Before I should start, I should say that my inspiration for this blog post comes from Stephen Bush's old post regarding the best and worst electoral systems. I have long been using his analogy of the Additional Member System as being 'the Thierry Henry of electoral systems', even if I think that he is, actually, wrong. You can read the original here.
Bad electoral systems
Supplementary Vote
Less simple than First Past the Post, and less fair than Alternative Vote, with full rankings of candidates. The principle is the same as AV, but on this you just get to rank your number one and two candidates. So you don't really get a lot. The chances of the leader changing with this system are pretty slim. But it did nearly happen in 2012, with Boris Johnson vs Ken Livingstone in London. But, like, what's the point?
The American Electoral College system
Is it sort of fun? Yes. Is it unique? Yes. Is it so awful no-one has wanted to do anything remotely like it for 240 years? Also yes.
Every state has a number of votes based on their number of Representatives + Senators. Winner takes all in each state. It's fun and nuts in all kinds of ways. But also rubbish and should change.
First Past the Post
Yes. It is bad. I can hypothetically see that if we all lived in a cave this might be the system we'd come up with, but I would also like to think that given the massively disproportional effects of it, and the negative impact on minority parties and political culture in general, we could see how this needs to change. Delivers big majorities, except for when it doesn't (2010, 2017).
Simple but effective, or simple and rubbish depending on your views. The Harry Maguire of electoral systems.
OK electoral systems
Alternative Vote
I sort of wanted to put this in with the bad - I'll get on to that - but I suppose the idea is good. Keep a majoritarian system, but use ranked choice voting to reallocate wasted votes. An example: in my constituency, the High Peak, the Conservatives received 24,800 votes, Labour 24,200, the Lib Dems, 2,700, and the Brexit Party 1,100. As no-one received over 50% of the vote, the bottom canidate is knocked out, and their votes reallocated to their second preferences, and so on, until a candidate gets over 50%.
It was criticised in the AV campaign as letting the loser win, and I suppose that is possible, but the objective is to create a system that most of the constituency are happier with. You could argue this makes you freer to use your first vote more wisely, but evidence from elsewhere seems to indicate that this makes voting even more tactical. It can actually hurt minority parties (as this LSE blog shows).
French two-round system
Sorry Jeremy Thorn, but I think this system is poor, at best. So you have two rounds, meaning a chance to change your mind after the first election. However, because the first round of the election is such a free-for-all, it can mean the chances of an extremist candidate getting through to the final two is relatively high, as has happened with Jean-Marie Le Pen and Marine Le Pen, former and current leader of the French far right party the National Front/National Rally.
Proportional Representation - list form
It's fine, but SO impersonal. Parties are able to centrally control who is on their list, and they are allocated a number of seats depending on how they've done. We had list PR in the UK through European elections, which did prove some of the good and the bad things about it. New parties like the Brexit Party, or smaller parties like the Greens or Lib Dems were able to succeed in EU elections, but so were extremists like the BNP (and arguably UKIP, depending on your perspective). It will lead to permanent coalitions, yes, but also could lead to the possibility of Party for the Animals or DENK being part of one of those coalitions in the Netherlands, so fingers crossed.
I like how Israel has it for the whole country though, with all of Israel being one giant constituency. Free-for-all madness fun.
Good electoral systems
Mr Thorn benevolent dictatorship
Churchill famously said that 'it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time', but then also said that the best argument against it was a 5 minute conversation with the average voter. Well, in the tradition of 18th century liberal thinkers who didn't really like the idea of ordinary folk being in charge, I'm here to sort it all out.
The number of seconds between the establishment of a Mr Thorn dictatorship and a truth a reconciliation commission being formed to investigate the injustices Arsenal have suffered over the years is something like zero. But also, I would like to offer my regular History teacher reminder that dictatorships only tend to survive when they deliver for their key support groups (and it is unlikely that Arsenal fans constitute such an influential demographic).
Additional Member System
Right - it's the previous gold standard. Some/half/most MPs are elected through FPTP and then a number of MPs are elected through PR. What this means is that you end up with a local representative AND a system that is broadly proportional. Right?
Well, the thing I can't get past is the question around what the 'top-up' MPs actually do. If you look at Scottish elections, where the SNP tend to win almost all of the FPTP seats, there is certainly an element of 'well, you couldn't win properly could you?'
Single Transferable Vote
The Dennis Bergkamp of electoral systems; technically excellent, accurate, and does the little things well. The excellent Politics in the Animal Kingdom video by CGP Grey is here. STV combines several seats into larger districts (a little like PR). But unlike PR, individual candidates can still be selected by those communities. Unlike PR, minorities are catered for, making it perfect for an area such as Northern Ireland, where who represents you makes a huge difference. Unlike FPTP, there are no wasted votes, as additional votes for a winning candidate or votes for a losing candidate can be reallocated. It's great, I love it, and... we'll never have it, because Nick Clegg wanted it.
No comments:
Post a Comment