The Commons should be more democratically representative. The Lords should be more demographically representative.
According to the Cambridge English dictionary – https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/representation – “representation” has various meanings and some people confuse two of them.
One is “a person or organization that speaks, acts, or is present officially for someone else”. This is the essence of representative democracy and the purpose of electing MPs. For example, a straight, middle-aged middle-class white man may vote for, and be represented by, a gay, young working-class black woman, or vice versa. Voters vote for candidates with whom they agree politically rather than those who look or act like them. Indeed, an MP from Party X may represent a constituent from Party B on a non-party matter.
That does not work with closed party list voting systems (whether the one-line disproportionate FPTP or multi-line party proportional systems), but it can work with the Single Transferable Vote (STV) and, to a limited extent, open party list systems.
The other meaning of “representation” is “the fact of including different types of people, for example in films, politics, or sport, so that all different groups are represented:” This is demographic representation, commonly known as “diversity”. It looks more representative than democratic representation because one can see an appropriate number of each group among the MPs, but the appearance is superficial and deceptive. The MPs do not necessarily represent their constituents’ political views and the voters have not freely chosen them.
To insist on diversity denies democracy. It denies the right of a black person to choose to be represented by a white person or vice versa. Tinkering with voting systems to ensure diversity reduces voter’s right to choose their own representatives.
I believe that, although democratic representation should have primacy over demographic representation etc. any form of proportional representation would increase demographic representation (diversity) because parties would want to maximise their votes from all groups of people and, in particular, that STV/PR would enable underrepresented groups to elect more MPs like themselves if they wanted to.
The only way to guarantee demographic representation would be to choose “representatives” not by election at all but by sortition, which is similar to the way juries are chosen.
However, there is an increased demand for diversity now. So, we should consider how to increase diversity without denying voters the right to choose their own representatives. My solution fits in with something I have supported for several years for other reasons, although it is outside the scope of this group.
My solution is to continue to elect MPs, although by a better system (such as STV) than FPTP, and replace the House of Lords with a House the members of which are chosen by sortition. So the Lower House would consist of representatives chosen by voters to speak for them and the Upper House would consist of representatives of different types of people; i.e., a demographic cross-section of the adult population, including those who do not vote. An appropriate proportion would support each party and, indeed, no party. So the Upper House would be broadly party proportional, but (and this is important) the members will not have been nominated by, or owe their positions to, parties, so they will be free of party whips and will consequently be quite independent. They will also broadly represent public views on such issues as euthanasia and our relationship with the EU.
STV Action 