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.

 

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.

 

Is it really fair that a candidate with only a small percentage of the vote is elected over other candidates who have a much larger percentage? Will voters accept this?

It is a central tenet of PREVAIL that representation in Parliament is for more important than local representation.  PREVAIL re-defines our notion of 'fair representation'. If a candidate is elected on a small percentage of the vote then the other voters can say that their vote was used to support their party in Parliament. Their vote therefore was valuable and not wasted. It is this perspective that needs to be adopted and which will lead to acceptance of the process. 

Any elected candidate is expected to serve all constituents and should be held to account by the voters.

 

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.

 

Are there other means of transferring seats under PREVAIL?

It is important that the transfer process is completely specified to avoid any ambiguity. The outcome as regards which seats are transferred depends on which algorithm for transfer is adopted. The one used here was chosen for several reasons. It is simple to follow. It tends to transfer seats in which the first vote was lower (although there will always be exceptions to this where a seat with a high first vote is transferred because seats lower in the list were not available). The order in which parties receive transfers (from lower numbers of seats need to higher) helps to prevent 'painting into a corner' where a party needing only a small number of seats finds that the only remaining seats are ones in which it did not stand.

 

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.