Where you live

Gravatar of this user
I'm listening to Radio 4's The Westminster Hour at the moment and, unsurprisingly, the discussion is about the recent General Election and where do things go from here. One of those discussions is about PR (Proportional Representation) and the perceived need for the relationship between the citizen and the MP in the form of the Constituency relationship. Some MPs and commentators suggest it is sacrosanct and must never be broken, which some forms of PR (such as AV+ and list) partially or completely do.

But I'm wondering whether that relationship is all it is suggested it is.

At this election the boundary between seats in my area was shifted, and where I had been an voter in the Hampstead & Highgate constituency for the last 24 years I was now voting for an MP in the Holborn & St. Pancras seat. I didn't get any choice in that 'move' — my home hasn't changed. And, as I commented in a recent post on the results, the lines dividing the nation into constituencies are pretty much random; though sometimes they may associate similar areas together they are just as likely to separate one area into individual, illogical parts.

So is the 'Constituency' all it is said it is? If you know which Member of Parliament is representing you (or, indeed, which Members plural) then does there need to be a direct relationship between them and where you live? Does where you work actually matter more, for example?

In London there are 'constituency' members of the London Assembly, and 'top-up' or 'London-wide' members, and residents of London can go to either 'type' of Assembly Member as they choose. Similar arrangements apply to other elected bodies in some areas.

So would Parliament fall apart if the method of allocating new MPs based upon the number — and proportion — of votes received changed from the present (and clearly outmoded) method?

Somehow I don't think most of us would even notice the change.
09-May-2010 21:43 · 3 Comments · Trackback ·
tags: · ·
blinklist icon  blogmarks icon  del.ocio.us icon  digg icon  facebook icon  live.com icon  newsvine icon  reddit icon  slashdot icon  spurl icon  stumbleupon icon  technorati icon  yahoo! icon 


Comments

  1. So, the argument is predicated on the idea of political incentives (you might think of it as the Public Choice account of representation); as a politician my incentive is to act in the interests of those who put me in power and sustain my being in power.

    If I'm elected under first past the post, AV, STV or (argumably) AMS, AV+ or FPTP+ with open lists*) then I owe my position principally to people having put a cross or a number beside my name at some point in the voting process.

    If I'm elected as part of a closed party* list then I owe my being elected to a) people in my area liking my party and b) my party liking me. The extent to which I am beholden to the voters in my district is thus diminished compared to the above systems.

    So if there is an issue in which the interests of my constituents was set against the interests of my party you might expect someone elected by FPTP, AV, STV or open list systems to side with the constituents and someone elected via a closed list system to side with the party as it is primarily by keeping them happy that I maintain my position.

    It has been argued that because candidates in a multi-member constituency STV system are essentially competing with other party's representatives to tend to the interests of the same body of people that there is actually more of an incentive for them to be actively engaged in their local community; thus the constituency link is stronger under our proposed system than under the status quo. This seems to be the case in Ireland, which uses MM STV although, in the interests of fairness, one could argue that it simply a product of a peculiarly Irish form of politics.

    *Open vs Closed list - A closed list system is one in which the proportional element of a run-off election (FPTP or AV) or of a straight proportional system (such as if we just allocated seats based on the popular vote or the regional equivalent, as we do for the European Parliament (other than in NI which uses STV)) is actioned by people putting a cross/number beside the name of a party rather than individuals. This means that their and the votes of those who chose similarly will be allocated to candidates in the order in which the party decided they should be elected. In an open list system, by contrast, I choose to which individual my top-up/proportional vote will go. (There may be additional calculations to ensure the proportional-element per-party is allocated in the order of candidate votes chosen but not exclusively on that basis so if 40 people voted for party A's first candidate and 20 for party A's second candidate and you need 30 votes to get elected, other things being equal they would. How you feel about that depends entirely on how you feel about the institutionalisation of political parties).

    Suppose for example party A has two candidates: 1) an outspoken occasionally rebelling maverick and 2) a tow-the-line always-votes-with-the-whip party lackey. I might like the party and their manifesto but would prefer that (1) were elected over (2). The party, presumably, would prefer (2) were elected over (1). In an open list system you would have your way, in a closed list system the party would have its way (though the candidates' order would probably be chosen by party members; that's how it works with the Scottish Liberal Democrats).

    IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS CONCERN ABOUT CONSTITUENCY LINK IS IRRELEVANT TO THE SINGLE-TRANSFERABLE VOTE (with multi-member constituencies) SYSTEM FAVOURED BY THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS AND THE ELECTORAL REFORM SOCIETY.


    Duncan Crowe on
  2. Gravatar of this user

    Yes, I agree with you Duncan about the dangers of the list system, especially the closed (central Party control) list method. Having known friends standing for the London Assembly on the top-up list discuss the viability of their position on that list.

    Whilst the published list had ten places on it it was clear that only the top three or four and any realistic possibility of being successful, and beucase the ordering of candidates on the party list was determined in advance (and by party members) then there was nothing the electors could do to make a preference for one individual candidate over another.

    My view is that the should be some level of relationship between where you live and who represents you which can be affected by the voters, even if there are more widely-sourced 'topup' members also elected.

    I'm a former member of both the LibDems and of the ERS, and whilst I consider STV to be acceptable in single-member elections I find it very problematic where multiple members are being elected in a single count.


    Alison Wheeler on

  3. It's my belief that the major difference we'll see is an increased likelihood of coalition governments. That's not in itself a bad thing if it means parties are forced to identify cross-party commonality on issues. In the short term this will doubtless cause disruption while parties adjust to the idea of having to work together. The childish adversarial system, frankly, deserves to die a quick and painful death.

    For larger issues where no cross-party majority consensus can be reached I'd much rather the government calls a referendum and learns to trust and adhere to the will of the public which elected them in the first place.


    Robin Stacey on

To be able to add your own comments please login or register.


Alison M Wheeler · Highgate · London · © Copyright 2008-11
Disclaimer: The best way to test something is to actively use it, so this site occasionally tests new ideas or software. As such, any facility or function, method or manner of presentation, or indeed the whole site, may be unavailable for periods of time.