Your questions on proportional representation answered – from regional assemblies to referendums

Political columnist Andrew Grice takes on your queries as the debate on electoral reform hots up following last month’s election results

(AFP via Getty Images)

Calls for electoral reform have increased following the results of last month’s election.

Reform UK claims the first-past-the-post system is “broken” and the Liberal Democrats have long argued lack of proportional representation robs millions of voters of their voice.

We were inundated when we asked readers to submit their burning questions on electoral reform and proportional representation.

It’s clear that whatever happens, there is a renewed debate about electoral reform and that is to be welcomed.

Here are seven questions from Independent readers – and my answers from the “Ask Me Anything” event.

Q: Will proportional representation make any difference to ordinary people’s lives, and how?

captaintripps

A: It’s fair to say government policies on the economy and public services have much more impact on people’s daily lives than the system we use to elect the government. But I believe the health of our democracy matters. The recent election was the most disproportionate in UK history. It’s hard to justify a party winning almost two-thirds of the seats with a third of the votes.

Q: Should England also have its own devolved English Parliament like Scotland and Wales?

Independent England

A: I’m not sold on the idea of an English Parliament. The “English question” is real, but I think it’s being answered by the creation of directly elected mayors. Labour wants to extend them to other areas. If the mayors can work with the government in helping to secure economic growth – rather than argue with ministers about money – their status will be enhanced.

In the long run, I quite like Labour’s idea of making the House of Lords more representative of the regions and nations. That would also address the “English question.” Whether major Lords reform ever happens is another matter. Perhaps it’s on Labour’s list for its third five-year term, which might never arrive!

Q: Has any research been done which shows how voters may cast their votes differently under PR?

alfafile

A: I’m not aware of any such research. There would probably be less tactical voting under a PR system. First-past-the-post arguably allows people to express an opinion about one party and it might be a negative one. PR allows more choice and preferences.

One interpretation of last month’s election is that it was an anti-Conservative vote, but I think it was also an anti-political establishment vote even though Labour won a huge majority. Labour and the Tories won only 58 per cent of the total votes between them, their lowest combined share ever.

I believe PR would boost turnout by tackling the “wasted vote” problem. Last month, 58 per cent of people backed a candidate who did not win; the average in elections since 1945 is 47 per cent. So only 42 per cent of people are now represented by an MP of their choice. It’s higher with PR - for example, 90 per cent in Germany and 92 per cent in Denmark.

Q: Given that the collapse of the Weimar Republic and the French 4th republic are generally reckoned to be as a result of their having PR, whilst the Greeks give a bonus 50 MPs to the party that gets the most seats, it’s clear that there are reasons to be sceptical. PR is no panacea. Do you have any solutions to those issues?

Ender’s Shadow

A: PR is not a panacea, but I think it would be an improvement on first-past-the-post (FPTP). From memory, about 40 of the 43 European countries use PR in some form and there’s some polling evidence of higher public satisfaction with democracy there than in nations like the UK and France which do not use it.

I think the argument that FPTP brings stable government has been tested to destruction in the UK in recent years. Supporters of electoral reform point to a study showing that countries using PR outperform those without it on eight out of 10 measures of political stability such as completing a term of office and the turnover of ministers. We’ve certainly had a high turnover in the UK in recent years!

Q: Does a move to PR actually require a referendum to enact (as in 2011) or can it be implemented by Parliament alone through legislation?

TheMadGeologist

A: It’s true that the approach of Labour and the Conservatives towards PR is governed by self-interest (though you could say the same about the smaller parties who support PR). There is growing support inside Labour for PR. Its party conference voted for it in 2022. About a third of Labour MPs backed it in the last parliament and that proportion has now grown.

But but but… to be realistic, it’s going to be hard to persuade the Labour leadership to back this “change” after the party has just won a majority of 174. A small number of Conservatives support PR but many fear it would lock their party out of power by ensuring a permanent Lab-Lib Dem coalition.

The best chance of PR going to the top of Labour’s or the Tories’ agenda is in a hung parliament, when it would be a key demand of the Lib Dems. That’s how we got the 2011 referendum, as part of the Lib-Con coalition deal.

As for D’Hondt, the formula which translates votes on the regional list into seats in the Scottish Parliament, I’m afraid I will need to consult the professor – John Curtice, professor of politics at Strathclyde University.

In theory, a party could claim a mandate for changing the voting system if it had been explicit about it in its manifesto. The House of Lords would not block the legislation in these circumstances. In practice, I think any party would feel honour bound to hold a referendum on such a big constitutional change.

Q: Will the regional assemblies Labour are proposing become the secondary democratic institutions that allow for the House of Lords to be abolished and PR introduced in the commons?

Tabbers

A: I don’t think Labour is committed to regional assemblies. The Blair government held a referendum on setting up one in the North East in 2004 but the idea was overwhelmingly rejected. The Starmer government’s focus is on the directly elected mayors.

Some Labour figures favour a directly elected House of Lords, with representatives from the regions and nations. But would the Commons ever agree to set up a rival chamber with its own mandate? I rather doubt it.

Q: What PR system is best? MMP (NZ, Germany) or STV?

Russell Simpson

A: The Electoral Reform Society regards STV as the “gold standard” on the grounds it provides maximum choice. I prefer mixed member PR, known as the additional member system (AMS) in the Scottish and Welsh parliaments because it preserves a link between voters and a local constituency MP while securing a proportional result through a top-up from a regional party list.

I’ve met ministers from other countries who are amazed that British ministers have constituencies and hold regular surgeries for their residents. A lot of voters think our politicians are out of touch, but this contact provides a vital link between them and the real world.

These questions and answers were part of an ‘Ask Me Anything’ hosted by Andrew Grice at 12pm BST on Friday 2 August. Some of the questions and answers have been edited for this article. You can read the full discussion in the comments section of the original article.

If you want more political comment, news and insight, sign up for John Rentoul’s weekly Commons Confidential newsletter exclusive to Independent Premium subscribers, taking you behind the curtain of Westminster. If this sounds like something you would be interested in, head here to find out more.