British Democracy Forum - View Single Post

Britannist · 01-05-2008, 02:45 AM

Former UKIP leader Mr. Roger Knapman MEP apparently backs a voting system called Total Representation (believed to have been devised in Israel).

Total Representation keeps the constituencies but when the election is over the total votes across the country of all parties are added up and those who are under-represented in constituency wins (i.e. those political parties who win few or no constituencies but who have support spread out too thinly around the country to win many or any seats) are compensated by being seats in the House of Commons according to their share of the national vote.

The Parliamentary seats awarded to those small parties who did not win many or any constituencies would be given to candidates from those parties who were on a reserve list of names compiled by each party. The person at the top of each list would have the greatest chance of being elected from the list with the person at the bottom of the list having the least chance.

If a party such as UKIP got 10% of the national vote but won no constituencies, the TR voting system would ensure that UKIP ended up with some seats in the House of Commons filled by UKIP members elected from a reserve list of candidates.

Total Representation (TR) is said to be better than Alternative Vote because:

1. Voters do not have to express their second or third preferences (i.e. they are not asked to vote - through second or third preferences - for parties they do not like).

2. TR is a more stable voting system than AV which can over-compensate winners and harshly punish losing parties.

3. TR discourages tactical voting - electors who have traditionally voted for a party not because they fully support it but because they think it has a better chance of winning in their constituency than voting for a small party they do agree with are more likely to vote for small parties under TR when they see that it is not "a wasted vote". In other words in a TR election, even if that small party does not win in constituencies, votes for that party in each constituency will help elect an MP (or MPs) for that party from the list of candidates which are used to elect MPs for small parties who got votes across the country but who secured few or no wins at all in the constituencies. TR actually increases the chance of small parties winning in some constituencies by reducing the trend of tactical voting.

4. TR requires only one vote - no second or third preferences and no separate votes for a list of candidates. In a TR election, there is only vote which could either elect an MP in the constituency or elect an MP via the national list of candidates each party would put up at election time.

01-05-2008, 02:45 AM	#21 (permalink)
Britannist Uber Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: London Posts: 22,896	Total Representation, Roger Knapman MEP, Alternative Vote, Commons, tactical voting Former UKIP leader Mr. Roger Knapman MEP apparently backs a voting system called Total Representation (believed to have been devised in Israel). Total Representation keeps the constituencies but when the election is over the total votes across the country of all parties are added up and those who are under-represented in constituency wins (i.e. those political parties who win few or no constituencies but who have support spread out too thinly around the country to win many or any seats) are compensated by being seats in the House of Commons according to their share of the national vote. The Parliamentary seats awarded to those small parties who did not win many or any constituencies would be given to candidates from those parties who were on a reserve list of names compiled by each party. The person at the top of each list would have the greatest chance of being elected from the list with the person at the bottom of the list having the least chance. If a party such as UKIP got 10% of the national vote but won no constituencies, the TR voting system would ensure that UKIP ended up with some seats in the House of Commons filled by UKIP members elected from a reserve list of candidates. Total Representation (TR) is said to be better than Alternative Vote because: 1. Voters do not have to express their second or third preferences (i.e. they are not asked to vote - through second or third preferences - for parties they do not like). 2. TR is a more stable voting system than AV which can over-compensate winners and harshly punish losing parties. 3. TR discourages tactical voting - electors who have traditionally voted for a party not because they fully support it but because they think it has a better chance of winning in their constituency than voting for a small party they do agree with are more likely to vote for small parties under TR when they see that it is not "a wasted vote". In other words in a TR election, even if that small party does not win in constituencies, votes for that party in each constituency will help elect an MP (or MPs) for that party from the list of candidates which are used to elect MPs for small parties who got votes across the country but who secured few or no wins at all in the constituencies. TR actually increases the chance of small parties winning in some constituencies by reducing the trend of tactical voting. 4. TR requires only one vote - no second or third preferences and no separate votes for a list of candidates. In a TR election, there is only vote which could either elect an MP in the constituency or elect an MP via the national list of candidates each party would put up at election time. Last edited by Britannist; 01-05-2008 at 02:59 AM.