Myth-Busting

Myth 1: PR lets in extremist parties

PR represents parties that achieve a reasonable share of the vote (the definition of reasonable varies from 1.5 per cent support in Israel to 10 per cent in Turkey). If people vote in sufficient numbers for a party under PR, their voice will be heard. This applies to small parties with democratic values and something to contribute, such as the Greens, but also to extreme parties.

Under some circumstances FPTP can also let extreme parties in. What, after all, has happened in local government in Barking, Stoke-on-Trent, Burnley and other urban areas under FPTP? Under FPTP a party can win seats by exploiting local grievances in a small area rather than trying for a broader appeal.

There is a vital difference between representation and control. While obnoxious parties can get represented under PR, it is virtually impossible for them to gain control; even in March 1933 the Nazi party did not obtain an overall majority in the German Reichstag. It is only in FPTP that there is the possibility of having one's representation monopolised by an extreme party. The BNP has all the borough council seats in part of Burnley despite nowhere near a majority of the vote - where can residents there turn if they do not like that party?

Voting for extremist parties is often a sign not so much of massive popular support for their values as an indicator that voters want to make a protest against the political system. Designing a system (like FPTP) to make sure that these votes are wasted is only likely to increase cynicism about politics

Getting represented is often a step to the political defeat of extreme parties, as the inadequacy of their politicians and policies is exposed - and once the threat has been seen off the electorate are more wary of parties that offer easy answers in future.

Not all forms of PR are equally susceptible to electing splinter and extreme parties. Most have some sort of threshold to stop tiny parties winning. Because voters rank candidates in order of preference under STV, people can choose to use their lower preferences to help other democratic candidates defeat anti-democratic candidates.

Myth 2: PR is incomprehensible

The recently published Government review of voting systems found that "We do not find, on balance, any evidence to suggest that voters find one voting system easier or more confusing than another voting system."

Under most PR systems, there is a simple relationship of cause and effect for the voter. If you vote for a candidate, you increase his or her chances of getting elected. If you vote for a party, you increase that party's entitlement to seats. By doing this, you achieve more representation for your views. This does not happen under FPTP. Many votes are wasted, and voters often have to make tactical choices because if they vote for their real preferred candidate who lies in third place, they could help the chances of a candidate whose views they strongly dislike.

Opponents of PR sometimes try to make it sound complicated when it is not. These sorts of people often find the term 'd'Hondt' amusing and have a bit of xenophobic and anti-intellectual fun talking about Belgian mathematics. But one needs a precisely defined way of allocating a certain number of seats to parties in order to make sure that the voters' choice is most accurately represented, and 'd'Hondt' simply means taking some averages. It is not rocket science.

References
Ministry of Justice: Review of Voting Systems: the experience of new voting systems in the UK since 1997 (2008) p. 133, para 6.170

Myth 3: PR caused the problems in the 2007 Scottish elections

The independent Gould report into the problems with the Scottish elections in May 2007 exploded the myths about a link between PR and spoiled ballots.

The main cause of the problem was the redesign of the ballot for the Scottish Parliament elections in which the regional and constituency votes were combined on one paper (Gould, section 6.1.4, page 52). Rates of spoilage had been very low (below 1 per cent) in Scotland in previous elections when separate papers were used. In other countries using similar systems, like Wales, New Zealand and Germany, spoilage is also much lower than it was in Scotland in 2007, consistently below 1.5 per cent (Gilmour, page 2). A sudden change, as in Scotland in 2007, cannot be explained by a constant factor like having a PR electoral system. Nor was spoilage much of an issue in the local government elections that did use a new system, STV (Gould, Section 6.1.6, page 54)- the electorate coped with it very well.

Bad FPTP ballot design caused 'hanging chads' and votes cast in error thanks to the Palm Beach 'butterfly ballot' in the notorious 2000 US Presidential election in Florida. Bad design can happen under any system.

The rate of rejected votes in Scotland in 2007 is a very poor argument against a fairer electoral system.

References
Gould: Scottish elections 2007 The independent review of the Scottish Parliamentary and local government elections 3 May 2007. Edinburgh: The Electoral Commission, October 2007.
Gilmour: Dr J Gilmour 'Rejected ballot papers in the Scottish elections 2007' Paper presented to the Elections, Parties and Public Opinion conference of the Political Studies Association, September 2007.

Myth 4: PR systems are all the same

There are many different types of PR systems: all with the advantage of making votes count, but each with other particular pluses and minuses. Different systems best fit different situations and elected bodies, depending on what criteria are most important. No electoral reformer would wish to see the closed list system in place for electing MPs.

The system used for electing MEPs has some major plus points: it is simple and quick for the voter to cast their ballot; a more diverse set of views and parties gain representation; seats won reasonably reflect votes cast; and there are opportunities for a better gender balance of successful candidates. A positive of the large region sizes is that voters will likely have at least one MEP of a party they sympathise with to go to if they have a European-related issue to raise. Both during the election and throughout the lifetime of the 5 year Parliament, there are a team of candidates / MEPs which have a diversity of appeal and policy interests and can play to their strengths.

There are also some valid criticisms of the closed list system for electing MEPs. Each party puts up a list of candidates in the region. You can only vote fot the party, not for individuals on the list. You can't rank the party's candidates in the order you'd prefer. Due to the way the parties organize their lists, sitting MEPs are at the top of the lists and have an advantage over the other candidates from their party. The lack of much coverage or media profile of MEPs means that name recognition is often low, but this may be made worse at election time by voting for a closed list - with the party promoting its own brand above the identity of any one candidate.

Contrary to some reports, the EU never imposed this system on us. All EU countries had to adopt some form of proportional representation for electing MEPs in 1999. But the exact system was left to the individual country to decide. So we had a choice. Recommendations were made to Jack Straw, the Cabinet Minister in charge of the decision. He chose to ignore those recommendations for a more open system that would give voters more choice over candidates and remove some of the party control. Instead he chose the closed list system that we have today. So blame Jack Straw, not Europe or PR advocates. We would like to improve on the system of election of MEPs in the future, but that's for another time.