I felt this map, produced by Liberal Democrats for Electoral Reform, was interesting in showing what constituencies in a multi-member constituency system of proportional representation might look like:
In my opinion, slightly larger constituencies would make sense: proportionality would increase in that case. However, this compromise retains a greater link with the locality.
Would a system like this really be a problem for anyone? I can see no reason why when most people never have any contact with an MP, but PR might encourage more engagement.
I am not endorsing this proposal. I thought it was worth sharing.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
As the author of this map, can I say something about proportionality.
First, there’s a trade-off between proportionality and local representation – both core principles of a `good system’, along with voter choice.
The data show that Ireland’s STV in 3 to 5 member constituencies has done very well in representing small parties as well as large. The UK scheme shown in this map has mainly 4 to 6 member constituencies, though with the flexibility to allow 2 or 3 members for sparser areas (and leaving the protected 1-member island constituencies alone).
Second, traditionally proportionality gets summarised in a single number, usually the Gallagher Index. STV scores well on the Gallagher Index, but I suggest that there are at least three criteria that should be used in assessing proportionality:
(a) broad proportionality between votes and seats for major parties, over the range from (say) 10% to 50% of the vote, which can be measured by a linear regression. [This, roughly, is what the Gallgher Index measures.]
(b) a low enough threshold that allows small parties to get their fair share of representation. [It’s generally accepted that there should be some threshold – STV has the merit that votes for below-threshold parties are passed on to voters’ second choices, not simply ignored as in list systems.]
(c) that the vote share required for a majority should be close to 50%.
Here STV scores very highly: if candidates/parties form `solid coalitions’ of (say) Left and Right then in a 650 seat parliament the votes required for a majority wll be very close to 50% (within less than 1%).
Of course in real life coalitions of support are far from solid.
STV data reveal that there are plenty of voters with surprising cross-party preferences.
[Reference: section 5 of https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.15310%5D
Thanks for that
Appreciated
Thankyou for that interesting contribution professor Mollison.
Those interested may find the paper from which the map is derived via the professors webpage:
https://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~denis/
here:
https://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~denis/STV2023.pdf
😉
Thanks
Thank you Professor Mollinson for commenting on this. We need this form of informed opinion in discussion badly . Your observation that voters have surprising cross-preferences is very important. Part of the profound failure of our simple-minded left/right FPTP cartelised politics is that takes no account of that truth. Humans are neither consistent nor rational. That should inform our political understanding,band our electoral system.
John
You say
“ Humans are neither consistent nor rational.”
I am shocked, I tell you, shcoed.
Richard
If we want to replicate the Irish system of single transferable votes in multiple member constituencies then we ought to be looking for groupings of three to five seats with some sort of geographical basis – around 130 to 230 of them. It does at least maintain the constituency link, which I think is valuable, albeit at risk of MPs becoming glorified social workers. Do Irish TDs hold constituency surgeries for example?
I guess what that typically means is the first two parties getting a MP and then the remaining seats being allocated to a third (or fourth, or fifth) party, or one of the earlier ones. So if you are a smaller party – the Greens or Reform say – you might want to focus on the places with five seats where it might be marginally easier to achieve one.
From this map, my constituency would be 250m long and 150m wide, so larger than the whole of Wales.
The coastline alone is well over 6,000 miles.
Oh, and as well as being the largest in the UK it is also by far the most beautiful scenically.
As it happens I have met both my current and former MSP, on several occasions, and our former MP, though not the incumbent. They’re easily reached by email.
The wider point is that the current UK system of representative government leaves chasms between voters and government and is profoundly undemocratic on any number of levels.
It disempowers and alienates, which might explain a turnout below 60%.
Swapping FPTP for PR is one essential change, but only one of many needed for better governance.
I find a lot of people expect an MP to be a sort of local councillor. While they have such a role their main responsibility is on national matters.
Bigger constituencies might give that better focus.
The STV system meant we have a choice about who to contact.
I have lived (and voted!) in the Nordic region for 30 years. PR is a great system that delivers stability through representation with always more than 50% of the votes behind all legislation. And a lot of politics is done across the middle with almost 100% support. Social cohesion is strong in the Nordic countries and PR and the political system plays an important role.
This begs a question though, of the ‘chicken and egg’ variety. Do they have PR because of the strong social cohesion, or did the social cohesion arise from the adoption of PR? The UK is divided and naturally disputatious and the adoption of the new system would not change that much, and probably not very fast. Having said that, there does seem to be an undercurrent in favour. Is it enough? (I am very much in favour of PR, btw, just to be clear.)
Let’s be clear: only we and Belarus do FPTP, so not many cases to compare with.
@tony – `from this map, my constituency would be 250m long and 150m wide, so larger than the whole of Wales. The coastline alone is well over 6,000 miles.’
I was leanng over backwards to be kind to the Highlands, making two 2-member seats where cold arithmetic would suggest one 3-member one. But yes you’re right, sparse and island communities are not easy to accommodate in a large mainly demographically much denser country. The same problem has arisen fitting STV council wards to such areas: I suggested more flexibility and smaller (2 or even 1 member wards) for areas such as the Western Isles some years ago – https://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~denis/stv/mollison_islandsreview2020.pdf – and am glad to see that that has now happened.
You’re also right that the answer is to strengthen local government: the EU subscribes at least on paper to the principle of subsidiarity, defined in Article 5(3) of the Treaty on European Union, that aims to ensure that decisions are taken at the closest possible level to the citizen. Subsidiarity needs a continual fight – it is a natural tendency of central governments to take power to themselves, whether it’s Thatcher emasculating local government or the SNP centralising the Police.
Thanks again
My goto stat is 300+ municipalities in Finland and 32 local authorities in Scotland for the same population.
Additionally the Finns have around 2x government spending devolved to municipalities.
There is then a much wider group of people with political experience and skills, and theoretically capable of making more informed judgements.
You cannot centralise democracy without taking the principle of signing off individual representation to a level where it ceases to have much meaning.
The old style ‘social contract’ really is virtually defunct in practice.
Yes, the paradox of Sturgeon centralising whilst arguing for autonomy has not been lost on a lot of genuine Indy supporters.
Under the Lisbon Treaty subsidiarity has barely been honoured at all.
Participatory democracy requires a different approach entirely.
Power in the UK does not really rest with the general population when funding and sponsorship by vested interests, most usually business, are so prominent, and buy both access and influence.
My preference is for naming the UK as more of a ‘plutocracy’.
It’s Sunday, so I’ll indulge myself and have some fun with a not entirely serious suggestion in among the really interesting, illuminating, and stimulating serious content.
I’d like to see the larger STV consituencies match, as closely as possible, the old EU constituencies, both geographically and by name. Then sit back and laugh while the Brexiters lose their sh*t over it!
They worked….
Here in Singapore, multi-member or Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) have been a reality for nearly 30 years. The intent was to ensure broader representation of the ethic groups, and it was also found to be more economical for the Town Councils to organise.
However, one big down-side is the high barrier to entry. It requires a much larger organisation to put up a slate of candidates, so tilts the playing field in favour of major parties (since there’s only one here, it could be seen as undemocratic, verging on gerrymandering). You can effectively say “bye-bye” to any Independent candidates.
STV in multi member constituencies gives independent candidates their fair chance. Look at Scottish local elections or the Irish Parliament. To the contrary, list systems or MMP (as in Scotland or Wales) give independents no chance- the only exceptions have been well established figures who had previously won seats as party candidates.
Wholly agree Prof. Mollison.
Having a party list system foisted on the ‘new’ (Devolved from Westminster) ‘Scottish’ parliament by the British Labour party has proven to be perhaps one of its worst features- from the point of view of the electorate and Independents obviously, NOT the established parties. 🙁