PR: Proportional MP Voting Credits, the final step in First Past The Post.
-Ballot paper listing candidates.
-Candidate with most votes elected as MP for the area.
-MP voting strength is "Total Party votes” / “Total Electorate Votes”.
-Electorate Represented when MPs vote at parliament.
-Simple as FPTP, Representative as PR
-Final change to FPTP and operates in parliament only
Simple, Efficient, MP per area, Representative and, therefore, a good system that is more democratic than other systems!
I think its an interesting idea but need more information and comparisons.
What would this have done to previous election?
Where is this most impactful on change.
Is there unintended consequences where similar parties running in the same constituency basically remove their power. e.g. Lib Dems and Tories are relatively rural minded, Labour is very urban, a constancy that is 49-51 tory lib dem, i.e. 100% rural minded, would have an MP with half the power of an MP from a 90% labour urban area. Could lead to a caving to the centre and tactical voting which is one of the major issues we have now, as people vote against a party not for one.
One of the things I liked about AV is that it allows people to vote for parties they like instead of for parties that will beat ones they dont like. Basically it bakes in populism.
Is there a version that has an element of AV? Maybe an AV-PR one instead of FPTP-PR one.
Edit: I now realise when you stated total votes you mean throughout the country, for some reason I was thinking that it was per constituency. This removes some of the worries I had above as it would allow for people to vote for who they want.
The upload below shows the effect of Proportional MP Voting Credit. You will note that the WPB Party, Other,Yorkshire Party, ALB Party fit the condition you illustrate.
The answer to your question is that these parties will not be represented either by seat or Proportional MP Voting Credits. However, the largest of the non-seated candidates (WPB Party) approximates to 210,194 party votes / 28,663,722 electorate, equates to 0.74%. A percentage which is very low.
Maybe, but remember when UKIP got about 4 million votes and only 1 MP? If that had been 0 MPs those 4 million people wouldnt be represented in this system.
Taking the data you state for UKIP 4,000,000 and electorate approximately 46,400,000, the voting strength would be 8.6. Greater than unity of 1.
So yes, they would be represented; eightfold in fact.
hope this answers the question.
The most Impact is upon Reform and Labour currently.
Reform with 5 MPs have a credit of 18.85 equivalent strength of 94.24 MPs
Labour with 412 MPs have a credit of 0.54 equivalent strength of 223.32 MPs
AV - Ranked candidates in order of preference?
So long as an MP is elected, by whichever method of balloting, for a constituency, my opinion is, it would work too. Voting strength still gets apportioned MP vote / National vote. AVPR.
All electoral systems are not totally democratic.
Why and how people vote and do not vote is mind boggling. I take your points re – tactical voting etc. I would add that, when voters are presented with a ballot paper full of names they do not recognise, ranking them is often a dilemma and counting votes under AV is more complicated than FPTP. Not that it should matter at all!
Last thought: FPTP has already shown that a party can form a “bridge head” into parliament as with Reform UK. If, as in the rural example you state, Lab urban & LibDem Con; Could’nt the constituency form a Rural Party? Not necessarily to form a government but get a voice and vote(s) in parliament? FPTPPR may better still?
Thanks for the response, I commented before seeing your table, where I realised I had misunderstood the “total”.
I agree if it is total votes then this actually means that you can vote, in areas that you dont like either side of, for a no hope party, and it will add to their power anyway.
I guess there is still the issue of your own MP being of a party you dont like, but thats still an issue now so not a problem.
I would say that one addition you could make to the proposal that I think would make it even better is to include the “did not vote” in the “proportionally represented vote” but make it that to pass all laws 50% must be reached.
This would give an incentive to enfranchise the disenfranchised voters and would ensure that low turnouts are not used to enforce tyranny (like now).
Then they dont have any representation in parliament.
Or maybe the party leader attends without a constituency.
Either way compared with the current system which also has this issue it is an improvement, while allowing people to vote for the constituency (which you cant really under PR)
Maybe constituencies and MPs need to be separated. When i vote it is for the party and not the specific MP that is running in my area. And if my preferred party doesn’t get in i have to contact the winning party’s MP, who may fob me off. What if we used PR, and then the party gets the proportional seats that they won.
The party could then assign their MPs to represent different parts of the country. This would mean i can contact my preferred party about local issues. The areas covered would of course be larger, but all parties would have coverage of the whole country.
In the case of just one MP getting a seat, they would have to cover the whole country, but as their support was low, demand to contact them would also be low.
Looking at your 3rd paragraph, “to include the “did not vote” in the “proportionally represented vote” but make it that to pass all laws 50% must be reached”.
Registered UK voters 48,208,743 & actually voted 28,663,722: That’s 59.46%
Did not vote 19,545,021. That’s 40.54%
Could you clarify that you mean the total of the corresponding “seated votes” carried by parties in favour of a Law Change must exceed 50% of total “Registered UK voters” 48,208,743?
Looking at the Table above under “proportionally represented vote”, Lab have 223.32, Cons & Reform together have 250.86 and the rest 175.81: If the rest abstained, Cons & Reform would defeat Lab by 27.54.
Currently, that is not possible, even with the rest voting against Lab.
Proportional MP Voting Credit (now aka FPTP PR) goes some way to balancing the inequity currently seen in the Commons?
yes there was a 60% turnout of which labour got roughly 33% of the vote. That is to say they got 20% of the total vote.
What I meant was that the 60% is too high and is due to a malaise and a fear that the neoliberal pro-austerity pro-mass migration, pro-globalist, pro high taxes pro green agenda party in the blue tie was similar to the one in the red tie.
Yes in 2024 it would mean that more than 5/6 MPs would need to agree to pass anything. Basically making the parliament hung so a new election would be called. Stopping a lucky party or coalition doing anything too radical. Its basically a deliberate break on radicalism.
I agree that plain FPTP PR would give a nice result for the last election (but I dont think you’d guarantee greens and libs not joining labour), but I dont think that we should be normalising minority rule and that higher turnout is better. arguably compulsory voting may fix the issue.
Hi James, thanks for the reply and clarification and further explanation.
I can Agree and take on your point regarding the limit to passing legislation and minority rule.
We agree!!
Once you get your head around that MPs are Representatives, and not a part of the “One Man One Vote” camp, you will see MPs should have an Individual MP Voting Strength.
Step 1 FPTP
Step 2 MP Vote = Total Party Vote / Total Electorate vote
Step 3 Fair representation when MPs Vote
Creating a voting system that retains First Past The Post (FPTP) but adjusts MPs’ voting strength based on their party’s vote proportion would introduce a hybrid model. Advantages:
1 Proportional Influence: Fair representation where each MP’s influence reflects their party’s support, reducing vote-seat disparity.
2 Encouragement of Broad Appeal: Parties would campaign more broadly, knowing MPs’ voting power correlates with vote share.
3 Reduced Tactical Voting: Voters might prefer their true choice, knowing it will still impact parliamentary strength.
4 Increased Accountability: MPs would align more with electorate preferences, their impact tied to popularity.
5 Local and National Balance: Combines local links of FPTP with proportionality elements for a government reflecting national mood.
6 Mitigation of “Winner Takes All”: Small-margin wins result in MPs with less voting power, balancing FPTP’s disproportionality.
We should change our system fully. Get rid of political parties. Each consituency has one member who is picked randomly. Taken from people between 40 and 50 and must pass a simple test on communication skills. The jury meets 4 days per month and selects/fires country leader and reviews performance.
Is that democratic voting system? Seems to be a dual system of lottery then jury!
Birds of a feather: political parties and alliances will always form.
