Bye Bye Boris!

[DeskJockey]

PR isn't a panacea, or perfect. But the problem with an exterior moderating force is that you disenfranchise the voter by making it clear that if you don't agree with their choice, it'll be overridden. It pretty much guarantees apathy (as does FPTP) and invites abuse (e.g. packing the HoL with your cronies).

And PR has a mechanism, again not perfect, for dealing with populism: fragmentation. Most often you have coalitions who broadly want the same things, but within each party there'll be red lines and pledges that will temper and mellow what others have pledged, etc.

You then have a coalition of the opposition too, they're able to hold government to account having strength in numbers. There will always be extremes and unpredictable outcomes in elections, but that's true of all non-rigged forms of government.

Yes, a Farage run country would be even more of a disaster than the current lot of numpties, but crucially he wouldn't have had enough votes to govern alone, it would have to have been a coalition or, if he couldn't create one, a coalition of other parties starting with the runner up.

If you want an engaged and knowledgeable population then you need to create it. Education is key. It isn't easy, it won't be quick, but that's the best (only?) way.

As for accountability I think that requires that politicians are held responsible for what they say and do. But that's hardly news.

[Nefarious]

I agree with you on many of those points - more education and engagement from the electorate, more accountability from the politicians, etc etc

However, I fundamentally believe you need some mechanism to prevent one person/party taking effective control on the back of one successful marketing campaign, no matter how alluring and persuasive that campaign might be. I don't have a problem with PR per se, but as things stand and without additional protections, it feels like an invitation for a race to the bottom - which shiny-faced TV personality can come up with the best catchy slogan.

And I also don't agree that protection is guaranteed through fragmentation. In the example of the Brexit party's 32% share of the European election vote, that dominant share gives the power to pick a coalition partner based on who else is willing to compromise their principles. Lib Dems, for example scored a 20% share in the same election, and couldn't have been more of a polar opposite in terms of policy. But in terms of coalition-forming, the Brexit party's share would put the Lib Dems in the position of toeing the line on primary policy and hoping for influence in other areas, or being shut out in the cold (basically the choice they were given in 2010, and we know how that ended).
Perhaps worse, a situation like this would also rely on a solid coalition of philosophically-opposed parties to make an effective opposition, which in turn can lead to one minority party effectively holding the rest to ransom (see Tory/DUP coalition in 2016).
Coalitions are fine while they're fairly balanced, but tend to disproportionately skew the power balance when not.

[DeskJockey]

And I agree with you on many of your points, but you can't get an engaged voting population until every vote counts, and that only happens in PR. It is risky and an unbalanced coalition is probably no better, and perhaps even worse, than a single party majority, but looking to the European democracies built on PR it doesn't seem like a very big risk. But, there could be other factors at play too that mitigate that.

It would be prudent to model the system on those that already exist to try to avoid repeating their mistakes.

[Nefarious]

I think these are the exact issues many European PR-based systems struggle with - disproportionate power for populist/extremist parties, ineffective coalitions etc - and hence why many keep chopping and changing their exact formula (e.g. mix of PR and FPTP, bonus seats for majority parties etc etc). Ultimately there is no "right" formula, and at any given moment in time one formula is likely to benefit one group over another.

I think we're actually fairly close in fundamental opinion, I just don't think that PR is a magical key to unlocking voter engagement/education.

As an aside, some time ago, I suggested a mixed PR/FPTP system that was something like this:
All private funding of political parties is banned
Parties are allocated funds for campaigning and promotion from a central pot
Parliamentary seats are allocated on a FPTP system, but the share of the funding pot is allocated based on share of the national vote.

That way, if there is a new party that quickly gathers a lot of popular support, it will struggle to immediately win an election, but will put itself in a strong position to win the *next* election as long as its popularity endures. Meanwhile, the party that wins the first time round knows it has to compromise with the policies of the new party in order to defend the next election against a strongly funded opposition campaign.
It also neatly does away with skewed incentives from corporate funding/lobbying for political parties.

[duncs500]

Not a bad idea on the face of it.

[Gavin]

I would prefer the old Greek "random jury pick" system. It isn't like the current system gives us many competent politicians.

[V8Granite]

I think if you paid them a high salary there may be more genuinely successful people wanting to be politicians. How you get past what we have to them I’ve no idea.

Dave!

[DeskJockey]

The idea has some good points to it (I remember when you first posted it), but I can't see it addressing apathy or disenfranchisement because people's vote may still not go towards the person/party they voted for, therefore continuing the bias towards the incumbents.

I agree with the funding formula, but if you can establish a party that's big enough to get seats based on a PR mechanism then you should have representation.

Maybe the answer is to raise the bar on the parties instead?

* No party that is less than two years old can stand for election
* Any party standing must produce a platform/manifesto with clear views on delivery (e.g. no "we'll figure it out when we get to it")
* In order to stand the party must have gathered X signatures in support of them standing from the voters
* Minimum vote percentage to win seats, in Denmark it is 4%. Get less and you don't get seats
* All affiliations must be declared ahead of time

Something like that perhaps?

[Nefarious]

The idea has some good points to it (I remember when you first posted it), but I can't see it addressing apathy or disenfranchisement because people's vote may still not go towards the person/party they voted for, therefore continuing the bias towards the incumbents.

I agree with the funding formula, but if you can establish a party that's big enough to get seats based on a PR mechanism then you should have representation.

Maybe the answer is to raise the bar on the parties instead?

* No party that is less than two years old can stand for election
* Any party standing must produce a platform/manifesto with clear views on delivery (e.g. no "we'll figure it out when we get to it")
* In order to stand the party must have gathered X signatures in support of them standing from the voters
* Minimum vote percentage to win seats, in Denmark it is 4%. Get less and you don't get seats
* All affiliations must be declared ahead of time

Something like that perhaps?

I think any system has to pass the "Tommy Robinson test" - i.e. does it allow a single issue/extremist/populist party to quickly gain a foothold based on short-term popularity and/or a few protests/rallies, and does it open up the possibility of one of those parties gaining disproportionate influence through the way coalition numbers may fall.
I like the idea of all parties needing a proper manifesto (I've always supported the idea of making parties legally liable for their manifesto promises), but I suspect it would be hard to police from an eligibility point of view (it's easy to flesh out a minimum standard manifesto with loose/low-bar promises).
Minimum vote % helps to reduce "background noise" from lots of small parties (similar effect of the old Italian "bonus" votes system for the larger parties), but doesn't do a lot to prevent the extremist/populist situation.

[DeskJockey]

To no great surprise we've not come up with a revolutionary new way of making democracy work for all and keep it within bounds (whatever they may be).

It is a balancing act between engagement of the voting population and controlling the fringes/extremes and either way can go wrong in new and unexpected ways. I'm leaning towards engagement and inclusion being the bigger benefit weighed against a risk of the rise of single-issue/populist movements.

I'd like to argue that the rise of those movements is precisely because the mainstream/existing parties have lost touch with their voters and/or failed to educate them. The Danish People's Party is an object lesson in how a fringe party, when not challenged by the other parties can gain significant influence (spanning decades no less) and drive policy without ever taking up a ministerial role. Only lately have they lost their shine as they've finally been shown to be incompetent numpties, yet they're still a force to be reckoned with.

As much as I'd wish them to the bottom of the ocean, they were voted for by enough people that they should have seats in parliament. It was the failing of the other parties that they bent to the DPO's will instead of challenging their policies.

[Rich B]

You're championing a system that can let fringe parties get too much influence easily?

You've seen what the British public can do with a well meaning request for involvement - the country will be run by a party called Parly-McParliament-face within 6 months for "bants"

[duncs500]

FWIW, I don't think PR will really solve the lack of voter engagement. I think most people who have any interest in politics or governance vote regardless of their chance of success, I know I do. Last time I voted, I voted for my preferred party knowing that they had close to zero chance of winning.

If everyone did that rather than overthinking who can and can't win in their constituency we'd probably get some different results.

[duncs500]

You're championing a system that can let fringe parties get too much influence easily?

You've seen what the British public can do with a well meaning request for involvement - the country will be run by a party called Parly-McParliament-face within 6 months for "bants"

Oh, and this. It will just depend on who social media tells the masses is best on voting day.

[duncs500]

I don't think Alex appreciates the difference in quality of education between here and Denmark.

[DeskJockey]

You're championing a system that can let fringe parties get too much influence easily?

You've seen what the British public can do with a well meaning request for involvement - the country will be run by a party called Parly-McParliament-face within 6 months for "bants"

I am, because PR is the least worst option for ensuring that all votes count. It is tempting to use a system (like now) to suppress the fringes under the guise of a moral high ground, but it entrenches divides and ensures that whomever is on top, stays on top, whether you like it or not. My knowledge of British election history is not great, but as far as I'm aware the last big upset from the effective two-party system was when Labour came onto the scene over a hundred years ago. And even then all that happened was that one of the two previous incumbents were displaced.

[DeskJockey]

Another consideration is that with a system that so obviously biases elections you push the fringes to ever more extreme positions because they can stand on the sidelines and shout with near impunity. They're not getting the seats (hence the concept of "safe seats" in the first place), but can say they're being unfairly excluded because the incumbents are afraid of them. And the incumbents are, their policies tend to drift towards the fringe positions to keep the vote loss to a minimum. Hence why we ended up with the referendum, David Cameron's ill-conceived attempt at maintaining party unity costing us all far more than keeping the Tories together will ever be worth.

Or even worse, as was the case with the DPP, the fringe party gets to set the agenda and rather than challenge it, the rest follow suit and start arguing not that the walls should be red, but about the shade of blue they should be, therefore giving the fringe power to become kingmaker.

And, as mentioned before, with FTFP the first order of business for the incumbents is to keep the party together to avoid losing seats. So again, they're forced to adopt extreme/fringe policies from both the inside and in response to external pressure to avoid a costly split because they dare not call the bluff. That's why, IMO, the 1922 Committee and the ERG are so prominent. Under PR they could more easily have been told to shut up or leave, because them leaving and setting up on their own wouldn't necessarily take too many seats away in the grand scheme of things as it is still the highest total percentage of the popular vote that wins the day and other candidates could be fielded in their place.

Does that mean that the Kippers could have won an election? Possibly, but with more parties and more choice, the likelihood of them taking that big a share diminishes as there would be other parties that would chip away at their vote total and they would, at best, end up in a coalition where they would have to compromise or fail.

With PR and a broader spread of parties you tend to dilute the fringe votes, IME, and therefore reducing their political capital to be kingmakers (DPP being an obvious counterpoint, I know). And finally, I think, that if you know your vote matters and counts, you're less likely to vote "in protest" and therefore perhaps (wishful thinking on my part?) less likely to overlook the unsavory elements of fringe party policies just to get one over on the incumbents.

As I said: least worst option until we know of something slightly less bad.

[Nefarious]

Just a side note to add on the issue of voter engagement - one aspect of FPTP is that at least constituencies vote for a local representative, so people can feel that they're voting for (in theory at least) "one of their own" who understands the issues specific to the local area and will (again, in theory) represent their interests. It's very visible how voter engagement drops when the main parties drop-ship young upstart carpetbaggers with no knowledge of local issues into safe seats.
You may consider that people become more engaged under PR because they feel their vote counts more and therefore it's worth putting time and effort into educating themselves to wider issues and politics in general (I don't share your faith on that one, I'm afraid), but that has to be weighed against all the people who are actively disengaged by the idea of just voting for party rather than their specific local man.

[DeskJockey]

That is true, but under (Danish) PR you can still vote for an individual that represents your electoral area. You don't just vote the party (although that's an option too). It's a way to endorse both at the same time, which sends (in theory) a message to the party about your preferences. If you vote for someone named the party gets your vote, and the individual get it as a personal vote. Doesn't count double, obviously.

[Jobbo]

That sounds over-complicated, Alex. Also, what happens if everyone votes for the Lib Dem local representative because they’re nice people, but they don’t trust them to govern so vote Tory as the party? Do you end up with Boris as PM but every MP being Lib Dem?

[DeskJockey]

That sounds over-complicated, Alex. Also, what happens if everyone votes for the Lib Dem local representative because they’re nice people, but they don’t trust them to govern so vote Tory as the party? Do you end up with Boris as PM but every MP being Lib Dem?

There's no double voting. If you vote for the lib dem candidate then the party gets the vote. You only have one vote, but you can give to a party (without backing a specific candidate) or specify a candidate for that party if you want to support their candidacy in particular and the party in general.

It was a way to retain the local connection in a PR system. I agree that local representation is important, and offered a solution to @Nefarious 's issue.