LabourList poll: Which voting system is best?

From @LabourList

With the government considering plans for a referendum on reform of the voting system at the next general election, there has been much comment – but little in the way of public polling – about the relative popularity of different systems amongst the public.

So to gain a rough idea of the feeling on electoral reform as it currently stands, LabourList is running a poll this week to find out what people think of each of the options presently being discussed as the most credible.

Below are descriptions of those options – including the current format – and some of the advantages and weaknesses of each, as listed by the Electoral Reform Society. This is not a comprehensive list. Rather, the systems below are those that are receiving the most attention and debate at present, and those which are likely to be considered to be put forward for any referendum on voting reform.

Please consider the information below and then vote on your preference here. It will only take a few seconds.

Results will be announced on Thursday, 3rd August.

ALTERNATIVE VOTE
Voters elect a single MP to represent them. However, rather than marking an ‘X’ against their preferred candidate, each voter would rank their candidates in an order of preference, putting ‘1’ next to their favourite, a ‘2’ by their second choice and so on. If a candidate receives a over 50% of first place votes, he or she would be elected just as under the present system. However if no single candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, the second choices for the candidate at the bottom are redistributed. The process is repeated until one candidate gets an absolute majority.

Advantages:
* The alternative vote retains the same constituencies and so the bond between members and their constituents is not lost.
* Extreme parties would be unlikely to gain support by AV and coalition governments would be no more likely to arise than they are under First-Past-The-Post.
* All MPs would have the support of a majority of their constituents.
* It prevents MPs being elected on a minority of the vote. In 2005, only 34% of British MPs were elected by more then 50% of the votes in their constituencies. This is a decline from 2001, when half of MPs could claim 50% support of their constituents.
* It removes the need for negative voting. Electors can vote for their first choice of candidate without the fear of wasting their vote.

Weaknesses:
* Whilst it does ensure than the successful candidate is supported by a majority of his or her constituents, it does not give proportionality to parties or other bodies of opinion in parliament. Research by Democratic Audit in 1997 showed that the results could actually be even more distorting than under First-Past-The-Post.
* There is no transfer of powers from party authority to the voters, and it does not produce a proportional parliament.

ALTERNATIVE VOTE +
AV+ is a mixed system composed of two elements, a constituency element and a top-up. Voters would have two votes – one for a constituency MP and the other from a regional list. The constituency MPs are elected by the Alternative Vote (AV). The so-called ‘top-up’ MPs are elected on a corrective basis from open party lists. The system is not currently used anywhere in the world. It is the system proposed by the Independent Commission on the Voting System (chaired by Lord Jenkins of Hillhead) to be put to the electorate in a referendum as an alternative to First Past the Post for UK General Elections.

Advantages:
* In the constituencies, the winning candidate has the support of at least 50% of the voters.
* People can vote for the candidates of their choice without fear of wasting their votes. A voter can vote for, say, the Green Party, knowing that if the Green Party candidate is not successful then their vote will transfer to their second preference. Tactical voting is no longer needed.
* It is a broadly proportional system.
* Everyone will have an incentive to vote, because their vote will count.
* In the top-up section, voters will be able to choose the best candidate to represent their party.

Weaknesses:
* Constituencies will be slightly larger than at present.
* There will be two categories of MPs.

FIRST PAST THE POST
The current system for electing MPs to the House of Commons is called First-Past-The-Post. There are 646 separate constituencies across the UK each electing one single Member of Parliament. In order to vote you simply put an ‘X’ next to the name of the candidate you support. The candidate who gets the most votes wins, regardless of whether he or she has more than 50% support. Once members have been individually elected, the party with the most seats in Parliament, regardless of whether or not it has a majority across the country, normally becomes the next government.

Advantages:
* It is simple to understand.
* The voter can express a view on which party should form the next government.
* Tends to produce single party governments, which are strong enough to create legislation and tackle the country’s problems, without relying on the support of any other party.
* It provides a close link between the MP and their constituency.
* The system represents the views of the people, as the candidate with the greatest support wins.

Weaknesses:
* Only one MP is elected in each constituency, so all the voters who did not vote for him or her are not represented.
* In 2005, in Great Britain, 19 million voters cast ineffective votes – that is 70% of those who voted. A high proportion of these voters are the same people every time, e.g. Conservative voters in County Durham or Labour voters in much of Surrey.
* There is a lack of choice given to the voters. The candidates are selected by a small number of party members, and voters can only choose between parties.

SINGLE TRANSFERABLE VOTE
Each constituency would elect between 3 and 5 MPs depending on its size. Voters rank the candidates, putting a ‘1’ for their favourite, a ‘2’ for the next, and so on. If the voter’s first choice candidate does not need their vote, either because he or she is elected without it, or because he or she has too few votes to be elected, then the vote is transferred to the voter’s second choice candidate, and so on.

In this way, most of the votes help to elect a candidate and far fewer votes are wasted. An important feature of STV is that voters can choose between candidates both of their own and of other parties, and can even select candidates for reasons other than party affiliation. Thus, a voter, wishing for more women MPs could vote for a woman from their own party and then all other women candidates, whatever party they stand for.

Advantages:
* Puts the power in the hands of the voters.
* Keeps MPs linked to the people who voted for them. Most voters can identify a representative that they personally helped to elect and can feel affinity with. Such a personal link also increases accountability.
* Makes parliament reflect the views of the voters.
* Only a party or coalition of parties, who could attract more than 50% of the electorate could form a government. Any changes would have to be backed by a majority since public opinion is reflected fairly in elections under STV. This is far more important than that a government should be formed by only one political party.
* It enables the voters to express opinions effectively. Voters can choose between candidates within parties, demonstrating support for different wings of the party. Voters can also express preferences between the abilities or other attributes, of individual candidates.
* It is simple for voters to use.
* There is no need for tactical voting. Voters can cast a positive vote and know that their vote will not be wasted whatever their choice is.
* It produces governments that are strong and stable because they are founded on the majority support of the electorate.

Weaknesses:
* The system does not produce such accuracy in proportional representation of parties as the party list or additional member systems.
* It breaks the link between an individual MP and his or her constituency.
* Constituencies would be 3-5 times larger than they are now but with 3-5 MPs.
* MPs may have to spend an excessive amount of time dealing with constituency problems and neglect the broader issues.
* There are critics who say that this system could lead to permanent coalition governments.
* It is disliked by politicians, since it would remove power from them and give it to the electors, and many MPs with safe seats would lose the security they feel now.

OTHERS:

ADDITIONAL MEMBER SYSTEM

PARTY LIST SYSTEM