Thread: Whats the Lib Dems form of PR

Theres several different versions of Proportional Representation, anyone know what the Libs are after?

Full PR as used in the EU elections

Originally Posted by ryansoton

Full PR as used in the EU elections

Full PR was not used in the EU elections as England was split into artificial regions.

The manifesto (page 88) say they prefer a Single Transerable Vote system. If that were to be the case and single member constituency voting remains it would, in my opinion, entrench the liblabcon for years before people fully realised they don't have to vote for them to keep the other lot out. I doubt even Caroline Lucas would have won her seat with that system. If voting was in multi member constituencies UKIP, Green, BNP, EDP etc all have a chance. I therefore think we can rule out that happening.

[QUOTE=Independent UKIP;857483]Full PR was not used in the EU elections as England was split into artificial regions.

The manifesto (page 88) say they prefer a Single Transerable Vote system. If that were to be the case and single member constituency voting remains it would, in my opinion, entrench the liblabcon for years before people fully realised they don't have to vote for them to keep the other lot out. I doubt even Caroline Lucas would have won her seat with that system. If voting was in multi member constituencies UKIP, Green, BNP, EDP etc all have a chance. I therefore think we can rule out that happening.[/QUOTE

Good point!!! I believed the version of PR that the Lib Dems advocate is the same as used in the EU elections and it was Labour who advocated the single transferable vote version of PR.

Is it official that its the AV system?

by Anthony Butcher Published on 12-05-2010
"All hopes of proper electoral reform were dashed this evening when the details of the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition were released. Rather than holding out for PR, the Lib Dems have sold out for a referendum on the ‘AV’ (Alternative Vote) system.

Firstly, and most importantly, AV is not a form of proportional representation in any way. It is merely a modified method of electing each individual constituency MP.

Not only is AV more complicated than the existing FPTP system, its impact will be minimal, shuffling a few seats between the major parties. It will not add any MPs from any of the smaller parties and will only add confusion to the voting procedure.

Bizarrely, neither the Tories nor the Lib Dems had a commitment to the AV system in their manifestos. So we have now been lumbered with a vote on a system that not a single person who voted for either party actually voted in support of. With all the talk of mandates and listening to the wishes of the public, how on earth do they justify this referendum?

The big question that has struck me though is this: who will campaign for AV in the referendum?
The Conservative party is against electoral reform, and they have stated that they will campaign in favour of FPTP.

Labour cynically added a commitment to a referendum on AV to their manifesto after 13 years of Government to make themselves look like reformers. Let’s not forget that a promise of a referendum on PR was in their 1997 too, yet nothing came of it. The Labour party doesn’t want reform – they gain too much from FPTP.

The Lib Dems support the STV system, not AV. In fact AV will not significantly address the disparity between the Lib Dem vote share and the ridiculously small number of MPs they have in Westminster. Lib Dem support for AV will be lukewarm at best.

So what about all of the activists who have campaigned so fiercely for electoral reform over the past few months and years? Very few of them would even vote for AV, let alone campaign for it.

In the end, this referendum on AV could be a total waste of everyone’s time with no substantial campaign and little enthusiasm for the Yes side.

A referendum result against a switch to AV would be heralded by the defenders of FPTP as a clear indication that the British public are not interested in reform.

This unwanted, mandate-free referendum on a system that no one really wants could severely damage the call for real electoral reform."


Very true, and something Lib Dem supporters should be very concerned about.

Originally Posted by newspresenter

Very true, and something Lib Dem supporters should be very concerned about.

And I for one am very concerned about it.
I feel more that more negotiating time should have been spent on debating policies and less spent on securing jobs for the boys.
If you look at the coalition agreement you can count the number of unwatered down LibDem policies on one finger. Yet 20 government positions, 5 secretaries of state and deputy PM suggests that negotiating skills were not lacking when it came to personnel appointments.
I am seriously worried that the core values of every grass roots Liberal Democrat has been used as currency to further the political career of a few at the top of the tree.

AV is not PR. The only people who wanted it (and that's debatable) were Labour. They'll have a hard time getting the public to buy this one and the credibility of the coalition could be seriously damaged.

According to the Liberal Democratic 2010 election manifesto, that party promised to “Change politics and abolish safe seats by introducing a fair, more proportional voting system for MPs. Our preferred Single Transferable Vote system gives people the choice between candidates as well as parties.”

However, in terms of the deal Mr Clegg struck with the Tories, the Lib Dems have now agreed to hold a referendum on the introduction of an AV system rather than their promised STV system.

According to the Electoral Reform Society, (which officially backs the STV system and thus was inclined to support the Lib Dems), STV is a preferential voting system in which votes are initially allocated to an elector's most preferred candidate.

After candidates have been either elected or eliminated, STV then transfers surplus or unused votes according to the voters' stated preferences. According to the ERS, this minimises "wasted" votes, provides proportional representation, and ensures that votes are explicitly cast for individual candidates rather than party lists.

It achieves this by using multi-seat constituencies (voting districts) and by transferring votes that would otherwise be wasted on sure losers or winners to other eligible candidates.

According to the ERS, STV ensures that each voter gets one vote, which can transfer from their first-preference to their second-preference and so on.

“STV thus ensures that very few votes are wasted, unlike other systems, especially the First-Past-the-Post, where only a small number of votes actually contribute to the result,” the ERS says.



The AV system, now endorsed by the Lib Dems, is “very much like First-Past-the-Post (FPTP),”.

“Like FPTP, it is used to elect representatives for single-member constituencies, except that rather than simply marking one solitary 'X' on the ballot paper, the voter has the chance to rank the candidates on offer.

“The voter thus puts a '1' by their first-preference candidate, and can continue, if they wish, to put a '2' by their second-preference, and so on, until they don't care anymore or they run out of names,”

If a candidate receives a majority of first-preference votes, then they are elected.

“If no candidate gains a majority on first preferences, then the second-preference votes of the candidate who finished last on the first count are redistributed. This process is repeated until someone gets over 50 percent.

“AV is thus not a proportional system, and can in fact be more disproportional than FPTP,” said the ERS, adding that the AV system 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,”



Bascily, Nick Clegg has sold his party's hopes of more seats in Parliament for Cabinet position with his closest friends in Government. He probably used the word 'fair' more times than anyone in the last month. Pull the ladder up and sod the rest, should be his new slogan.