Moving from First Past The Post (FPTP)
to "Fuzzy" Choice and Counts

less than 700 words

Not only in the UK, where the "winner takes all" principle, otherwise known as "First-Past-The-Post," is dominant, the voting system deprives much of the electorate of any precise voice in the polling booth and is rigged to favour large parties. Many citizens are unable to vote in accordance with their convictions and judgement. The First-Past-The-Post system with individual constituencies makes most votes count for nothing.

There is a solution which does not involve Proportional Representation (which assumes all politics must be organised along party lines) or various second vote schemes, whether with an alternative vote (AV, rejected in the UK by referendum in 2011) or with second rounds, as in France.

The following is how a seriously representative system would look taking the present system as a starting point.

* Require all candidates to obtain for election a certain number of votes to be determined by the size of the electorate, traditional turnout and the target number of seats.

* Install electronic voting at polling stations. The voter is provided on a first screen with the choice of constituency candidates they would currently see on the paper ballot. Voters discontent with this selection would have the option of moving to a second screen which would show all candidates in a larger area, say their county or a region. Paper ballots could be printed out and deposited so that a check on the electronic count would be possible.

* There would be a process where candidates falling far short of the threshold would redistribute their contingents of votes to candidates closer to the threshold. Similarly, very popular candidates would redistribute their surplus votes. This way no vote need go wasted while voters would have a much wider choice of candidate and so no longer vote for the least bad option.

This would diminish the power of parties while still according them an important role. Such a system of “transferable power of political attorney” would make parliament vastly more representative, and reward outstanding candidates with the loyalty of supporters outside their narrow constituency.

In an introductory phase the second screen would contain only candidates in your wider vicinity, say your county or city. They might number a score or several dozen. But the idea is that eventually you could vote for anyone in the country. Angus at John O'Groats could vote for Susan in Sussex, thus re-establishing or upholding the unity of the United Kingdom. As there would then be thousands in the database, it would be imperative to come to the poll with a mental or written note of whoever you have identified as best suited to represent you.

This scheme allows for political parties to continue and for new ones to emerge, but it could also accommodate an absence of parties such that the House of Commons would consist of independents only, who would naturally form loose and informal alliances depending on whatever is being debated. In a pre-election phase parties could make recommendations, for example, of local candidates. Otherwise citizens would need to identify among the many candidates one whom they trust, which might not always be easy.

In view of relatively recent and radical constitutional shifts (e.g. with assemblies in Wales and Scotland, mayoral elections), the above proposal is not far-fetched. A beginning could be made by instituting on a trial basis a few dual-member constituencies, say in large towns. Otherwise, one day things will come to a head when events lead to a real crisis and complete discrediting of the party oligarchies. At such time it is imperative to have at hand a sound and properly thought-out replacement which reinvigorates electoral democracy, understood as the principle that any citizen can, indirectly, make their voice heard. This principle is the icing on the cake of rule of law, property rights, freedom of speech and openly regulated markets.