A mixture of PR and FPTP Methods

                      

TR, Total Representation is a mixed system that aims to make more votes count in constituency elections. It preserves a large element of the Westminster model and infuses it with a dose of PR to ensure a greater representation of voters’ preferences.. Its distinctive feature is the way it gives weight to the votes of unsuccessful candidates and brings fairness into the electoral process

 

Unlike similar mixed or hybrid systems TR is simple to understand and easy to operate. It needs only one ballot and requires all candidates (including those competing in Party Lists) to start off by running in the constituencies.

 

The PR element of TR gives an active role and leverage to the runner-ups in the constituencies by keeping their hopes alive in between elections even in “safe seats” Thus TR converts the rival runner-ups into watch-dogs, monitoring the incumbent MPs and guaranteeing their constant accountability.

 

How TR works

TR is a constituency-based system. For it to work properly, constituencies need to have roughly similar number of voters each to avoid gerrymandering. The majority of seats in parliament (say 80%) will be awarded to the winners of these races, just as they are under the Westminster system today.

 

So each party puts up candidates for election in the various seats. Their names appear on the ballot paper in alphabetical order and next to each name is the party he or she represents. However, these candidates also appear on their own party’s national “list” of all its candidates headed by the party leader.

 

Voters go to the polls and put a cross against their preferred local candidate. Whoever wins a simple majority of the votes becomes that Constituency’s Member of Parliament (CMP) – again, just like today.

 

From then on, the innovations begin. All the “successful” ballots drop out.  So if you voted for candidate X and candidate X wins, your ballot is judged to have already secured representation. As for the “unsuccessful” ballots (for example, if you voted for candidate Y, but candidate Y did not win in your constituency) these are placed in a giant nationwide pool – and it is from these that the remaining seats (20%) are decided using the PR method and awarded to the various parties to select Party Members of Parliament (PMPs)

 

These remaining seats are allocated according to a quota of a minimum number of required votes per seat. This is reached by dividing the number of “unsuccessful” votes by the number of the remaining seats. So, if there are 150  PMP seats available, and there were 15 million “unsuccessful” votes in the election, each party needs 100,000 votes to elect one PMP.

 

Unlike in other list-based systems, the way these seats are awarded depends crucially on how the candidates performed in the constituencies. With the exception of the party leader, who – if unsuccessful first time around – is automatically allocated the first PMP seat secured by that Leader’s Party. All the other PMP seats will end up being awarded to those candidates who did best in the first-past-the-post part of the election (in other words, the strongest runners-up), including  constituency candidates  of minority parties who may have significant support nationwide but lack strength in any particular constituency. Everything therefore depends on the number of votes each candidate secures.

 

Arguments in Support of TR

• Each voter is required to cast only one ballot
• Few votes are “wasted”, with most going on to secure at least some level of representation, albeit with different weightings.
• Its PR element is relatively simple to understand and easy to operate
• All MPs would have to start off as constituency candidates, and all votes are worth fighting for even in “safe seats” because there is a potential prize also for coming second.
• It gives minority views the chance of a voice in parliament without giving them undue influence, because the system is still weighted towards first-past-the-post.

 

Arguments against TR

• It creates two classes of MPs (CMP and PMP) thus leading to the possibility of conflict between them. However unlike in other such systems, most of the “Party” MPs would also have to have performed relatively well in the constituency vote and would retain some link with that locality. The centre of the duties of the CMP is the constituency, that of the PMP is to strengthen the Party in Parliament while preparing for the next round of elections.
• Using a single nationwide pool of votes may mean too many minor parties getting elected and make PMPs less accountable to local electors; it would be possible to amend the system to make it regional in larger countries such as the UK.
• All existing constituency boundaries would have to be redrawn. However any reform will anyway necessitate redrawing of boundaries. 

 

TR has been promoted as a desirable reform to Israel’s closed list PR system and received favourable attention from the recent President’s Commission on reform. Its author, Aharon Nathan, believes that it is suitable for use in other countries such as Britain and Croatia and will publish a book in 2009 outlining and recommending the system.