Whilst still maintaining the "first past the post" system for electing 546 MPs, the proposed system would also mean that every vote cast for a political party would count towards determining the final make up of the House of Commons.

  The proposal could be modified to help:

"rectify the disparity between the representation of women, ethnic minorities and disabled people in the House of Commons and their representation in the UK population at large ",

by appointing some of the 100 "Select" MPs, referred to in the documents, from "Party Lists" comprising the minority groups referred to above.

SUGGESTED PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORAL REFORM TOR THE UNITED KINGDOM

Background

  Recent General Elections have shown a steady decline in the percentage of the electorate voting. There may be many reasons for this, including: dissatisfaction with the major parties, and with some of the candidates; a general feeling amongst many voters that their vote (effectively) will not count; also, a feeling that, given a large majority, the Government of the day will do much as it pleases, often ignoring the wishes of Parliament. Clearly some electoral reform is desirable.

  It will be difficult to keep to the present "Party" and "first past the post" system, whilst at the same time reflecting more closely the wishes of the voting population, and achieving more control over the executive.

  Perhaps what is needed is an electoral system for General Elections which will:

— Enable voters to vote for the party of their choice.

— Enable voters to vote for the best candidate in their constituency.

— Give voters who feel that their own MP does not reflect their views, the possibility of having a more "in tune" MP who they could contact with their problems.

— Produce a block of MP's whose main duty would be to scrutinise the work of the Government.

— Give smaller parties, and independents, a voice in Parliament.

Proposals

  1.  Make boundary changes to reduce the number of "geographically elected" Constituency MPs, by 100. The 100 seats "saved" would then be available to allocate to a new group of MPs (perhaps to be known as "Select" MPs) to be elected as shown below.

  2.  Use ballot forms which enable the voter to vote (in section 1) for the party of his/her choice, and (in section 2) for the candidate of his/her choice, eg a voter could vote "nationally" for one of the major parties, whilst "locally" supporting a candidate representing one of the smaller parties, or an independent candidate.

  3.  The candidate gaining most votes in each constituency would, as now, become the MP for that constituency—546 MPs would be elected this way.

  4.  The other candidates in each constituency would have the number of votes which they received at the election expressed as a percentage of the total electorate in that constituency as shown on the electoral roll.

  5.  When all votes cast at a General Election had been counted, and results returned to a central administration point, one hundred additional "runners-up", "Select" MPs would be elected by the following system:

(a) The total number of "national" votes for each party (cast in section 1 of the ballot paper) would be expressed as a percentage (rounded up or down to the nearest whole number) of the total votes cast. Each party would then be entitled to that number of seats from the 100 seats available. A party could only be listed in section 1 of the ballot paper if it fielded a candidate in a minimum of (say) 10 constituencies.

(b) "Select" MPs would be appointed for each party, to fill the number of seats allocated to that party, starting (for each party) with the candidate who had the highest percentage of the votes of the electoral roll, and descending in numerical order to the last person to fill the last seat allocated to that party. The only exception might be in the case where a party leader fails to be elected in his or her own constituency, when (in order to ensure continuity) that party leader (if they failed to be elected as a "Select" MP in their own right) would take the last seat available to their party from the "Select" allocation.

(c) In the case of "Others" (assuming that the vote for "Others" was more than 1% of the national vote) the seat, or seats, would be allocated in the same way, but to the candidate, or candidates, whose party was not listed in part I of the ballot paper.

  6.  "Select" MPs would have no constituency of their own, and would therefore be available to spend more time on Select Committees, and with taking up the cases of those members of the public who felt that their own constituency MP was unable to help with their particular case.

Advantages

  1.  Electors, who felt that, under the present system, their votes did not count, would know that, even if their party's candidate was not elected in that constituency, their vote would nevertheless count towards the national total (and so help increase the number of "Select" MPs for that party); also, that there could be a chance that their local candidate (if they received a high enough vote expressed as a percentage of the electoral register) could be one of the "Select" MPs elected.

  2.  The "new style" House of Commons would be more likely to reflect the general voting wishes of the electorate, eg minor parties (gaining more than 1% of the vote nationally) would be guaranteed at least one seat in Parliament.

  3.  Electors could continue to support the party of their choice, without necessarily supporting that Party's candidate in their constituency eg they might vote for their chosen party in the top section of the ballot paper (see example) but either abstain from voting for the party's candidate, or vote for another candidate perhaps a candidate standing on a particular issue.

  4.  "Select" MPs (having failed to gain a parliamentary seat with the "first past the post" system) would (instead of continuing with their normal "day job" employment) be elected to Parliament knowing that they had maybe four years to "work their socks off" in order either to impress the electors in the constituency where they had previously stood; or, perhaps to attract the attention of selection committees in other areas that might be looking for a new candidate. The experience that they would gain as a "Select" MP would be invaluable for their future Parliamentary career. In effect, all "Select" MPs would need to work extra hard to try to ensure that, at the next general election, they came first in their constituency, ie they would not have the "luxury" of a "safe seat", where (as can happen under the present system) they might be tempted to "rest on their laurels".

  5.  Existing MPs (and all candidates) mindful of the fact that the electorate could still vote for the party of their choice but not necessarily for them (the candidate) would be more likely to take into consideration the views and needs of their constituents.