Why any democracy needs Proportional Representation.
There’s a PR system to fit any preference.
Both before and after the 2019 election, I’ve discussed PR a lot. In these debates, the water has often been muddied by accusations that elections “not going my way” was the “real reason” behind my opposition to FPTP. In reality, not only is there a persuasive pro-PR argument with real, non-partisan integrity — PR also follows as a necessity from the cold, hard “logic” that the right often claims to follow, if we accept only that democracy is desirable.
So, I’m going to attempt to “prove” it (by which I really only mean “argue in a clear, logical fashion, rather than an emotionally persuasive one”), given the following definitions, (justified) opinions, and assumptions. This structure shows how the parts of the argument follow from each other, so any of them can be disputed clearly and specifically. It assumes little knowledge, just so everyone is on the same page.
Here is why it follows logically that, if the UK wants to be truly democratic, it must adopt Proportional Representation — or, at the very least, a more proportional electoral system than First Past the Post.
Claim to be proved: “A democratic electoral system requires proportionality to be maximised, considering any other criteria placed on it.”
Definition: Democracy is government by the people; a society where the population chooses who is given the power to lead them (via seats in the legislature). This means that the decision of power distribution is made collectively by the electorate, consisting of all members of the population who are eligible to vote.
Opinion: To be truly democratic, an electoral system must ensure government by the people to the greatest possible extent. In other words, the beliefs of the electorate (via the votes they cast) must determine who governs as directly as possible, considering other requirements placed on the system (to be discussed later).
Justification: Any system where votes by citizens are any small part of the government decision-making process could be called a democracy by the letter of the dictionary definition — but would really be a democracy in name only. In a real democracy, the voters aren’t just consulted as a formality — they are in charge. If their votes change, the mandate, power and seats given to the government must automatically change, too.
In a real democracy, the voters aren’t just consulted as a formality — they are in charge.
Any decision about seat allocation that isn’t made directly due to the votes of the electorate is a democratic shortcoming. Whatever else has caused those seats to be allocated in that way, it simply isn’t democratic because it does not come from the wishes of voters. If this sacrifice of a figurative piece of democracy is worthwhile for some other reason, so be it — but it must be treated as one, and such sacrifices must be minimised.
Assumption: Democracy requires the maximum possible equality of all eligible voters. This doesn’t just mean “one person, one vote”, it also means that these votes should be of equal value. Thus, everyone is equal in the influence they exert over the distribution of seats. This is a long-established principle of democracy.
Assumption: In the UK, along with the US and many other advanced democracies, votes are generally along party lines. Almost all votes, even if nominally cast for a local representative, are an endorsement of one party’s principles, policies and leadership over those of other parties. So, it is reasonable to count votes cast for the same party, regardless of local area, together. This is a fact of the party-driven nature of politics in these countries (regardless of whether this is a good thing), which would not be affected by any proposed electoral reform.
Definition: The proportionality of an electoral system is the extent to which the distribution of seats between parties is determined directly by the distribution of votes between parties. A system of Proportional Representation (PR) is one with complete (or near-complete) proportionality, and so gives each voter equal power and determines seat distribution based only on vote share.
Proof: The proportionality of an electoral system is the extent to which each party gets a share of seats that matches their share of votes. As votes are almost always cast on party lines, it is also the extent to which votes are equal and collectively determine how the power to govern is distributed. Therefore, if a truly democratic system requires voters to be equal and to give as much of the choice about who governs as possible to voters, an electoral system cannot be democratic unless it is as proportional as possible, considering the other criteria it must meet.
An electoral system cannot be democratic unless it is as proportional as possible.
Non-proportionality criteria for an electoral system
While there is plenty of good mythbusting about many of the fabricated or exaggerated “dangers” of PR, there do exist legitimate concerns other than proportionality that an electoral system can be asked to satisfy. These include:
Local representation, in that every small geographical area, with at least a town-sized population, has at least one representative in the legislature that is directly responsible for improving the lives of those specific constituents. Voters have more than just their party allegiance in common, and there is a persuasive argument that every significant settlement in the country deserves direct representation just as much as every popular set of political opinions does.
Personal accountability, in that:
- It should be possible for any candidate for the legislature to be individually rejected by their local constituents.
- Each constituency should have exactly one representative that bears sole responsibility for it, so that they can’t shift blame for problems in that area.
In other words, it is arguable that only a one-to-one correspondence between constituencies and representatives can ensure meaningful accountability, through the “constituency link”. While STV or open list PR systems (see below) can offer individual candidate choice, and so the chance to reject any given individual, without this correspondence, that accountability is far less localised. Further, any system with more than one representative in a constituency (or, for list PR, no constituencies at all) lets representatives shift blame to others in the seat.
Diverse representation, which runs contrary to both of the above as it is achieved with multi-member constituencies, which must often be region-sized. Some would argue that everybody having 3 or 5 representatives, rather than one, is democratically vital as it means a large majority of voters will have at least one that they voted for, and at least one who will be willing to listen to their concerns. Multi-member seats are also thought to encourage parties to offer greater candidate diversity, as a middle-aged, straight, cisgender, white, abled man is often considered the “safest pair of hands” in a single-member, winner-takes-all seat.
Voting simplicity, comparable to that of FPTP, which is arguably necessary for a new electoral system to be realistic, popular and effective. It is thought that the more complicated a ballot paper is, the worse it will be used and the lower turnout will be (although this has not been a major problem in countries that have switched to more complex ballots).
Voter choice, via a ranked choice ballot (contrary to the above). With only one X-in-the-box, some argue that no voter can express their full opinion, and that their vote is often quickly wasted, especially in single-member constituencies. By ranking all the candidates, a voter ensures that their vote is never wasted or ignored, always supporting their favourite candidate who still has a chance of being elected.
There’s a PR system that works for you!
However, most reasonable criteria can be satisfied by some PR system — one with complete (or effectively complete) proportionality. These include:
(Open or Closed) List PR, which is the extreme, pure party-proportionality option that gives limited local representation or individual accountability — which is why no one is seriously considering it for the UK!
Additional Member System (AMS), (aka Multi-Member Proportional, or MMP) is used in Germany, New Zealand and the devolved assemblies of Scotland, Wales and London. It maintains small local constituencies, with a single representative directly accountable in each one, and has a simple “crosses in the boxes” ballot. It “tops up” its proportionality with extra, regional list representatives, who are less accountable.
Direct Party and Representative Voting (DPR), which has every representative directly accountable in a small, single-member constituency and the same ballot as AMS — but weights the votes of different representatives differently so that each party has proportionate voting power, instead of adding list representatives on top.
Single Transferable Vote (STV) is used in Ireland, the Northern Ireland Assembly and many UK local elections outside England. It too has constituency representatives only, but in multi-member seats, giving every voter a diverse team of representatives with equal voting power. While it technically isn’t automatically proportional, it is almost always very close. It uses a ranked choice ballot to ensure conscensus on the winners, and that there are almost no wasted votes.
Most importantly, all these systems give effectively perfect PR and, so, unlike FPTP, are truly democratic. So, whatever your concerns amongst the other criteria, whichever system you like best, you can fight for real democracy and Proportional Representation knowing that you don’t have to compromise on those beliefs.
In particular, you can sign, support and promote the Good Systems Agreement, which gives all of us a real path to PR, regardless of our preferences on the technicalities.
Even if you’re so attached to some of the criteria I listed, and perhaps more besides, that it’d be impossible to design a full-PR system that met those standards, it’s surely evident to any democrat that the ridiculousness of FPTP is a disgrace. Improved proportionality, at the very least, is vital — we all deserve better, and we all have a responsibility to fight for it.
To learn more about PR and get involved, check out:
Make Votes Matter — the cross-party movement for PR at general elections.
Labour For A New Democracy — the coalition to make PR, Labour policy.
Joe O’Toole is a maths student and political, environmental, LGBT+ activist. He spends his every waking minute on Twitter, so do follow him there.
