P.S. PR-centric Social Online Get-together - differences between PV and PR
Roger Cracknell
The next call is in my calendar for next Tuesday, the 6th.
Ø Please vote to show your preference/availability (as it’s not out of the question that I may have to reschedule last-minute)
Roger
To-Do list à
a) Please sign this Petition for PR
b) Subscribe to getp...@googlegroups.com
A simple and universally accessible way to keep
in touch with other pro-PR individuals and/or groups
Subscribe via the Google Groups website, or
send an email to: getprdone...@googlegroups.com, or
email roger.c...@volteuropa.org requesting to be added to the list
From: Roger Cracknell [mailto:roger.c...@volteuropa.org]
Sent: 01 January 2026 21:14
To: 'al...@meekings.com'
Cc: 'Stark, Louis (Cllr)'; 'getp...@googlegroups.com'; 'kevin....@leeds.gov.uk'; 'susanna...@makevotesmatter.org.uk'; 'Peter'
Subject: RE: PR-centric Social Online Get-together - differences between PV and PR
Good evening Alan and welcome to our 1st discussion of 2026...
Whilst I agree that getting rid of FPTP prior to the next GE is going to be a challenge and that any other system would be an improvement, I don’t see how PV (ORCV) is any more voter-centric, which is ultimately the purpose of democracy.
To me, PV is more akin to FPTP in that you can maintain the current Constituencies and the single MP principle and differs only in that the (single) MP elected doesn’t have such a huge minority.
However, giving voters the option to have preference votes doesn’t necessarily give you a better 1st-choice votes to MPs relationship...
Ø Is there some “terminology-trouble” here?
Ranked Choice Voting RCV is usually not proportional
In the form most people mean by “RCV” (also called Instant-Runoff Voting, IRV):
· It is used in single-winner elections (mayors, governors, presidents).
· Voters rank candidates.
· The system still elects only one winner.
Because only one seat is filled, minority viewpoints don’t receive representation in proportion to their support. So IRV/RCV in single-winner races is not a proportional representation (PR) system.
When ranked voting is proportional
Ranked ballots can be used in proportional systems when:
· Multiple seats are elected in the same district, and
· A proportional counting method is used.
Examples:
· Single Transferable Vote (STV) – used in Ireland, Malta, and some local U.S. elections
→ This is a proportional representation system.
· Cambridge, Massachusetts city council elections (multi-seat RCV/STV)
In these cases:
· Parties or groups win seats roughly in proportion to their vote share.
· Ranked ballots help transfer surplus and eliminated votes fairly.
That PV wouldn’t necessitate coalitions might make it the easier to get overall support, so pragmatically-speaking it has value as an alternative to FPTP.
But that’s the pretty much the only reason I’d accept it over a truly-PR system.
Roger
From: al...@meekings.com [mailto:al...@meekings.com]
Sent: 01 January 2026 19:21
To: 'Roger Cracknell'
Cc: 'Stark, Louis (Cllr)'; kevin....@leeds.gov.uk; susanna...@makevotesmatter.org.uk; 'Peter'
Subject: RE: PR-centric Social Online Get-together - differences between PV and PR
The differences between PV and PR
This is a great question, Roger. Indeed, some folks – including me – would argue that it's today's 'key question' in electoral system terms.
The major differences between PV and PR are as follows:
- Preferential Voting (PV) is a voter-centric system for electing one representative per constituency. Voters rank the candidates in order of personal preference. Hence, the candidate who is elected as the constituency's MP is, by definition, the one who can command the broadest support locally, making them clearly accountable to the people they've been elected to represent.
This, as you'll know, is the fundamental principle behind the concept of Representative Parliamentary Democracy (RPD) and accountability that our country originally invented and pioneered, principally with the Model Parliament in 1295 and then the Putney Debates in 1647.
- In contrast, Proportional Representation (PR) systems are party-politically-centric. Their primary aim is to ensure that the number of seats that each party holds in Parliament reflects as closely as possible its share of the overall vote, often by using party lists or multi-member constituencies. This clearly weakens the direct link between a specific MP and a specific constituency of voters.
In short, PV strengthens the original idea of RPD, with one place choosing one person to speak for it, while PR prioritises party-political proportionality over individual accountability.
For ease of reference, the main systems of PR used around the world are these three:
1. AMS / MMP (Mixed-Member systems)
- Examples: Germany, Scotland, Wales and New Zealand.
- Voters elect constituency MPs, then additional party list seats are used to correct disproportionality.
- Purpose: balance local representation with party proportionality.
- Reality: creates two types of MPs, and shifts power to parties.
2. STV (Single Transferable Vote)
- Examples: Ireland and Northern Ireland
- Uses multi-member constituencies where voters rank candidates.
- Seats are allocated proportionally within each constituency.
- Purpose: proportional outcomes, while allowing voter choice between candidates.
- Reality: breaks the 'one constituency, one MP' accountability model.
3. List PR (D’Hondt, Sainte-Laguë, etc)
- Examples: Spain, Portugal, Israel and much of continental Europe.
- Voters mainly vote for parties, not individual MPs.
- Seats are allocated using a mathematical formula, D’Hondt being the most common. Strictly speaking, D’Hondt is not an electoral system, but a seat-allocation formula used within List PR and some other mixed systems.
- Purpose: maximise proportionality between votes and party seat totals.
- Reality: MPs' accountability is primarily to the parties who support their candidature, not to the voters who elect them.
Personally, I think today's problem in the UK is that our country's voters are now so disgusted by FPTP that they'd prefer anything else that sounds even vaguely different . . . and, clearly, PR meets this brief.
Unfortunately, today's stark reality is there's no way that PR (i.e. either AMS or STV) could conceivably be implemented in advance of the next UK-wide General Election.
Personally, I happen to believe that PR (in the form of Optional Ranked Choice Voting – i.e. PR (ORCV) – really is the optimal system for the UK both in the short and longer term, for reasons I could explain in further detail separately, if anyone so wishes.
However, the other brilliant advantage of PV over PR is we don't need to have the PV/PR argument today. Instead, this is a topic that can safely be left to the proposed National Commission after the next government is elected in 2029, if not sooner.
Meanwhile, to rekindle a credible sense of optimism and progress in improving today's dysfunctional political system in Westminster (DPSW) and incompetent Civil Service in Whitehall (ICSW), we simply need to work together to get PV(ORCV) on the statute book to replace FPTP prior the next General Election, whenever it comes.
Bye for now, and very best wishes for the coming New Year, Roger.
Alan
P.S. When's your next online get-together likely to be held?
From: Roger Cracknell <roger.c...@volteuropa.org>
Sent: 01 January 2026 04:11
To: al...@meekings.com
Cc: 'Stark, Louis (Cllr)' <Louis...@herefordshire.gov.uk>; kevin....@leeds.gov.uk; susanna...@makevotesmatter.org.uk; 'Peter' <peterc...@virginmedia.com>
Subject: RE: Here's my draft of the Minutes of this evenings' PR-centric Social Online Get-together
Remind me Alan, why PV and not a PR system...?
Roger
To-Do list à
a) Please sign this Petition for PR
b) Subscribe to getp...@googlegroups.com
A simple and universally accessible way to keep
in touch with other pro-PR individuals and/or groups
Subscribe via the Google Groups website, or
send an email to: getprdone...@googlegroups.com, or
email roger.c...@volteuropa.org requesting to be added to the list
From: al...@meekings.com [mailto:al...@meekings.com]
Sent: 31 December 2025 22:37
To: 'Stark, Louis (Cllr)'; 'Roger Cracknell'; kevin....@leeds.gov.uk; susanna...@makevotesmatter.org.uk; 'Peter'
Subject: RE: Here's my draft of the Minutes of this evenings' PR-centric Social Online Get-together
Hello Louis (and others on the call),
Sincere apologies, Louis, for my delay in responding to your email following Roger's online get-together on Mon 1 Dec 25.
The good news, though, is I believe the team I represent has since made significant progress in responding to the helpful comments you made during the call – see my comments in blue below.
Meanwhile, bye for now, and very best wishes for the coming New Year,
Alan
07785 258 741
From: Stark, Louis (Cllr) <Louis...@herefordshire.gov.uk>
Sent: 01 December 2025 19:54
To: Roger Cracknell <roger.c...@volteuropa.org>; kevin....@leeds.gov.uk; susanna...@makevotesmatter.org.uk; al...@meekings.com; 'Peter' <peterc...@virginmedia.com>
Subject: RE: Here's my draft of the Minutes of this evenings' PR-centric Social Online Get-together
OFFICIAL
Hi Roger
I raised the following points
- Go for a quick win by pushing for Westminster to adopt one of the existing PR systems in Scotland, Wales or NI.
At first sight, this appears to be a brilliant suggestion, especially as it would be difficult for MPs in Westminster to argue that what's good enough for voters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is somehow not good enough for voters in England too.
Unfortunately, research shows that the legislation and implementation of the AMS system used in Scotland and Wales and the STV system used in Northern Ireland both took over a decade to implement from a standing start. Moreover, even if this timescale could be reduced significantly – and, so far, we've been unable to find any expert who thinks this is possible in practice – there are still two other significant timescale-related factors to bear in mind:
1. As things currently stand, the National Commission for Electoral Reform, as recommended by the APPG for Fair Elections, was supposed to start its work in January 2025. So, already, a whole year of the Commission's work has been lost, and there's still no governmental timescale in place for its establishment and reporting. Realistically, therefore, there's zero chance of FPTP being replaced by Parliament with something better in advance of the next General Election, if the National Commission for Electoral Reform is allowed to become the first, essential step on the critical path to electoral improvement.
2. To be certain of having an improved electoral system in place prior the next General Election, we also need to be aware that the next election could come far sooner than 2029. Indeed, Nigel Farage has already urged his Reform Party to be ready, in all respects, for a General Election in 2027 – see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g75we8jk9o.
Without wishing to sound overly dramatic, if we, the people, allow the next General Election to be held under FPTP, then the consequences for Representative Parliamentary Democracy (RPD) in the UK will be catastrophic.
Obviously, here's not the place to explain why I say this, not least as this outcome is easily avoidable if, instead, we focus our attention on ensuring the implementation of Preferential Voting, in the form of Optional Ranked Choice Voting (ORCV) in advance of the next General Election.
- Need to incentivise voters to back PR systems by showing that it would benefit them economically; related to this was paralleling the successful campaign the Brexiteers ran for showing how the NHS would be better-off too, if that could be shown to be true here. Also, could we show this from experiences elsewhere in Europe?
I completely agree. Personally, I've been building Business Cases for major programmes of transformational performance improvement since 1988. So, this is one of my core skills. Indeed, given my contacts in academia, I've already secured the support of two Professors, one at Cranfield School of Management and the other at Edinburgh Business School, to help the team I represent build a compelling Business Case for the adoption of ORCV. More news in due course.
- Was not convinced about the APPG inspired Commission as could not guarantee the Govt would act on it; really needed to get a spokesperson at the heart of the present Govt to give PR traction.
I completely agree. Fortunately, the team I represent is now in a position, through the good offices of a family member, to approach the person in today's Labour government whom, we believe, is best placed to serve as the Labour Party's internal champion for ORCV. At this stage, this contact needs to be kept in strict confidence. However, this initiative is likely to succeed only if most, if not all, of today single-issue and cross-party campaign groups who favour electoral improvement can be persuaded to support the implementation of PV (ORCV) as soon as legislatively achievable.
Also, I've arranged to talk early in the New Year to someone who's arguably the UK's leading amateur psephologist (think Sir John Curtice but unpaid 😊), who just happens to be a long-standing Labour Party member and former Labour Party Constituency Chair. So, I'm hoping his advice will be especially helpful. Again, more news in due course.
Meanwhile, for clarity around what's meant by PV (ORCV), I'm attaching a copy of typical information and instructions to give to voters to explain how the ORCV process works in practice.
- Suggested an animated mascot or equivalent to front the campaign that resonated with voters, particularly the new 16 and 17 year olds; associated with this was some slogan that would resonate with the public, “ under PR you will be better off or something similar.
- Supported Gordon Brown’s proposal for a PR elected Lords as a backdoor way of achieving electoral reform in the Commons.
Regards
Louis