP or UKIP took a seat at the expense of Labour was there any change as a result of shift in votes.

Overall, 10 seats across all parties were “lost”, but of those, no fewer than six were down to the lower overall number. If only 1 in 18 seats changed hands at what was apaprently a calamatous election, what does that tell us about d’Hondt Regional List as a “democratic” system ?

In general terms, I believe that the advantages of multi-member STV are that it enables smaller parties to be represented, and, more importantly, it allows voters to choose between different candidates of the same party. It is also ideal in scenarios where candidates are genuinely independent – as used to be the case for most local councils before they became fully politicised.

The move to this system for the Scottish councils was bound to break open some of the monolithic strangleholds which Labour had exerted in the central belt – and so it proved. If in the process it enabled the good people of the Highlands to enjoy the services of a certain dynamic character from the Black Isle, then all the better !

Initially I thought that the move to STV had worked well, but the outcome in Scottish Council by-elections to date have highlighted that in such cases it becomes AV – but with the added disadvantage of being based on a larger area/electorate than might otherwise have been the case. That may not matter if there were annual elections such that by-elections were a rarity, but for units with a four year term (did you say five in Scotland ?) that does not hold true.

For that reason, I would oppose its introduction for Westminster elections, where I think the individual constituency MP link is important. To put it into perspective, for multi-member STV to work for Westminster, you would probably end up with 10-12 regions in Scotland, which would need to combine large areas of the country – say Argyll to Shetland in your case.

On the other hand, this geographic constraint is less important at Council level. While this might produce some unfortunate results from time to time, I think the system has worked well and should be retained for Council elections. Who knows, in time it may even enable a resurgence of genuine independents and ultimately de-politicise local councils. (I presume you would still offer your services, even without your SNP badge ?)

I definitely agree with single member constituencies and I do think we should move to STV or runoff voting, as at least with those systems you get either the most popular or the least unpopular.

It’s not perfect but with FPTP, you can just as easily end up with the most unpopular candidate (dare I use Galloway as an example again?). And I think the BNP getting seats in the Euros should just about kill off any thoughts of closed list PR for Westminster.

The recent Council by elections in Scotland do show that outwith the main elections electing a single replacement does effectively mean that we get a FPTP or AV result with the largest part most likely to win any seat.

Having said that it isn’t really that different from Parlimentary by elections which often give different results from what a general election does.

No system is perfect, we should have had larger Multi member wards but it is still improvement on FPTP, hell, if nothing else it got the public five years of my service.

Peter.