h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The problem may be that most of those who vote do not get their voice represented in parliament.

Under the UK first past the post system only the main contenders are seen as having a chance so many people believe they have no hope of getting their favourite candidate elected.

Under a multi-seat transferable vote system 80% of the people voting get someone they want elected. All constituencies have higher marginality than in a single seat scenario.
Smaller parties get more people elected so Greens and Liberals find it worth coming out to vote.
In a five seat constituency a 16% vote is enough to ensure election and some candidates can be elected with as little as 10% of the first preference votes.

If your favourite candidate is not elected you can say who your second favourite candidate is. the vote is transfered to your second favourite when your favourite is eliminated.

Maybe voters in the UK should think about it.

What is the downside?

The big parties don't always get to control the outcome between them.
Is that a bad thing?

Large party control is probably why None of the above is so popular.

Yes, I think that is a big part of it. I have the problem that I live in a parliamentary constituency where the election is always a straight and fairly close Labour-Tory fight, with the other parties way behind. I don't have much enthusiasm for either of the big two parties, but feel that I realistically have to go for the lesser of two evils or waste my vote. The best solution I've found is entering into online tactical voting pacts, but it'd be much better if that wasn't necessary.

Other voting systems have seemed to work well enough when they have been used in Britain, for instance in the elections to the Scottish Parliament and in the London mayoral and assembly elections. It'd be nice to think that they might be extended to parliamentary elections - but, as you suggest, the self-interest of the big parties might prevent that for some time to come.

Thank you for your interesting article. I did not realise that there had been a discussion on what alternatives could be used as an inducement to get people to vote.
I do not think that "None of the Above" is a very positive way of getting information. How about.

"Well who would YOU like to be your MP?"

That at least would place some responsibility on the person who is disagreeing with everyone.
I am amazed at the lethargy of the electorate. Do people not realise how important a vote is and how much ou forebears struggled to get the vote.? and how many people were disenfranchised for one reason or another.?
Is Fox Tales Analysis a form of proportional representation?
Thanks
AR1

Thank you for the kind words, Also ran 1 - glad you liked the column.

I agree that people really should make the effort to vote - I've been eligible to vote since 1978 and I've never missed an election yet. At the same time, though, I can well understand why so many people are cynical about career politicians.

I believe that in some American elections you can actually write in the name of a candidate you want to vote for if they're not already on the ballot paper in your area. Adopting that in Britain by asking voters to name who they'd like as an MP is certainly an intriguing idea. I wonder what would happen? Would there be a sudden huge swing from Labour and Conservative to David Beckham?

The Dutch system is pretty amazing in this respect. Each party (and there are a fair few I can tell you!) fields a 'list', starting with the big bods as the first named candidates and going down. You vote for whom you please and, if that person gets enough votes, the one at The TOP of the list is elected! So, in order for YOUR preferred candidate to make it into parliament, you have to hope that the party gains enough seats. Last time I voted I think my choice was about number 19 on the list - sadly only 18 got in!

I'm not sure how (or if) this system would work in the UK and, indeed, whether it is a viable voting tool at all. The good thing is that the parties can see where their popularity lies and move certain candidates up the list to gain more support.

Mind you, the recently elected Lijst Pym Fortyun party is already having a few teething troubles - not surprising really for a party mostly cobbled together after his murder.

shazz

Some of the replies have touched on good ideas. I wrote the Third paragraph onwards yesterday but had to check if it were legal to advocate spoiling your ballot. Apologies if I am repeating some things other replies have suggested already.

The single transferable vote is sometimes called proportional representation because it give a more proportionate result. It also has an advantage over the Dutch list system in that the parties do not control who gets elected as the voters decide who they want from each party not the party mandarins. In fact one of the joys is to see a newcomer push out a complacent party hack from time to time.

The danger in online tactical voting pacts is that no one is actually obliged to do anything. It may also be illegal in terms of the electoral acts as it contravenes the secrecy of the ballot.

It is not impossible for party activists to exploit such 'deals'.

The best solution would be to allow more choices count. Is the aim of democracy to allow the biggest block to win or is it to reflect the views of the electorate?

A system where 80% of those who vote have a representative seems more logical than one that only allows 33% have their wishes reflected.

As to how you get this to happen- Is it legal to suggest that all those who do not like the candidates presented to simply go to the polling station and write in who they would like on the ballot paper.
This is done in the US in some elections but I think only works for primaries.

The problem is that votes cast would appear as spoiled. This is dubious morally and to advocate it may be illegal. (H2G2 feedback assures me it is not.)

Think just how appalling it would be if more votes were spoiled than one of the party candidates received??

Dear Fox Tales,
That is why I did not like the idea of saying None of the above - it seems so destructive. I think Shazz's idea of what they do in Holland sounds grand. But will the British electorate ever accept it? It seems that they very much like confrontational politics which is strange. And also very destructive.
I think that Labour did try and change that in the beginning - remember the various Conservatives whom Mr. Blair asked to come into his various think tanks to help. He also disliked question time - which I felt was totally correct because it really is a rather unpleasant slanging match.
Well I supppose that we can go on dreaming of a perfect democracy where everyone's ideas and wants are considered. And where there is openess and honesty in the reporting of conditions and decisions. No hidden agendas!
Sincerely, Also Ran1