On May 5, 2010, at 10:24 PM, James Gilmour wrote:
At present all 650 MPs are elected from single-member districts (here called constituencies). It is impossible to have a PR voting system that is based only on any voting system exclusively within singe-member districts.
Yes, if the single-member districts are independent. In principle one could also have a PR method where the votes are counted at national level and then a proportional result is forced on the single-member districts so that in some districts the FPTP winner does not win but that seat is given to some other party. The smallest parties would get seats in districts where they are strongest (although not in a majority position). This method may not be very nice in the sense that in some district the voters will be represented by a person that represents only a minority view in that district.
The main thrust for reform is for STV-PR with sensibly sized multi- member electoral districts. For example, Edinburgh presently elects 5 MPs from 5 single-member constituencies. The City of Edinburgh should be ONE 5-member STV-PR electoral district. Similarly, the City of Glasgow should be a 7-member electoral district. In rural areas the district magnitude could be less, with even one or two single-member districts reflecting remoteness and long-standing political "realities".
Larger districts allow better proportionality. Variation in the size of the districts means that some districts are more proportional than others. And at national level small parties may suffer since they can get representatives only from districts that have good enough proportionality / many enough members.
Note that in Finland the planned electoral reform aims at balancing the different and unfair treatment of the smallest parties in the different size districts (from 6 to 32) using this very same technique, i.e. the proportions are to be counted at national level and only then one finds the best fit to allocate the seats to the districts. As a result it should be possible and sensible to vote for the smallest parties also in the smallest districts.
One benefit of single-member or small districts is that representatives are closer to the voters (less population to listen to and communicate with). If one wants to maintain some of this property (also for reasons of tradition) one could use some relatively small district size. If one determines the proportionality at national level and then allocates those seats to the districts there will be some distortion in what parties will get seats in which regions. But already with district size of 5 (or even smaller) the distorting effect may be quite marginal. Even if some small party would on average get e.g. (votes worth of) 0.2 seats per district, it is probable that there are districts where that party got more than 0.5 seats. Giving them a seat in that district could already be considered not a violation against the will of the voters but just a fair way to allocate the seats. Some large party that managed to get only 3.7 seats could well get its fractional (0.7) seat in some other district and satisfy with the idea that the small party got exceptionally good result in this district and therefore deserves to get that seat.
So, my point is that one could well have both very accurate proportionality and small districts, and also only marginal distortion with respect to rearranging the allocation of seats between the districts. If one determines the proportionality at national level the optimum district size will be smaller that it would otherwise be (if there is some interest to have smallish districts). If UK will make a reform one option could be to aim at keeping both small districts and aim at very accurate proportionality (and same level of proportionality and viability of the smallest parties across all the districts).
Juho ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
