Which points are you talking about? The ones already discussed in the main bulk of the original post, or the ones that anyone could see discussed by googling the subject of misleading arguments against PR from the last 5 years? I’ve already said, I’m not sitting here rehashing old arguments that have been and gone, nor am I repeating what I’ve already spent time writing above.

Oh christ, I’m in the internet equivalent of the playground.

I think you mean ‘boorish’ – but quite why you think it is boorish to disagree with you and why this necessitates ‘moving the goalposts’ is something you have, yet again, failed to explain.

I stopped taking you seriously the moment you decided to bring an argument about PR to the table

Blah blah. If you weren’t so busy being so hyper-sensitive, you’d realise that I am, in fact, a PR sceptic – rather than someone who dismisses it out of hand. I was in favour of it, for example, for the Northern Ireland Assembly. I have also enjoyed Labour in Holyrood being confronted with the fact that they do not actually have the divine right to rule. Your failure to pay even the slightest bit of attention to how PR has worked in Scotland is one of the many annoying things about your post. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to you that you’re talking to someone who has the experience of living under government – both local and (Scottish) national – that is elected under two different forms of PR. I can only repeat my invitation: would you care to address the points I actually raise – which I think any fair-minded reader would agree are perfectly valid – rather than attacking me personally? Because if you persist in the latter, this will only re-enforce the impression that you are ill-equipped to respond to the former.

If you don’t take me seriously, fine, I stopped taking you seriously the moment you decided to bring an argument about PR to the table with the same old tactics of moving the goalposts, along with the highly hypocritical stance of both disliking a supposed unlinking of constituency relationships through PR yet supporting a system which encourages people to vote for the national party they approve of rather than the local candidate that’s best for the job.

So disagreeing with you is ‘undermining’ your post? Don’t you think that’s a little childish? If I’m wrong, it would be nice if you could explain why instead of throwing your toys out of the pram. I’ve already acknowledged that FPTP can allow for a change of government without a vote being cast but a) it happens less often b) I can’t think of an example of this where it led to a different party being in power. If you have evidence to the contrary or if you think this is unimportant, could you come up with evidence and explanation please? I note you haven’t dealt with my other points either. Serious debate? If you can’t tackle these basic arguments, why should I take you seriously?

You are talking nonsense, in my view, about the Fabians. Ed Balls is a member of the Fabian executive – he is there because he stands for election and all of our members vote to elect the Executive. So is Denis MacShane, Fiona MacTaggart, John Denham, Sadiq Khan, Anne Campbell and Austin Mitchell, on the same basis. If you can tell me which party faction they are all part of, I will be impressed. We are a democratically constituted political society. (Many of the members tend to vote less, I think, in terms of what political direction the Society should have, and perhaps more on the basis of the level of commitment and engagement MPs and others show to the Society).

Gordon Brown and Tony Blair have both been Fabian members for nearly 30 years. Blair frequently spoke for the Fabians, including as prime minister. Charles Clarke has often debated Ed Balls on Fabian platforms, so has Jon Cruddas.

Michael Meacher and John McDonnell debated Gordon Brown ahead of the last leadership transition. It was up to the MPs as to whether there was a contest or not, but I think we were the only organisation to put on a debate between potential candidates, as we also did for the deputy leadership. (We have a very small % of the electoral college ourselves as an affiliated society: we use it by balloting individual members so the vote is cast in the proportion they decide: can you suggest a more democratic approach? We didn’t – for that reason – endorse any candidate for the deputy contest as an organisation).

My opinions are my own. I am sure many but not all Fabians agree with the broad thrust of much of what I argue, but equally many may legitimately disagree about any specific issue – whether that is tax, electoral reform or whatever else.

Are you accusing Labour of organising this Expenses scandal so they can bring in PR? The only reasons Electoral Reform is on people’s radar is because Parliament isn’t working.

Try to not engage in ad hominem attacks when the isn’t much evidence to back up your claim…

Most Labour/Liberal/”insert generic progressive label” people have wanted a reformed Parliament for ages. And it looks like GB is leaning towards AV+, which is very much a modified FPTP system, not the full PR which anyone actually wants.

This happens anyway under FPTP. The majority of people didn’t vote for the Labour manifesto, and “weak” governments are perfectly possible under FPTP too. I will repeat that legislation such as the recent bill from the justice department, and the 42 days legislation, was all watered down after a “horse trading affair” with party rebels and then external small parties to get their votes.

I also find it very surprising that stalwarts from think tanks arguing for giving power to the electorate. I did not hear them screaming bloody murder or death of democracy when an elected Labour Leader who gave 3 election victories were removed by an internal coup and an unelected PM hoisted on us.

But its hard to remain objective when Ed Balls (the back stabber in chief for his Boss (GB) the destroyer of a successful labour party) being the ultimate fabian home boy – I guess the chance of being sidelined for a long time to come has made them try to go for PR now. Even in September 2008, the Fabian homeboy Balls was attacking Blair in a Fabian event with stalwarts such as Sunder, the crackpot Williams — so please don’t get surprised when I take things with a little bit of salt.

Thirdly, at the end of the day, a country needs a strong Government and a Strong PM. I know that is the very polar opposite of what most commentators on Liberal Conspiracy — but if you look at the history of 1970s — successive weak Governments made Britain almost a third world country where Unions ran amok and public services were ruined.

In a parliamentary democracy -where the executive is directly chosen from the parliament — the PR system is probably not the best option. I want to vote for a party whose manifesto I like and by casting a vote for a particular party — I am also endorsing my vote for the PM.

Under the PR system, it would end up being a horse trading affair where the voters choice rather than being upheld would be neglected.

If we want the parliament to be more powerful, then maybe we ought to look for a way of directly electing our PM and give them free choice in appointing a cabinet etc. which could be ratified by the parliament. Kind of like the German and the American system.

In our system the power of the MP has to be subject to the party whip because the legislature creates and sustains the executive and is not separate. And the MP has an obligation to support its leadership and manifesto.

I would also suggest bringing in a law which stops MPs from crossing over. If you wish to change sides as an MP, you would have to step down and run as a candidate in the by-election. It would stop opportunists such as Shaun Woodward’s of this world.

I also like the way how selectively the self proclaimed progressives (in my book loony lefties – the progressive movement within Labour died the day Blair was forced out of office) like to sprout how the electorate wants PR — the same electorate also wants a General Election and getting rid of GB as PM.

Hell the Guardian’s poll of labour activists show that 53% of them believe they were better under Blair. So why not act on the clear choices the electorate and labour party membership wants?

Yes, the Queen could theoretically assent to such a move but only at the risk of bringing down the monarchy in the process.

I’m not sure it’d be a good idea to spend political capital fighting for it, but it’s a good idea nonetheless.

The fact you have to try and undermine this post with something I’ve clearly already stated shows that you’re clearly not here to have a meaningful debate. FPTP also produces a system where it is feasible for a government to change without a single vote to be cast. There are numerous county councils up and down the land that are a testament to this fact.

Feel free to keep repeating these same old fallacies, Shuggy, and to ignore that the problems you talk about also exist under FPTP, but less and less people are buying your, and your fellow FPTP advocates, misdirection these days.

People have been arguing against it for a long time before that, hence why electoral reform was a manifesto pledge in 1997, later ignored. We thought only the Tories cared enough about it to keep it, we were wrong.

“I wish we could move beyond the same debate about whether we want FPTP or PR, realise that FPTP is not working and discuss what kind of PR we want.”

I’m with sunder on this; this article is here as part of an attempt to try to help put the nail in the argument that FPTP is even a credible system for fair government and politics. You’re right that the debate has to move on, but now is not the time to get bogged down in what type of PR. I’d personally prefer AV (well, actually single member constituency STV), but would gladly welcome either STV or AV+ if that’s what the public felt was best based on the arguments that can be put to them.

The time is now to push that the system has to change, and to really quite simply put the explanation of how it works out there and let people decide.

Relative to what is usually produced by PR, yes. The question is rather whether one prefers the strong governance produced by FPTP. More intelligent arguments for PR would make the case that government based on compromise is better…

Linking extremely closely with the above…who do you think makes the government climb down?

‘kingmakers’ refers to the fact that small parties are required to form governments in the first place – it isn’t about governments backing down on this or that issue. Any voting system produces governements that do this from time to time. It’s called pluralism.

The main thing here is that with FPTP voters do know who they’re voting for, and the majority of people voted AGAINST the manifesto that we are currently following.

The majority against didn’t vote for the same thing. The main case against PR is that it produces governments and policy platorms that no-one voted for.

“FPTP is a constituency linked process of election, you know who your MP is and that’s important for accountability”

But does it work that way in practice?

Yup. I know who my FPTP MSP is but who’s my List MSP? Don’t have a fucking clue. PR puts more power in the hands of the party machine – end of.

“FPTP means a parliament that isn’t breaking down every 9 months to be re-elected”

Finally, this one is more a matter of opinion on which you would prefer.

Slight exaggeration. One of the worst examples is Italy where, pre-Berlusconi, a parliament lasted an average of a year. Which would you prefer?

The question you haven’t adressed is this: PR produces a system where it is feasible for a government to change without a single vote being cast. While this has happened here with Major and more recently with Brown, at least it is the same party that has continued governing. Not so in Ireland, for example, where there was a complete change of party government without an election – the Labour Party here being the ‘kingmakers’. I think people should drop this childish nonsense about voting systems being ‘fair’ and ask instead: what do you want your electoral system to do? If you want, and need, to represent a multiplicity of interests in a divided society, then PR is the thing. FPTP would be completely inappropriate, for example, in Northern Ireland. But if you want a mechanism that allows the electorate to throw out completely one bunch and choose another, then one shouldn’t overlook the benefits of FPTP.

There is now some danger, in my view, of getting a referendum and struggling to win it, which would be a disaster.

Electoral reform advocacy has all taken place within highly engaged/informed audiences. LC in particular should be discussing strategies not just for securing a referendum (which is looking a possible bet right now) but for winning it. The polls show majority support but it is pretty shallow.

The question of how to fight a popular and populist case for electoral reform could be an urgent one – to which LC might usefully devote some serious attention.

(eg what do we learn from referendums in other countries – canada, new zealand. what segments of the electorate are most open and which specific issues matter there. this is a pro-politics reform agenda but who makes it and how in an anti-politics atmosphere. if it is a plural campaign, how to prevent its diversity appearing chaotic. no doubt many other issues too)

The debate “which PR system do we want” is ongoing and endless. I think it is also among the reasons why reformers make little headway.

I think all of those interested in reform should say something like – whatever my personal preferences for STV, AMS, AV+ or others, I would support any more proportional system which had broad support in a referendum. (There is never going to be a serious proposal for a closed party list system for national domestic elections)

I also think reformers should keep an open mind about a combination of AV for the Commons with a PR-elected Senate, as part of a written constitutional settlement with other checks and balances on majoritarian power. (I personally would like to see STV in local government). The reform debate has been too isolated from the other constitutional changes. This achieves the hybridity which Jenkins was seeking across democratic institutions, rather than in only one place. (This is a step too far for some PR supporters: though a good deal of cross-party and non-partisan reformist opinion was moving in this direction over the last couple of years; though I think supporters of full PR might well now take the view that they can get straight there, particularly by proposing a Constitutional Convenrtion process to settle the systems debate.

In any event, a theological attachment to a particular system is likely to derail reform efforts. The Clegg reform plan recognises this, by arguing that a referendum on AV+ is possible now, which does not prevent LibDem advocacy of STV (eg if there is no quick referendum, and as a preferred outcome in a constitutional convention)

I put the argument against FPTP, for a non-theological approach, and (while i would also support pr-systems) for AV and a PR second chamber in this essay in 2007

How to reform the electoral system
http://www.fabians.org.uk/publications/extracts/call-for-lab-libdem-deal-on-alternative-vote

“After the 2005 GE (which was a more typical result than, say, the landslides of ‘83 and ‘97)…”

The more I read about AV+, the more it looks like a Frankenstein’s monster. It has some good principles, but bad methodology. Voting for candidates rather than parties is always going to provide more individual accountability of our representatives. Some geographical link also focuses accountability, yet strengthening local government would better meet the needs of a lot of the constituency surgery workload.

A directly elected PM becomes presidential, with a mandate allowing them to ignore Parliament completely, unless it was severely beefed up too. I think we’d be far better off having a Parliament that can hold the PM to account and take some of the patronage and whipping out of the picture.

I consider STV to be the most effective PR system for providing proportionality, constituency link and putting voters and candidates, not parties, in control. It too has problems, but we can all agree to live with them. Fixed terms and power of recall would be good too: expressions of popular sovereignty. And just for the cherry, can we please abolish this silly monarchy?

In 1929 and Feb 1974, Labour got a plurality of seats and so formed a minority government when the Tories were more popular (ie beat Labour in the popular vote).

Let me go onto a different tack. There is a further powerful and pretty foundational critique of FPTP which reformers often miss. First-past-the-post increasingly doesn’t work – not only when compared to what PR supporters want, but in terms of its own objectives of being able to pick (at a national level) “the first-past-the-post” party which should govern.

This is not often put by pro-PR reformers, who are not in favour of majoritarianism. It is overlooked by defenders of the system – perhaps tactically, but also often out of ignorance. A good example was the official Tory submission to Jenkins, which is ill-informed
http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm40/4090/volume-2/ppf-02.PDF

The foundation of the case for FPTP is the clear choice of governments. The Tory submission said it is fair because “the most popular party in the country almost always gets a majority in the House of Commons and goes on to form a government”.

But this isn’t true. FPTP certainly doesn’t guarantee that. It can deliver that outcome. But it depends on luck, in how the geography of votes falls. And the evidence is very clearly that this now requires much more luck than it did in the past to do what it says on the tin.

* Even so, FPTP got the ‘wrong result’ three times in the 20th century – in 1951 giving the Tories an overall majority when Labour had more votes; and in 1929 and Feb 1974 giving Labour a plurality of seats to form a minority government when the Tories were unpopular.

Is three wrong election results in a century good or bad? I think it is pretty poor for three reasons.
- Firstly, the proportion of mistakes of the number of close elections is very high. It got two of the six post-war elections wrong where the major parties finished within 5% of each other.
- Secondly, it is no longer (as in 1951 and 1974) making mistakes which could go either way, like an unlucky referee. There is a systemic problem …. it can get the right result only if Labour wins, or if the Tories win by a street. (Compare the 1992 result, where Major has a lead of 7.5% and squeaks a majority of 21 with 2005 where Labour gets a majority of 65 on a less than 3% lead).
- Thirdly, the political system including the electoral system had enormous legitimacy in 1951 and could shrug off a ‘wrong result’. The idea that local constituency contests predominated over the national outcome was broadly accepted, pre-television and opinion polling. Whereas today a similar result would create a significant legitimacy crisis.

* Hung Parliaments are now much more likely than they were between 1945 and 1974.

The academic expert consensus submission to Jenkins explains this
http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm40/4090/volume-2/acdmcs01.PDF

This is not entirely new. Half of the 20th century elections before 1945 delivered hung parliaments. Again, now the vote is much more fragmented among parties than it was in the 1950s and 1960s; and the number of seats held by parties other than the biggest two is higher giving a much greater ‘hung’ spread (that is partly a consequence of the fall of the two-party vote; while the different party systems in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales also add to this). This is also why hung parliament scenarios in which the third party can choose between major coalition partner are v.unlikely.

The only reason we have not had hung parliaments is because we happen not to have had close elections in the last 30 years. The 2005 contest (which was never actually in doubt) was the first since 1974 when the two major parties finished within 5% of each other. You could argue that FPTP works to pick a winner only because elections have not effectively been contested by both major parties at the same time!

* It is often thought that FPTP helps big parties: it doesn’t particularly. By design, it helps geographically concentrated parties (whether big or large): for example, Plaid Cymru did best of all on vote to seat ratios in 1992 and 1997, while the Scottish Nationalists have often done worse than the LibDems in Westminster elections.

There are arguable points to be made for and against majoritarian systems. (Getting a balance is why the Jenkins AV+ sought to have a bias towards single-party governments, while correcting for the level of disproportionality of FPTP). But, if that is what people want, they should favour a system which is designed to do that. The most obvious would be a direct election for Prime Minister.

The current system will fall over badly – it is simply a matter of time. That is why I think it can be regarded as a “Russian roulette” electoral system, which is pretty fundamentally broken.