Arguments about Proportional Representation

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.