Is there really much appetite for change in the UK? The use of the AV system was rejected by 67.9% of voters in a referendum in 2011.

One of the reasons for rejection of AV, as assessed from analysis conducted at the time, was that voters thought it more complex than the straightforward First Past the Post and preferred the idea that the candidate with most votes was the most suitable to be elected. There was concern amongst some voters that with First Past the Post the winner might be elected on much less than 50% of the vote when there were several opposing candidates who performed well. 

AV in single seat constituencies typically does not deliver proportional representation anyway and can even result in less proportionality than First Past the Post. This may have been a factor in the voting in the referendum.

With PREVAIL existing single seat constituencies can be retained and a yet a greater degree of proportionality can be achieved. 

 

Would it not be better for the UK to adopt one of the existing Proportional Representation voting systems for the General Election (like other countries have done) rather than introduce PREVAIL?

There are many different types of proportional representation voting systems in current use around the world. They are all more complex than PREVAIL. Some require a change to multi-seat constituencies. Some require two tiers of voting, for example, voting first for a constituency member then voting separately for a party. Some require the public to vote on more than one occasion. Many of these systems are difficult for the public to understand. Based as it is on First Past the Post, PREVAIL requires no change in the way voting is undertaken and its principle of re-allocating seats is easy to comprehend.

 

What degree of proportionality would PREVAIL typically produce?

There is no typical outcome with PREVAIL. It all depends on the pattern of voting across the country and the alignment of first, second and third parties within constituencies. In the most disproportionate case resulting from First Past the Post, i.e where one party gains a much larger number of seats than its proportion of the popular vote would justify, then PREVAIL is very likely to rebalance this. 

 

Isn't it the case that PREVAIL would lead to a coalition government because no party is likely to reach more than 50% of the total Parliamentary vote allocation? Isn't coalition government a bad thing?

It has indeed been many years since a party won more than 50% of the popular vote in the UK General Election and this is likely to continue into the future. Coalition government is successful in many countries. It obliges parties, especially the leading party, to compromise and work with others for the good of the country. Its detractors say that it gives too much power and influence to smaller parties that belongs to the coalition. It should be remembered, though, that a single party is itself a coalition of wings or factions within the party and these can also exert undue influence. 

Under the present system a majority of seats gained without a corresponding majority of votes gives undue power to one party. Over half the voting population are then subject to the decisions of a party they did not vote for. A party gaining an overwhelming majority on the basis of a minority of votes is a much greater challenge to democracy than are problems that might arise in a coalition

The decision to give a party more than 50% of the vote will always be in the hands of the public. Over time, under PREVAIL, the public may decide that this is what it wants and vote accordingly. Another possibility is that, over several Parliaments, a particular coalition may become accepted by the public as a formal arrangement and voted for as if it were a single party achieving more than 50% of the vote.

 

People complain about "wasted votes" with First Past the Post. Are there wasted votes with PREVAIL?

If, under First Past the Post, a person votes for a party that did not come first the vote is often refer to as wasted because, had the voter not voted, the result would have been the same. Across the country a huge number of votes are in this sense wasted.

With PREVAIL every vote for a party counts towards its quota and therefore influences the number of seats it can be allocated. It is true that PEVAIL may not be able to fulfil the quota for an under quota party but at least it will usually increase its number of seats. Thus there will be considerably fewer wasted votes than with First Past the Post.

 

Tactical voting has increased in recent UK elections. Is tactical voting possible with PREVAIL?

Under First Past the Post, tactical voting involves a voter voting for a party they would not normally vote for in order to prevent another party from coming first. It can be viewed as an attempt by the voter to circumvent the weaknesses of First Past the Post.

With PREVAIL tactical voting becomes more complex and depends on whether the parties involved will turn out, after the election, to be over or under quota. If the party that the voter wishes to prevent from winning is thought to be over quota and the seat is low in the rankings list, it is possible that the seat could be transferred anyway without the need for tactical voting (although tactical voting could make this more likely). If, however, the party that the voter tactically votes for is thought to be under quota tactical voting can work as with First Past the Post because the seat would not be transferable should it come first.

If the party that the voter wishes to prevent from winning is thought to be under quota then tactically voting for an over quota party could, if it came first, produce a transfer to the under quota party!  

WIth PREVAIL the main concern is with the national vote and its consequence for a party's quota of seats. Tactical voting goes against the grain in that a contribution to the national vote is switched from a party the voter wishes to support in Parliament to one it does not. 

A version of tactical voting that could be effective under PREVAIL would be to vote for an independent candidate to prevent a party candidate from winning the seat knowing that this seat could then not be transferred. This might also be done to prevent a transfer to a party that came second or third.

 

Under First Past the Post it is often the case that the result is largely determined  by marginal seats and, as a consequence, parties put more of their campaign resources Into these constituencies. Is that true for PREVAIL?

Marginal seats, where two or more parties have similar percentages of the vote, are quite likely to be transferred under PREVAIL. This because the vote of the party that came first will be relatively small and thus lower in the rankings list. As with tactical voting, the situation is more complex under PREVAIL and depends on whether the parties involved are over or under quota.

A more significant point is that with PREVAIL many more seats are in a sense "marginal" because they can be subject to transfer and so the result is more difficult to predict.

 

Why is the setting of 20% for the lower threshold a good idea?

For the lower threshold, having too low or no threshold makes it more likely that the elected party would have won with a comparatively small number of votes. This would be difficult for voters to accept. Bearing in mind that the party with the highest number of votes may have a percentage of votes between 30% and 45%, allocating a seat to a party that obtained 25% does not, in the interests of proportionality, seem unreasonable.

 

Doesn't the introduction of parties without constituency under PREVAIL PLUS encourage pressure groups, who aren't really political parties, to try and gain a foothold in Parliament?

The criterion for becoming a party without constituency will make it very difficult for such a group to succeed. It is very hard to win 10% or more of the vote in several constituencies. The opportunity to be a party without constituency is intended to help new and also small parties achieve representation.

 

Didn't PREVAIL start out as an attempt to bring proportional voting to parliament rather than as an electoral PR system? 

Yes, that is true. Having a voting procedure in parliament where every party has a total vote in proportion to its share of the popular vote is known as Interactive Representative. It has a long history but has never been adopted. Its main shortcoming is that, as well as not balancing the actual representation of members, it results in members of some parties having a much inflated value of their vote to compensate for fewer members. 

PREVAIL is now a proportional representation electoral voting system specially designed for single seat constituencies such as in the UK general election.