Anthony Butcher

I am fairly sure that it wasn't anything to do with Roger Knapman. It was someone outside the party (IIRC) who devised it (can't remember the name now) and Graham Booth was the one who pushed it, to his credit, despite some opposition in the party.

Anthony Butcher

It was discussed here:
http://www.comisiwnrichard.gov.uk/co...na/index-w.htm

and here:
http://www.ceci.org.il/eng/research_item.asp?id=220

Britannist

Thank you, Anthony. I've taken copies of both articles and look forward to reading them.

Britannist

I wasn't aware that Total Representation voting was not actually devised by Mr. Knapman, but I recall reading somewhere (maybe in Independence News) that he had spoken in favour of it. I assumed it was his idea.

Total Representation is actually very similar to the voting system used to elect the London Assembly in 2004 (on which UKIP won two seats on but whose now sit for the anti-EU 'One London' party instead).

The only difference between Total Representation and the London Assembly voting system as far as I can see is that the London Assembly has 14 large constituencies specially created for the authority - while Total Representation (TR) is a system designed to be built in to the present constituencies used for elections to the House of Commons (a useful advantage for TR supporters because it could easily be introduced for elections to the Commons without the need for any boundary changes in the constituencies - it simply requires that a top-up list of MPs be created for small parties).

But otherwise the London Assembly (LA) electoral system is the same as TR - just that the LA constituencies are larger.

SGK

I don't base my preference of system on which party would benefit at the moment. Often on here UKIP (and other small party) supporters advocate PR as a means of getting seats. This is the worst form of politicking.
You and I both, I think, believe PR to be a bad idea. As with so many things, PR can have an immediate appeal, but the truth is buried in the abstract.

I don't believe it did, especially since one of the report's goals was to avoid such a scenario. A top up of just 15% according to proportional voting would not dramatically effect the numbers, certainly not enough to ensure coalition government (which I agree would grind the system to a halt).
Besides that, I don't think the report is valuable simply for its conclusion, which overall I would not say I agreed with, but for many of its observations and considerations. There are many people who do not get further in this argument that vote % must equal MP % = fair. This report should open people's minds and in fact the final recommendation was to stick largely with FPTP (for 80 to 85% of MPs).
When I looked into this some time ago it was certainly a breath of fresh air; the rest of the internet is crammed with very one-sided and blinkered arguments advocating PR.

Unfortunately I do think you sometimes brand someone with the party or position and then refuse to countenance anything connected with them. In this case I think there is much to gain from an issue which in many ways cuts across party.

Quite possibly. I tend not to think so; I put it down to Labour and Blair in particular not having a clue what they really want and changing their policies as often as their underwear. But that is just conjecture.

SGK

I read the one from the Welsh Assembly (up to the part about Israel) and some bits made me shudder :!:

However, it appears to be the same as the AV Top up as recommended in the Jenkins report except that the top up MPs are taken from the same ballot paper rather than a 2nd paper.
I wouldn't have a major objection to this, because I recognise there is a call for a move towards PR, though there are elements I really don't like about it, such as a breed of unaccountable party-list MPs - but that's usually what PR gives you.
Overall it is probably better than AV Top up.

For the record, I am against PR generally and against any form of elected House of Lords.

SGK

EDIT>> having just re-read the post from Martin Harvey and re-visiting the Jenkins report (which I last read some time ago) I would like to point out that actually I don't agree with the recommendation of the report (AV Top up) but the recommendation by Lord Alexander, a member of the committee, who advocated FPTP Top-up.
My apologies for the confusion, I had remembered it wrong. I believe my other comments still stand.

tammy_cat

Why does everyone insist that we have to keep to "one MP for one constituency"?

My MP is Kenneth Clark, who is arrogant, patronising and completely pro-EU. He and I disagree on just about everything, so I am effectively disenfranchised.

Why can't we have less constituencies and two or more MPs for each constituency? Then people would have a choice as to which MP they took their causes/problems to and, if one MP didn't help, they could try another one.

We have a choice on most things in life; we even have a choice of MEPs - so why not MPs?

I think PR would improve our democracy and provide a massive boost to the general public's interest in politics. Only a very few countries use FPTP. Most countries use PR and don't seem to have any problems (except Italy of course).

Britannist

And one of them just happens to be the most successful economic, military and political nation in the world - the USA.

First Past The Post (FPTP) voting in single member constituencies is also the system used in wealthy and prosperous Canada (regarded by many as the model nation) and in prosperous Singapore.

Australia uses a 'watered-down' form of FPTP called Alternative Vote (with no top up list - so it is very a very similar voting system to the one we use in UK General Elections).

Germany uses FPTP for half the seats in its national Parliament, and, a few years ago Italy re-introduced FPTP voting for part of its overall electoral system to provide stability after 50 years of Governments elected totally on proportional voting collapsing.

I sympathise with you at having to ensure the extreme europhile Kenneth Clarke as your local MP :shock: . Not something I would wish on anyone in view of his fondness of the EU and all its works.

You do realise, Tammy Cat, that in larger constituencies (which you advocate) Kenneth Clarke would not just be the MP for the Nottinghamshire constituency of Rushcliffe (the seat you live in) - he would probably be MP for an area presently covering the whole of at least two of the neighbouring constituencies too :x .

I'm sure UKIP people in those seats bordering Rushcliffe constituency would not be very pleased if they ended up with pro-EU Clarke as their MP as well as you (which is what would happen if your proposal for larger parliamentary seats were implemented).

I warn all anti-EU people who say they back proportional voting (PR) to remember that the pro-EU political establishment in this country (Labour and the Liberal Dims) won't bring in any electoral system if they think UKIP will win many seats under it. The UKIP gains at the last EU Election (when UKIP got 12 seats in Brussels in an election where the PR list system was used) shook the europhiles both here and in the EU headquarters. They are now determined to gerrymander the UK General Election voting system :evil: so that it helps the pro-EU Liberal Dims :x but keeps out anti-EU UKIP.

SGK

tammy cat, the arguments for PR are quick and pursuasive, but unfortunately deeply flawed. A while ago, convinced that PR had to be the correct way to go, I discovered there was a wide range of PR systems and decided to look into it. I finished by being completely convinced that FPTP was the best system.
I recommend that you read the Jenkins report that I linked to in a previous post, which has been firmly put down on this thread I'm not suggesting you read it for the conclusion, which as Britannist pointed out (and I remembered wrongly) would be a bad choice of system, but for the way different systems are considered.
It was helpful to me to realise that there is so much more to a voting system than just %s and voter choice.
I have to add that my opinions have developed further and I don't agree with democracy (in the proper sense of the word) but representation. PR is democratic, FPTP is representative.
Finally, you talk about other countries, saying that the majority use PR (very democratic of you ) but consider that the few countries that have a foundation of liberty and freedom use FPTP, whereas those which have a history of oppression, dictatorship and/or socialism use PR. Doesn't this tell you something?