Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Arguments about Proportional Representation

  • Chapter
The Electoral System in Britain

Abstract

Proportional representation is not in itself a system for elections, but rather a criterion upon which to evaluate the working of any one of a range of electoral systems which can be used for voting purposes. It is a principle or yardstick by which to test the degree of representative proportionality between citizens’ votes and successful party candidates. More precisely, what is looked for is the percentage equivalents between the total national votes cast for the respective parties’ candidates, and the number of seats won by the parties in the House of Commons. Proponents of proportional representation believe that there should be a direct and close correlation between total votes cast for each party across the country at a general election, and the number of seats won by each party in the House of Commons. Under a pure application of the principle, if half the voters in the country vote for the Conservative Party and one-third vote Labour, then half the membership of the House of Commons — 326 MPs — should be Conservative MPs and one-third of the House — 217 MPs — should be Labour. By contrast, in Britain, as Sir Ivor Jennings once succinctly put it, ‘Our system of representation produces the result that the size of a majority in the House of Commons may bear little resemblance to the size of the majority in the country.’1 No one in British politics today is advocating a scheme of electoral reform that is completely proportional between votes and seats (which would require what is called a national list system) and only two countries in the world (the Netherlands and Israel) possess such a method of voting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. Sir I. Jennings, Cabinet Government (3rd edn, 1959), ch.1, and The British Constitution (5th edn, 1966), ch. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  2. How Britain is Governed (1930), p. 171.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Constitutional Fundamentals (1980), p. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Sources: F.W. Craig, British Electoral Facts 1832–87 (5th edn, 1989), pp. 52–3, D. and G. Butler (eds), British Political Facts 1900–1985 (6th edn, 1986), and House of Commons information office.

    Google Scholar 

  5. On the history of electoral reform attempts, see D. Butler, The Electoral System in Britain since 1918 (2nd ed, 1962); V. Bogdanor, The People and the Party System (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  6. P. Dunleavy, H. Margetts and S. Weir, Replaying the 1992 General Election (LSE Public Policy Paper No. 3, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Labour Party, Report of the Working Party on Electoral Systems (1993) (‘Plant Report’).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Independent, 21 April 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  9. See G. Goguel, Chroniques Electorates: la Cinquieme Republique apres De Gaulle (1983); A. Cole and P. Campbell, French Electoral Systems and Elections (3rd edn, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Electoral Reform: Fairer Voting in Natural Communities (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  11. The Electoral System in Britain since 1918 (2nd ed, 1962), p. 184.

    Google Scholar 

  12. D. Owen, A United Kingdom (1986), p. 53.

    Google Scholar 

  13. What is Proportional Representation? (1984), p. 90.

    Google Scholar 

  14. P. Dunleavy, H. Margetts and S. Weir, Replaying the 1992 General Election.

    Google Scholar 

  15. The Report of the Hansard Society Commission on Electoral Reform (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Institute for Public Policy Research, A Written Constitution for the United Kingdom (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  17. See Labour Party, Second Interim Report of the Working Party on Electoral Systems (1992), appendix 2, p. 17. This recommendation was endorsed by the Party’s National Executive Committee, and appeared in Labour’s 1992 election manifesto at p. 23.

    Google Scholar 

  18. P. Dunleavy, H. Margetts and S. Weir, Replaying the 1992 General Election.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Based on calculations of P. Dunleavy, H. Margetts and S. Weir, ibid., and (on the supplementary vote) of Dale Campbell-Savours, Independent, 21 April 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Amended table from E. Lakeman, Twelve Democracies (4th edn, 1991), p. 32.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Democracy in Britain: A Health Check for the 1990s (LSE Public Policy Paper, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Generally, see V. Bogdanor, The People and the Party System (1981); J. Hart, Proportional Representation: Critics of the British Electoral System 1820–1945 (1992); D. Butler, The Electoral System in Britain since 1918 (2nd ed, 1962); M. Pugh, The Evolution of the British Electoral System 1832–1987 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  23. 1872, Bill 67; HC Deb., 10 July 1872, col. 890.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Parliamentary Elections Bill 1908, 74. See also Parliamentary Elections (Alternative Vote) Bill 1910, 101; Parliamentary Elections Bill (Alternative Vote) Bill 1910, 216; Alternative Vote in Democratic Elections 1974–5, 178.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Report of the Speaker’s Conference on Electoral Reform, Cd 8463.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Times, 3 April 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  27. We the People: Towards a Written Constitution (1990), pp. 7–9.

    Google Scholar 

  28. pp. 509–13.

    Google Scholar 

  29. p. 65.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Sunday Times, 5 April 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Guardian, 3 April 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  32. For exmple, MORI poll, Independent, 26 September 1990; NOP poll, Independent, 24 May 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Party press conference, 2 April 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  34. BBC2 Television ‘Newsnight’, 3 April 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Independent, 6 April 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  36. BBC2 Television, 5 December 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Labour Party, Report of the Working Party on Electoral Systems (1993), p. 38.

    Google Scholar 

  38. For example, see Margaret Beckett’s comments reported in Independent, 15 June 1992; Jeff Rooker’s article on electoral reform, Independent, 6 October 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Press Release, 19 May 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  40. The 1993 Labour Party conference passed the following resolution (45.491 per cent For, and 42.021 per cent Against): ‘Conference welcomes the report of the Plant Commission and congratulates it on its thorough review of electoral systems... Conference favours constituency representation for the House of Commons and supports the commitments of John Smith, Leader of the Labour Party, for a referendum on the issue of electoral reform for the Commons.’ (Record of Decisions, composite 31, at p. 33.)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Tony Blair, Leadership Election Statement: Change and National Renewal (1994), p. 17

    Google Scholar 

  42. How Britain is Governed (1930), p. 177.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Sunday Times, 5 April 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Guardian, 1 April 1992. See the reply of V. Bogdanor to Mr Baker’s attack, The Public Relations of PR’, Guardian 17 April 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Independent, 25 March 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Independent on Sunday, 15 March 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  47. 4 April 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Labour Party Conference debate, 2 October 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Parliament (2nd edn, 1957), pp. 142–3.

    Google Scholar 

  50. p. 46.

    Google Scholar 

  51. 4 April 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  52. See A. Cooke, ‘Proportional Representation’, Conservative Research Department Paper, Politics Today (1983) no. 15, p. 285.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Guardian, 2 January 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Tribune, 20 December 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  55. HC Deb., 17 May 1991, col. 573.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Labour Party Conference debate, 2 October 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  57. ‘Proportional Representation’, A Conservative Research Department Paper, Politics Today (1991) no. 12, p. 218.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Sir A. Maude and J. Szemerey, Why Electoral Change? The Case for P.R. Examined (1982), p. 35.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Independent on Sunday, 15 March 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  60. HC Deb., 17 May 1991, col. 571.

    Google Scholar 

  61. See pp. 370f.

    Google Scholar 

  62. (1991), pp. 30–1.

    Google Scholar 

  63. 11 May 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Elective Dictatorship (Richard Dimbleby lecture, 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  65. (1978), pp. 187–8.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Lord Home, The Way the Wind Blows: An Autobiography by Lord Home (1976), p. 282.

    Google Scholar 

  67. John Mackintosh lecture 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Times, 21 July 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Quoted in P. Kellner, ‘Electoral Reform: No Longer a Tory Taboo?’, Independent, 13 March 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Extract in Times, 10 November 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  71. S. E. Finer (ed.), Adversary Politics and Electoral Reform (1975), p. 12.

    Google Scholar 

  72. ‘PR Pluses’, Guardian, 17 October 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Robin Blackburn, ‘The Ruins of Westminster’, New Left Review (1992), no. 191, pp. 5, 9 and 15.

    Google Scholar 

  74. How Britain is Governed (1930), pp. 168 and 178.

    Google Scholar 

  75. p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  76. We the People: Towards a Written Constitution (1990), pp. 7–9.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Submission to the Labour Party Working Party on Electoral Systems (1991) p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  78. See also the criteria adopted by the Hansard Society, Electoral Reform (1976), p. 26; Institute for Public Policy Research, A Written Constitution for the United Kingdom (1993), p. 224.

    Google Scholar 

  79. See pp. 376f.

    Google Scholar 

  80. See pp. 379f.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Conference on Electoral Law (1968), Cmnd 3550.

    Google Scholar 

  82. HC Deb., 14 October 1968, col. 43.

    Google Scholar 

  83. pp. 46 and 24.

    Google Scholar 

  84. pp. 9–10.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Generally, see Erskine May, Parliamentary Practice (21st edn, 1989, by C.J. Boulton), ch. 24; J. A.G. Griffith and M. Ryle, Parliament (1989), ch. 11.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Standing Orders of the House of Commons (Public Business), 1991, S.O. 30.

    Google Scholar 

  87. HC Deb., 25 June 1979, col. 49.

    Google Scholar 

  88. See D. Woodhouse, Ministers and Parliament (1994), ch. 10 and p. 208.

    Google Scholar 

  89. HC Deb., 13 July 1992, col. 916.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Procedure, The Working of the Select Committee System, [1989–90] 19–1, para. 176.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Ibid., para. 172.

    Google Scholar 

  92. For example, Observer, 12 July 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  93. HC Deb., 13 July 1992, col. 921.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Ibid., col. 923.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Independent, 14 July 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  96. HC Deb., 13 July 1992, col. 918.

    Google Scholar 

  97. See J. A. G. Griffith and M. Ryle, Parliament (1989), pp. 142–3; J. Kingdom, Government and Politics in Britain (1991), pp. 269–70.

    Google Scholar 

  98. HC Deb., 13 July 1992, Col. 921.

    Google Scholar 

  99. See G. Drewry, *Select Committees and Back-bench Power’, ch. 6 in J. Jowell and D. Oliver (eds.), The Changing Constitution (2nd edn, 1989); R. Brazier, Constitutional Practice (1988), pp. 188–190; D. Woodhouse, Ministers and Parliament (1994), ch. 10; J. Kingdom, Government and Politics in Britain (1991), p. 300.

    Google Scholar 

  100. From P. Dunleavy, H. Margetts and S. Weir, Replaying the 1992 General Election (LSE Public Policy Paper No. 3, 1992), p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Liberal/SDP Alliance Commission, Electoral Reform (1982), pp. 5–6.

    Google Scholar 

  102. From Institute for Public Policy Research, A Written Constitution for the United Kingdom (1993), p. 226. The figures are based on 1987 electoral statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Quoted in the Plant Report, op. cit., p. 27.

    Google Scholar 

  104. See D. Butler and D. Kavanagh, The British General Election of 1992, p. 220.

    Google Scholar 

  105. See ibid, pp. 218–19 and 338–9.

    Google Scholar 

  106. p. 57.

    Google Scholar 

  107. See pp. 205f.

    Google Scholar 

  108. HC Deb., 6 December 1933, col. 1744.

    Google Scholar 

  109. See pp. 397f.

    Google Scholar 

  110. See pp. 387f.

    Google Scholar 

  111. HC Deb., 17 May 1991, col. 603.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Guardian, 11 June 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Independent, 24 May 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Guardian, 19 September 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Guardian, 20 February 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  116. See New Zealand Royal Commission on the Electoral System, Towards a Better Democracy (1986); New Zealand House of Representatives Electoral Law Committee, Inquiry into the Report of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System (1988). At the 19 September 1992 referendum, 84.7 per cent of those voting supported change, with 70.5 per cent of those persons favouring the mixed member proportional system. At the 6 November 1993 referendum, 53.8 per cent voted for the mixed member Proportional system, and 46.2 per cent voted to keep the first-past-the-post system.

    Google Scholar 

  117. P. Dunleavy, H. Margetts and S. Weir, Replaying the 1992 General Election (LSE Public Policy Paper No. 3, 1992), pp. 6/7.

    Google Scholar 

  118. A Written Constitution for the United Kingdom (1993), ch. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  119. See pp. 61f.

    Google Scholar 

  120. The form of draft legislation proposed draws upon work of the Institute for Public Policy Research, A Written Constitution for the United Kingdom (1993), to which Robert Blackburn was a contributor.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. King’s College, University of London, USA

    Robert Blackburn (Reader in Public Law)

Authors
  1. Robert Blackburn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 1995 Robert Blackburn

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Blackburn, R. (1995). Arguments about Proportional Representation. In: The Electoral System in Britain. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-24090-6_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation