Intro

The LibDems are right to push for electoral reform, and Labs and Tories are wrong to oppose (or passively resist) it.

On the current FPTP system, a candidate can win a constituency with 35% of votes with 40% turnout, i.e. active support of 14% (1 in 7) of the electorate. Why not a minimum level of support else no representative?! A good idea, perhaps, but with dangerous implications. E.g. we might wind up with less than 50% of seats occupied! That does not sound like "democracy", even if it is what people have apparently freely chosen!

Much tactical voting and squeezing ("Don't vote for X - that guarantees a win for Y - vote for us because only we can beat Y.") In all six possible combinations! Offensive choices.

Why not have ranked votes (i.e. just 123), and transfer votes of loser. (Called "AV", for reasons unknown.)

That solves the "tactical voting" problem. But there is another equally serious. Single member constituency leads to (forces?) a horrid sameness of representation. Too many mediocre, white, aging, middle class, males; too few of everything else. Multi-member constituency allows and encourages a better mix. (Ranked votes in a multi-member constituency is called "STV".)

So let's have STV.

But LibDems are wrong (and a bit stupid) to call it PR, and to see merit in PR as such. - Because PR is
- unattainable
- ineffective
- debilitating
- undesirable.

And asking for PR allows other parties to propose other means of achieving an approximation to PR, such as those crazy, incomprehensible hybrids which are much talked of, much used on the continent, and favoured by those who are more interested in power than in fair elections.

So demand all or nothing STV.

But, to be practical, take it easy. Two distinct phases.
(1) Introduce immediate, universal AV in existing constituencies.
(2) Progressively introduce multi-member constituencies, so as to
  - reduce artificial splits (e.g. Newtown North and Newtown South), while at the same time avoiding creation of artificial, unwieldy, unpopular combinations
  - better align boundaries of parliamentary and Euro constituencies with local government areas

Electoral reform (addendum)

Ideal is about 5 members per constituency (assuming same size parliament as now) because this is
- small enough (just) to avoid being oversized, remote
- large enough (just) to give a fair mix of members (e.g. 1 seat for a 20% minority; e.g. fair balance of male/female)

But more important is to keep it simple and comprehensible. So keep local authority areas aligned with parliamentary constituencies. E.g. Bromley goes from 3 separate to single 3-member constituency.

Then link with another borough to make up to 5 or 6 if sufficient support. Aim for constituency = one or more boroughs, but do not split boroughs between different constituencies.

Review alignment with Euro constituencies.