First Past the Post Needs Better Defenders

ndm

Again, FPTP works very well in a two party system and when those parties share 90% of the vote. But that ain't the case anymore. It does not work so well when there are more than two parties and they command only 65% of the poll.

Labour won the 1950 election with 46.1% of the vote. With a turnout of 83.9% this means that 38.6% of the electorate voted for the winnning party.

The Conservatives won the 2010 election with 36.1% of the vote. A turnout of 65.1% means that 23.5% of the electorate voted for the winnning party. This means that less than one in four of the British electorate voted for the winning party.

Curiously, with the 23% gained by the LibDems the coalition government has the support of 38.5% of the electorate - almost exactly what the winning party gained in 1950.

It is pretty clear that the FPTP system is leading to a problem of democratic legitimacy for successive British Governments. The last Labour Government won the support of a mere 21.6% of the electorate which must go some way towards explaining why it became so unpopular.

(All figures from Wikipedia)

Chris

First past the post makes it impossible to get rid of bad MPs in safe seats. That's why some MPs like it.

Ronnie

Many people at the moment vote on the basis of the least worst option. They effectively vote negatively against the party they hate most rather than positively for the party they like best, especially in marginal seats (in many cases they hate all parties).

It has been assumed knowledge, for the past 30 years, that solid party allegience means that a party only has to appeal to a small group of undecideds in the centre to win power. That assumption was blown apart at the last election and we now have coalition government. That a strong FPTP system has produced such a result must surely tell us something.

FPTP works with two strong major parties. We now have three major weak parties in very fluid circumstances with an increasingly aware, sophisicated and frustrated electorate. FPTP is clearly past its sell-by date in these circumstances and those who argue for its retention are in denial.

The Remittance Man

The best argument for FPTP is custom

+&%# is it!

The best argument for FPTP is it reinforces the concept that elected representatives work for the people - specifically the people of a given geographic area. It's the last defence we have for true democtratic representation of the people.

AV PR and all the rest may seem "more democratic" as electoral systems, but in reality all they do is isolate the politicians from the public and making them more "professional" and more beholden to the party machines that control their career advancement and renumeration opportunities.

Now if you can find someone who can articulate that idea and broadcast it to the public, then you will have found your ideal champion of FPTP.

Yam Yam

Chris writes that "first-past-the-post makes it impossible to get rid of bad MPs in safe seats".

Er, Neil Hamilton in Tatton?

daniel

@The Remittance man

AV is not a proportional system. It is still one MP per constituency. So the argument in favour of FPTP, in this instance, also applies to AV.

Indy

What on earth are you talking about Remittance Man?

Let me tell you the reason why a lot of Labour MPs in Scotland are dead against PR is because they have seen how it works in the Scottish Parliament and in local government - where people have a choice of MSPs and councillors. Frankly it makes politicians work harder and some of them don't like that.

If a voter is not happy with the way his or her constituency MSP has dealt with them, they can go to one of their regional MSPs. Ditto councillors. If you have three councillors and one of them lets you down you have two more you can go to.

There is an "efficiency" argument against that - there can be a certain amount of duplication when people go to more than one councillor or MSP about the same issue.

But from the point of view of the constituent it's great and, far from isolating politicians from the public, it makes them work harder because they are competing with each other.

Regarding your point about PR making politicians more beholden to the party machines that control their career advancement and renumeration opportunities – it depends what form of PR. That is not the case under STV (which we use in Scotland for council elections). You would have a stronger case with the additional member system which is used for the Scottish Parliament because parties are required to submit ranked lists of regional candidates. But under STV the list is open.

BenB

The opponents have two issues:

1) Any system where the winner of the first preferences eventually loses is unacceptable

2) AV obviously costs more because they have to recount to get the 2nd, 3rd etc preferences unless you are suggesting they waste even more time with multiple piles based on each permutation of the vote - remember counting is manual in this country

3) For say a Conservative voter there is probably only one possibility for a 2nd preference - UKIP which would in general be a wasted 2nd preference so yes conservative voters get shafted by the lack of a viable 2nd preference whereas the left may have the option of 1 Lab, 2 LD or vice versa plus the other left parties may gain 1st preference votes. So you can see where the "disenfranchisement" comes in

Mycroft

There is an awful lot of humbug about this; politicians basically support the electoral system that is most to deliver power to them, and power on their own if possible. Or secondarily, when they are at a low ebb, what is most likely to keep the other lot out by ensuring they can't get an absolute majority. I can remember when there was quite widespread support for PR among Conservatives because the Liberals were perceived as being anti-Socialist; now, surprise, surprise, people in Labour have suddenly acquired a taste for it because the 'progressive' were all supposed to gang up together to keep the Tories out for ever and a day ("There is a progressive majority in this country"). Recent events have shown that things are never quite as easy as that; in simple terms of electoral arithmetic the LDs could never have propped up Labour, and there is a strain within the party that really does have more affinity with liberal-libertarian Conservatives than with socialist Labour.

The trouble with most opposition to AV and PR from the Conservative side is that everyone is fully aware that the the opponents are just supporting their own interests, and most of the arguments are mere window-dressing. With AV I think one should work out for oneself which system is most fair and vote for it regardless of party interest. Full PR is another matter. The present system is certainly unfair to the lesser parties; but if FTTP gives too little influence to the LDs, PR enables the centre party in a basically three-party system a wholly disproportionate influence (in my judgement). So there are genuine arguments that can be raised against it, not merely on grounds of party advantage. On the other hand, when there is no longer a simple two party divide, but a strong centre party and nationalists on the fringes, the results produced by FTTP can seem very strange and unsatisfactory.

People who support FTTP tend to say that they want 'strong stable government'; but behind this there is generally a tribal feeling, that my people want to get power for themselves without having to negotiate with another lot of people. Thsi has the paradoxical effect that they are quite happy for the other lot to hold power for years on a very dubious basis if only they can believe that they themselves will hold power on the same dubious basis at some time in the future. But we have had a really appalling government ruling us for some years on a minority of the vote, creating long-lasting damage. That too is a consequence of having 'strong stable government'. Conservatives really do need to think about these things much more deeply, and not support FTTP blindly on the sole basis that it is the only system that will give them power without outside support.

Neil Wilson

What the incumbents are terrified of is the natural consequence of the AV system, or any PR system - the fragmentation of the party system into smaller groupings with narrower more specific views.

What will change is that the protagonists will line up together *after* the election rather than before as they do now.

Lining up before worked when there were different ideologies put forward. When they all try and pretend they are the same then that no longer works - as there is no choice.

Its interesting that government is interested in pretending to give more choice to the public in every area of policy except the choice of representative.

Tom Round

1. Watched from a country (Australia) that actually uses AV, the UK electoral debate seems to have taken a Monty Pythonish turn. In most (not all) Australian versions of AV - most notably the national Lower House - preferences are compulsory, you see. You have to number every candidate (or all but one) or else your ballot is invalid. The two conservative coalition parties, Liberal and National, strongly support this version of AV and oppose Labor's moves to make preferences optional (ie, the version that AV in the UK would take) by warning darkly that this would be far too much "like first-past-the-post" for Australians to stomach! Yet the British conservative coalition parties (Conservative/ Unionist) take exactly the opposite tack, while still agreeing that optional-preferential AV is a bad system. Funny that... you'd almost think that the conservatives' widely varying answers to the question "What is the best electoral system?" have been swayed by partisan advantage in their particular local circumstances, rather than being genuine efforts to - how'd Saint Hayek put it? - "lay down general rules to govern an unforeseen number of future circumstances."

2. Making this "some voters get TWO VOTES!!!" argument shows its makers do not understand how AV works. AV lets each voter answer, separately, two questions that FPTP bundles together: (A) "which party/ candidate do you like best of all those standing?" and (B) "Which party/ candidate, of those with a real chance of winning, do you consider the least worst?" If you're a Conservative or Labour supporter, then in most constituencies you are lucky enough to give the same answer to both questions. On the other hand, if you're a minor-party voter, chances are you won't be able to reply "Greens/ UKIP/ etc, of course!" to both questions, because your preferred party won't be on the menu for Question B. This much-resented "second vote" is not an additional vote in any sense; it becomes apparent only because the minor-party supporter must give different answers to the two questions being asked, while the major-party supporter has the luxury of not having to settle for second-best (or least-worst) on Question B. For a Conservative like Mr Kawcynski to complain that HE doesn't get a chance to change his answer to "UKIP" for Question B, unlike those lucky LibDems whose first-choice has been knocked out of the running, shows he doesn't grasp the logic of AV.

By the way, I trust the Conservatives select their own party leader and candidates by a first-past-the-post vote, of course? That if a Wet gets 42% while two Dries get 38% and 20% each, the Wet wins and has an unchallenged mandate for the next 5 years, right? That what's "close enough" to a majority for voters is good enough for their political masters too... right?

tommyt

Love the "muppets/dullards/knaves/fools" reference trying to figure out which epithet applies to which party.

Pretty certain kanves are the Lib Dems.

Dullards could be Tory but after 8 years of soporific government and 3 of uninspired oppostion I suspect you mean Labour.

Then it gets difficult but on balance I suspect your think the SNP are more deluded than inept so they must be the fools.

Leaving the scottish tories as muppets, now that I write that it seems obvious !

The point about the AV referendum clashing with Holyrood isn't that folk are too stupid to distinguish between the two. Its that yet again the UK media will (rightly) focus hugely the issue which, though irrelevant to Holyrood elections is bound to sway some peoples votes in Scotland. "That nice Mr Clegg is talking sense again I think I'll vote Lib Dem" etc.

Also, and this will be difficult for devotees of speccy blogs to accept, folk have a pretty low threshhold for politics, after having 10 mins on AV at 6 o'clock on those with an above average interest in the game will sit through another 10 mins on Holyrood at 6:30. Which means that issues actually relevant to the election will be squeezed both in terms of public perception and almost certainly in terms of media coverage as well.

The government could have picked any date for the referendum, to pick the most important one in the Scottish political cycle, without consultation, is at best arrogant and disrespectful and at worst naked political shennaniganery, or possibly both.

Will J

The best system for numerous reasons is clearly a two-party FPTP, with open primaries to handle safe seats. They have that in America, which is why they're happy with it. We used to have it more or less here (sadly without the open primaries), but the renewed popularity of the Liberal party is spoiling it. But something so important as a fair and democratic electoral system is worth protecting by law - that is what a constitution is for, after all.

Which means, logically, there's only one thing for it: we should abolish all parties except Labour and the Conservatives. Disband the Lib Dems, make their members choose a side of the fence. Force UKIPers to re-enter the mainstream. We all know minor parties are a waste of time and money anyway; but when they start to wreck our tried and tested electoral system, well then it's war.

Problem is, I can't quite tell if I'm joking or not. Would it really be so bad to make everyone have to choose between two parties - providing the constitutions of those parties were sufficiently democratic (e.g. open primaries)? An interesting thought experiment. It could never happen though, of course.

Will J

@Tom Round. What you haven't factored in is that for those who answer the two questions differently BOTH their answers count meaningfully in the result. Their first answer adds to the vote share (first preferences) of the minor party, their second to that of the major party. You might reply that the first preference doesn't count as a vote anymore once it's been transferred. But clearly that's not the case: it has exactly the same meaning as a vote for any losing party under a non-PR system. Those first preference votes are still used to show the popular mandate of the minor parties. Yet the second preferences of the same voters is added to the popular mandate of the major parties. Surely you can see the duplication here?

The fact is that under AV voters for minor parties get to place two preferences which are meaningfully reflected in the final result. Which is not really any different from saying they get two votes.

Indy

Actually I'm amazed that the Lib Dems agreed to the coincidence of the AV referendum and the Scottish Parly elections.

The only hope they have of retaining their position in Scotland is to somehow differentiate themselves from the Lib Dems down south, to persuade electors that a vote for the Lib Dems in Scotland is not a vote for the ConDem coalition in the UK.

It could be they think that, because Nick Clegg and David Cameron will be on opposite sides of the AV debate, people will somehow forget that they are in coalition government together. Fat chance. All the coverage will just reinforce the fact that the Lib Dems are in government with the Tories and completely undermine their prospects in Holyrood.

They are the fools I suggest.

Ronnie

Will J.

Just for a minute, try to forget about major and minor parties and think simply about parties for which everyone would be entitled express two preferences. We only have two 'major' parties, at this precise moment, beceuse they have historically been the only possible choices for government under FPTP. This no longer seems to be the case.

David Bouvier

Equally if the best the anti-FPTP can come up with is "my vote is a wasted vote because my candidate didn't win" they are not that impressive.

What does that mean? The only vote that 'counts' is the one that tips the balance. Everyone elses is wasted.

With FPTP vs AV we have to address the question of how best to select a representative for a town or area. I feel that - in real geography - it makes most sense to pick the person who has the most positive support, not the person who is least disliked. Among other things, it ensures a bit more flavour and character - whereas AV will favour a blander centrism. There is no simple sha

David Bouvier

(accidental return) There is no simple shared principle that can make the choice here obvious. "Most toleralted" vs "Most loved" are simple different valid decision rules.

Peter Briffa

The strongest argument for FPTP - somewhat ironically, given its detractors, is fairness. All other systems require some voters getting second, third or more chances, while others don't. In FPTP everyone votes once, and once only.

This argument will come to the fore during the debate, and will prevail.

Paul Chow

Keep FPTP for the House of Commons but have PR for a second chamber. It would be interesting to see the result.

Tom Round

Will J goes to the local grocers. Outside is a sign advertising "Fruit 10p each." Will queues behind Spud. Both plonk down their 10p on the counter.

Grocer: "What'll it be, Spud?"

Spud: "Apple, please."

Grocer hands over an apple and takes the 10p. Then, to Will: "And you?"

Will: "An orange, thanks".

Grocer: "Sorry, we don't stock oranges. Not enough popular demand for 'em."

Will: "Oh... err... well, in that case, I suppose I'll have an apple." (Hands over his 10p in turn)

Spud (angrily): "THAT'S NOT FAIR! HE GOT TO CHOOSE TWO PIECES OF FRUIT! I ONLY GOT TO CHOOSE ONE!"

As for the "FPTP elects the most popular candidate" argument, this runs smack-bang into the other claimed justification given for it - that it discourages voters from "throwing away their vote" on a candidate who won't win or at least place second. A lot of (eg) Tory MPs are ALREADY elected with the help of (eg) LibDem voters who consider them their second (or second-last) preference but detest Labor even more. Ever heard of "squeezing"? Ironically, the only way you can ever get an accurate measure of true first-preference support is by counting second, third and later preferences as well so voters know they aren't wasting their vote if they vote sincerely.

To repeat my question: The Tories do elect their leader and select their own candidates by simple plurality vote, do they not? Michael Portillo got to be Conservative Party Leader 2001-2003 because he topped the poll with 49 votes out of 166 and it would have been unfair to give the Clarke, Ancram, IDS and Davuis supporters a "second bite of the cherry" by letting them transfer their support after their candidate "lost" fair and square... right? Hello?

Will Cooling

I'm disappointed that somebody as open-minded and sensible as yourself Alex is trotting out the same old nonsense that FPTP is 'custom'.

In reality the current system of OMOV, single member consistuencies is only 60 years old. Before that many seats were multi-member and there were a number of fancy franchises (university seats, city of london).

Ian Walker

"Surely not! In fact the best argument in favour of FPTP is custom. This is how we have always done it."

Other great British electoral traditions include open ballots, rotten boroughs, plural voting and disenfranchisement of women, the working classes and the middle classes as well.

I expect we'll miss FPTP about as much as we miss all of those.

Will J

Tom: except by registering my desire for oranges I am adding to the demand for them, so they may eventually become available. Besides which, the analogy is flawed, because only those who vote for the winning candidate actually get their apple. I don't like apples and wanted to change to a pear, but it turns out they don't stock them either. Remember - AV doesn't transfer everyone's vote to a winning candidate, up to half still get "wasted".

Regarding your question/point about the Tory leadership election, while it does use a multiple stage system which is very similar to AV, it can easily be argued that what is a suitable system for electing an individual leader within a party is not a suitable system for choosing a representative from between parties. That's for a number of reasons, including that there can only be one leader so the level of popular support for the opponents has little meaning. However, in an election the vote share of parties is important, so that under AV some people get to make two meaningful contributions to the election while some only make one.

Mycroft

Good point from David Bouvier, that the FTTP - AV alternative is the choice between most liked - least disliked candidate winning. So not a simple question of fairness, a choice between two valid approaches. Personally on those grounds I would prefer the present system. Though if there are three candidates who are close, AV might perhaps give a less arbitrary result.

Indy

Will J – AV is not proportional representation.

I think the thing about PR is that, once people have got used to it, they would not go back to FPTP. That is certainly the case in Scotland. I wonder if there are any examples of countries changing electoral systems from a proportional system to a first past the post system?

The position of the Tories in Scotland is interesting. Without PR, the Tories would only have 3 MSPs as they only won 3 constituencies first past the post. With PR they have 16 MSPs and remain a credible political party. Ironic really.

David Bouvier

Mycroft - thankyou.

AV tends to "waste" the votes of a leading party where the decisive votes are about which of the 2nd and 3rd parties are eliminated.

The AV supports suggest that it always elects a candidat with 'majority' support, but it can easily produce outcomes where there is a candidate who could have received a larger 'majority' if only the sequence of eliminations had gone differently.

So is a less popular candidate being elected over a more popular candidate a 'fair' result? Discuss.

It also create differnet kinds of tactical voting situations.

Example:
-----------------

Instead of tactical voting by 3rd parties in a close battle between 1st and 2nd, AV requires tactical voting by the 1st parties voters where 2nd and 3rd are close.

Say we support candidate A with 40% first prefs, while candidate B and C have 30% each.

But the 2nd prefs of B mostly come to A (25% vs 5% to C) whereas the 2nd prefs of C go mostly to B (25% to B, 5% to A).

A will be in the last round whatever, but if B is eliminated A wins on 65%, and C is eliminated B wins 55%.

Clearly A winning on 65% is the 'fairest' decision - because no one else can command as higher a share of either 1st prefs, or a higher share of 1st and 2nd prefs. But AV can let B win.

So: do we vote for A as 1st pref (2nd pref irrelevant) or do we vote tactically for C as 1st pref and A as 2nd pref.

Voting tactically, if C is eliminated then my 2nd pref is counted, so we were no worse off in the playoff (though we still lose to B). But if C is assisted in eliminating B, we win even though my preference for A is now never counted.

Following my preferences makes my vote a "wasted vote" because A is already in the last two, and the decisive point is the elimination.

The marginal voters between B and C have huge leverage on the final result.

Not fairer - just different. And as we see while AV always elects someone with >50% of 1st and 2nd preferences, there is nothing to say another candidate didn't have an even higher share of preference.

AV proponents are relying on the naive assumption that if one candidate has >50% no other candidate could have more.

Has anyone ever mentioned to you that under AV more than one candidate can have >50% of preferences, depending on the sequence of "First Past the Post" eliminations. Which rather undermines the supposed moral legitimacy of obtaining >50% support.

For example, assuming A's 40% splits
15% to B, 25% to C then, depending on the run off...

A-B 45:55 B
A-C 65:35 A
B-C 40:60 C

In some cases, every party can potentially claim a majority of 1st and 2nd preferences.

Would any AV supporters wish to explain why it is fair that A - who has the greatest support of just 1st and 1st + 2nd prefs can lose if the eliminations go badly.

Mycroft

I'm not sure that the very complexity of AV isn't a feature that counts against it. Many people will find it off-putting and unintelligible I suspect.

Snowman

what may aid the breaking of the coalition is the switch to the AV system if it comes. There will no longer be a need for large monolithic parties, candidates from smaller ones will have a chance of getting through.