Why does the BBC use "crudest" to describe simple proportional representation?

 BBC, proportional representation, unclassifiable  No Responses »
May 112010
 

I found this on an otherwise interesting and useful page from the BBC, which allows you to understand a little better the implications of different voting systems.  Most of the language used is respectful.  However, when describing the concept of simple proportional representation we find the Beeb thinks it appropriate to use the adjective “crudest”:

The crudest version of proportional representation would give all parties seats in parliament based directly on their share of the vote. In practice, countries which employ PR have thresholds in place to screen out the smallest parties.
Simple PR is not in use in the UK.

So tell me please: why does a simple system merit the description of crude?

Either way the electorate is stuffed – if, that is, the politicians want to stuff it

 FPTP, in a hole, John Naughton, LibDems, proportional representation  No Responses »
May 082010
 

This, from John Naughton today.  The piece of advice that most catches my eye is the following unobtrusive sentence:

What matters is the long-term renewal of our political system. PR is only a part of that. A more important part is the renewal of the political parties.

I quoted Andrew earlier today on how certain kinds of PR could lead to the kind of electoral shocks which FPTP would never lead to.  But, thinking anew, I’m not sure that the implications – and indeed virtues – of what he asserted are as straightforward as one might think.  A coalition made after the fact is a risky proposition, that is clear – as all those poor grassroots Lib Dems who are being forced to contemplate Clegg’s cosying up to Cameron might now realise.  But a coalition made before the act of voting takes place – ie within the broad churches that will almost always be the vast majority of major political parties – provides no clear guarantee of strict observance either.  The hard right of the Tory Party were clearly chomping at the bit to take over the touchy-feely New Conservative brand Cameron had kind of fashioned in his own image – once, that is, the election had been won outright and the forces of progress had been essentially laid to rest.

No.  Just as PR offers no guarantees that sleazy horse-trading will not take place after the event (for, as you can see, everything depends on the integrity of the individuals involved), so FPTP gives us absolutely no assurances that a coup will not happen within a political party after the election has been won.

Either way, the electorate is stuffed – if, that is, the politicians want to stuff it.

Renewal of the political parties themselves – and on all sides too.  Now there’s a fine ambition if there ever really was one.  That’s what we really need: a clear, transparent and appropriate refurbishment of the political furniture that makes up not only our parties but our institutions, organisations and individuals too.

Time for the local to walk hand-in-hand with the national?

 broken politics, FPTP, on a high, proportional representation, STV  No Responses »
May 082010
 

An apposite observation perhaps: as we desperately try and search for alternative hows of voting, it is principally because we find the whats so dispiriting.  As Andrew observes on Facebook:

I’m finding myself defending FPTP: not so much because I think it’s a superior system, more because the vast majority of critics seem to misunderstand and misrepresent it. Probably one of the best arguments is what happened in East Belfast. With a list-based system Peter Robinson would have been elected top, in evident defiance of popular opinion, while someone further down the list would have paid the price. By contrast, in an individual-based system like FPTP, *anyone* can win if they really mobilise and enthuse people (which the Lib Dems failed to do), even in ‘safe’ seats. and *anyone* can be subject to the ultimate scrutiny, and beaten. Alternative systems transfer this power to the parties. There’ll be ups and downs, but there’ll never be *shocks*. That’s very bad.

My response as follows:

I suppose it really depends on whether your overriding objective is to re-engage the general voting public in politics or ensure strong but unrepresentative government. From what I’ve read, STV doesn’t actually foreground the party so much as other systems might. Quite the opposite (see the second comment on Paul’s original post).

FPTP – where it produces “strong” government – does, in my mind, offer a longer-term and more drawn out experience of shock as policy-making swings violently between one approach and another. All the achievements by one party in power must be undone by the following, instead of a more consensual approach being followed on the larger issues of the day.

As the local council results seem to indicate, where politicians rule, the public generally seeks change.  This is a curious and unhappy circumstance – a damning indictment of an entire profession.

Or maybe a damning indictment of the system in which these essentially good and sincere individuals have to find a way of working.

The truth of the matter is that we can’t do both things at once.  If we wish to improve voter-engagement in politics, we must – in some sense – let be the desire for branded strength to decline. 

After all the scandals of recent times, it is surely time for the former to be prioritised over the latter.  If we wish to re-engage real voters, we have to be relevant.  And relevant means listening to people in their homes, schools and places of work.

Voting reform is required.

A different dynamic must be contemplated.

The local must now be allowed to walk hand-in-hand with the national.

On proportionality in politics

 catching up, on a high, proportional representation, voting reform  No Responses »
May 072010
 

It’s not the end of the world.  Not today, anyhow.  A useful overview from Snowflake5 today, which allowed me to catch up on where everyone was at when I came home from work this evening.  Meanwhile, Paul addresses the issue of proportional representation and concludes by asking the following question:

So I’m quite keen on STV. It only leaves me with one question on which I don’t know the answer: Will it foreground the representative and diminish the powers of political parties relative to MPs?

Anyone know the answer to this one?

To which, I posted the following comment:

In answer to your final question, would that necessarily be a terrible thing? A greater sense of personal engagement and responsibility might have prevented the expenses scandal for one thing. Aren’t people particularly sick of the slanging matches that party politics and power blocs seem to generate? A more fragmented system where ownership was more clearly associated with individuals rather than brands might help heal some of this pain.

More here.