Direct Party and Representative Voting (DPR)

Voting Systems compared

The aim of this page is to compare the various voting systems which are used, or could be used, to elect Members to Parliament - see comparison table

‘First Past the Post' is the electoral system we use in a UK General Election. The election is divided up into separate contests in local areas, constituencies. Voters are asked to choose a candidate to be the local representative in parliament. Candidates may (or may not) be representatives of political parties.

The direct result of a General Election is the election of new MPs to the House of Commons.
The indirect consequence, but the main purpose of the election, is the choice of a party to form the Government, and the selection of the Prime Minister follows from this.

The result of any election depends on many factors, but it is easy to forget that one of the major factors is the electoral system that is used.


Electoral systems differ in the way they translate national votes into legislative seats. The result of an election depends in part on how people vote, but also in part on how the votes are counted. Majoritarian systems such as First Past the Post (FPTP) may produce an election result with a big difference between the share of the votes each party wins in the election, and the share of votes that each party has in the parliament. Proportional Representation (PR) systems try to reduce the disparity between a party's percentage of the national vote and its share of the parliamentary votes. With a PR Voting system if a party wins 30% of the votes in the country it should win approximately 30% of the votes in the Parliament.

The number of parliamentary votes each party gets depends on the electoral system

First Past the Post (FPTP)
An underlying feature of FPTP is that in an FPTP election votes are cast for different individual candidates. The purpose of the election is to elect a person to represent the constituency (local area). This is not directly a vote for a political party. However candidates are usually also representatives of their political parties. In the election there is only one winner. For convenience it is said that the Party of the MP wins the constituency, but this is only indirectly the case because technically it is the individual who wins. A weakness of such an electoral system is that it cannot be certain whether such a vote is an expression of support for the candidate or the candidate's party.


Does this matter? The voter's dilemma

The overall election result is taken as the sum of the results (expressed as constituencies or 'seats' won by each party) of all the individual constituency contests. This way of counting the result does not necessarily reflect the actual balance of votes cast but nevertheless determines which party or parties will form the Government. This counting method, in effect, ignores all the votes cast for losing candidates.
The system is often called the 'winner takes all'.

Does this matter? FPTP in a multiparty democracy

PR Systems
In PR systems such as PR List , AMS / MMP, or DPR Voting, voters cast a vote directly for a party. The votes for each party can be added up to give a total across the country, or across regions. This determines by simple proportionality how many votes each parliamentary party has in the parliament. For the prospective voter, every vote counts.
Each PR system then has different ways of determining who should be the representatives of the people in the parliament.

' Pure' PR (PR List)

In Closed List PR, the party vote determines by simple proportionality how many votes each parliamentary party has in the parliament. There is no separate ballot for the individual cadidates. The Representatives, the members of the parliamentary party are 'elected' from a list of party candidates. The numbers elected are proportional to the party vote and in strict order according to the predetermined party list. The voter has no say in which individuals of each party are elected.

Hybrid PR Systems
(Systems that combine PR with FPTP)
In Hybrid PR systems such as MMP (Mixed Member Proportional), AMS (Additional Member System), and DPR (Direct Party and Representative Voting), voters have two votes, one for the party and one to elect a constituency MP. The party vote largely decides the total number of votes each parliamentary party gets in Parliament. The second vote is to choose the MP the voter wants to represent the electorate they live in. The members of the parliamentary party are elected wholly or partly by the second vote.

MMP and AMS combine PR, FPTP and Party List systems. Some members of the parliamentary party are elected as constituency MPs by FPTP in single member constituencies. The Party vote is used to elect additional MPs from a party list in order to improve the proportionality of the result. Using your party vote is not necessarily simple or intuitive - see here. With this system MPs can be elected by two different methods, some have constituencies and some do not. Compared with simple FPTP, AMS requires fewer constituencies, and thus a process of redrawing all the constituency boundaries.
Mixed member systems differ slightly from country to country. In AMS the number of MPs in the parliament is fixed, and as a consequence the result may not be fully proportional. With MMP additional MPs may be required to achieve the required degree of proportionality. The degree of proportionality varies depending on the ratio of MPs elected by FPTP to the number of party list MPs, and the rules by which the party list MPs are appointed.

DPR Voting is a simple system where voters have two separate votes.
The voter has a one ballot paper to elect a Member of Parliament for the local area (constituency). As a result of this ballot, a single MP is elected in each constituency by simple majority - the Representative vote. The voter also has a ballot paper to vote for a party to govern the country (The ‘Party’ vote). The Party vote alone determines how many votes each parliamentary party has in the parliament.
For the purposes of votes in the House of Commons each Parliamentary Party shares its parliamentary votes out equally amongst its own MPs (so each MP exercises one share of their party’s total vote). A result is that all MPs have the same democratic credentials and the same constituency and parliamentary responsibilities. They are elected in the same way, they are all single member constituency MPs.
Because there are no Party List MPs, there is no change to the overall number of MPs so the constituencies and their boundaries used in the existing 'First Past the Post' system would be unchanged. This would make the administrative process of change to a PR system easier and cheaper than for some other PR systems.

Preferential voting systems (AV and STV)
Some electoral systems focus of the choice of the candidate rather than the party, asking the voter to express first, second, third etc preferences. Different methods are used to count these preferential votes.
The simplest preferential system is the Alternative Vote where MPs are elected in single member constituencies. This voting system was proposed for the UK but was rejected by the referendum in 2011.
The Single Transferable Vote (STV) is a system of preferential voting combined with multimember constituencies. This allows the voter to choose from several candidates to elect several MPs. If candidates are party representatives and voters vote for the candidates on party lines, an STV election result may be close to a PR result. However STV is not a PR system and the degree of proportionality depends on how votes for the different parties are distributed across the country, and other variables such as the size of the multimember constituencies and the numbers of parties competing in the election.



Table comparing voting systems which could be used for electing MPs to the House of Commons

A simple Voting System Comparison

AKA
Delivers Proportional Representation Government
Single member Constituency MP
Uses Party List
Wasted Votes
One type of MP
Simple Vote?
Simple Count?
Simple to understand
FPTP or SMP
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
AV
NO
YES
NO
NO
NOT MANY
YES
YES
NO
YES
AV+
APPROX
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
STV
APPROX
NO
NO
YES
NOT MANY
YES
YES
NO
NO
MMP

YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
Additional Member System
AMS
APPROX
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
List
PR
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
DPR Voting
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
RUP
APPROX
NO
YES
YES
NOT MANY
NO
YES
NO
NO
SV
NO
YES
NO
NO
NOT MANY
YES
YES
YES
YES
The Limited Vote
NO
NO
NO
YES
NOT MANY
YES
YES
YES
YES
Approval voting
NO
YES
NO
NO
NOT MANY
YES
YES
YES
YES
The Borda Count
NO
YES
NO
NO
NOT MANY
YES
YES
YES
NO
Delivers Proportional Representation Government
Single member Constituency MP
Uses Party List
Uses Multimember Constituencies
Wasted Votes
One type of MP
Simple Vote?
Simple Count?
Simple to Understand
See DPR Voting on YouTube (video made in Canada)
See also a short description of DPR Voting (a 2 page pdf), and a full description (20 page pdf)
MMP and AMS are very similar to DPR Voting in many respects, and have the common goals of electing Single Member Constituency MPs as well as achieving a form of Proportional Representation.
AMS/MMP (a mixed member Proportional system) is a voting system used in Scotland and backed by the Green Party.
Compare AMS/MMP with DPR Voting here

The Single Transferable Vote (STV) is promoted by the Electoral Reform Society and others as a PR system for the UK.
Compare STV with DPR Voting here.

DPR Voting addresses both the weaknesses of FPTP, and the disadvantages of the AMS / MMP and STV systems, and so neutralises most of the arguments for keeping FPTP.

First Past the Post (FPTP)
‘First past the post' is a simple way of electing a single winner, for example, in an individual constituency. It can also be used in multiple member constituency elections. In a single member election the candidate with the highest number, not necessarily a majority, of votes is elected.

When this method is used to elect MPs to parliament, and thereby elect a Government, the number of MPs elected for each party is unlikely to be proportionate to the number of votes cast nationwide for the different parties. Small parties with thinly spread support may have proportionately fewer MPs elected. Coversely a small party with tightly concentrated support may have proportionately more MPs elected. It is possible for party A to have fewer votes than party B but still have more MPs, and thus be able to form the Government.
FPTP is used in the UK, Canada, and eleswhere. It favours and works best with a two political party system.
see a criticism of FPTP

Single Transferable Vote (STV)
The single transferable vote (STV) gives the voter a choice of candidates in a multimember constituency. This usually includes a choice of candidates with the same party allegiance. It is a preferential voting system so the voter ranks the candidates on the ballot paper in order of preference. The voter cannot vote directly for a party.
STV is a voting system designed to achieve a (more or less) proportional result. There are variations of the system. To achieve proportionality the system requires constituencies to be organised as multi member constituencies (MMCs) .
In a 4 or 5 member MMC, with 5 or 6 parties competing, the total number of candidates on ballot paper may be quite large. In practical terms it is relatively demanding to ask the voter to express a reasoned preferential choice when there may be more than ten candidates on the ballot paper.
Counting is also complex. Each vote is initially allocated to the voter's preferred candidate. Depending on the number of electors and the number of candidates, each candidate needs a minimum number of votes to be elected. Counting is done in stages. A candidate is eliminated at each stage. When a candidate is eliminated, or has enough votes to be elected, surplus votes are transferred to the remaining candidates. There are different methods of doing this.
While not a strictly proportional electoral system, results may be broadly proportional, although this does depend on the interplay between the numbers of parties competing in the election and the size of the multimember constituencies.
Multimember constituencies work best in areas of high population density, and worst in sparsely populated rural areas where geographically the constituency may be very large. Setting the size (number of MPs elected) and geographical boundaries of MMCs can be contentious since there may be a perceived party advantage, and thus scope for gerrymandering.
The system can produce 'unexpected and distorting outcomes' - see Malta 1981, 1987, 1996, 2008
STV is used in Ireland, Australia , and elsewhere.
STV seems well suited to UK local district council elections in the UK because many district wards are already organised as multimember wards. The FPTP system tends to give all the seats to one party eg in a 3 member ward the result is more likely to be 3-0 than 2-1

Additional Member System (Mixed Member Proportional)
Additional Member System - AMS (see also Mixed Member Proportional - MMP) is a voting system designed to achieve a (close to) proportional result. To achieve proportionality there are two ways members can be elected – by election as a constituency MP and by election from a party list. In most models the voter casts two votes: one for a constituency representative and one for a party. The constituency MPs are elected by FPTP within their constituency. The party vote is used to elect Additional Members from the party list in order to achieve a proportional result. In AMS using the party vote is not necessarily simple or intuitive see here.
In MMP, but not AMS, if a party wins more constituency seats than justified by its proportion of the total vote, the size of the Parliament is increased so that the overall outcome is proportional to the votes, with other parties receiving additional list seats (Overhang). For this reason AMS is not a fully proportional system.
In MMP, but not AMS, to qualify for additional members from the party list, a party must exceed a predetermined threshold of votes - 5% in Germany.
AMS /MMP is used in Germany (MMP), Scotland(AMS), Wales (AMS) and elsewhere
See the main differences between MMP and DPR Voting

Party List Proportional Representation
Party-list proportional representation is a voting system designed to achieve proportional representation (PR) In a closed party list system, voters vote directly for the party. Parties make lists of candidates to be elected, and seats get allocated to each party in proportion to the number of votes the party receives. The larger the size of the constituency, the more proportional the result.
There are variations based on this system.
Party Lists are used in Israel, Italy and elsewhere. UK Members of the European Parliament are elected by a closed list system with regional constituencies.
A criticism of Party list PR is that the MPs are not elected directly in a constituency contest. Rather they are appointed by virtue of being on the Party List of candidates. The Party draws up the Party list of candidates. The candidate at the top of the list is elected first. Therefore whereabouts on the list is critical to the candidates' chance of being elected. MPs owe their election to the Party rather than the voters, and this gives the Party considerable power over its MPs. Similarly there are no Constituency MPs, and therefore the system does not provide a close link between an MP and their constituents.

The Alternative Vote (AV)
The Alternative Vote also known as Instant-runoff voting (IRV) is a preferential voting system used to elect a single winner. Voters rank candidates in order of preference. Counting is in stages. Votes for the first choice candidate are counted as one vote. If a candidate gets iover 50% of votes cast, that candidate wins. Otherwise, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. The second preferences of the eliminated candidate are counted and added to the candidates remaining on the ballot. This process is repeated until a candidate receives over 50% of the votes, or has more votes than the only remaining candidate.
AV is used in Australia and elsewhere. It is often to elect leaders of groups, and Mayors.
As a system for electing single winners such as Mayors or Police and Crime Commissioners.

The Supplementary Vote (SV)
The Supplementary Vote is used to elect a single winner. Voters mark their first choice and (if they wish) a second preference. All the first choice votes are counted. If no candidate receives over 50%, the top two candidates continue and all other candidates are eliminated. The second preferences from the eliminated votes are then counted and added to the first round totals. The candidate with the most votes is declared the winner.
SV is used for Police and Crime Commissioners and directly elected English mayors such as the Mayor of London. The Supplementary Vote (SV) is a shortened version of the Alternative Vote (AV).
This system strongly favours the two largest parties and can result in the election of a candidate who wins fewer first and second preferences than one of the eliminated candidates would have done.

Alternative Vote Plus (AV+)
The Alternative Vote Plus, is a semi-proportional voting system invented by the 1998 Jenkins Commission.
AV+ is an additional member system. As in the Alternative Vote voting system, candidates are ranked numerically in order of preference. To ensure proportionality, an additional group of members are elected through a regional party lists system. These members are 20% of the whole parliament. Constituency boundaries would need to be redrawn to accommodate a smaller number of constituency MPs.
The system is untried.

Rural–urban proportional representation (RUP), also known as Flexible District PR, is a combination of voting systems designed by Fair Vote Canada. Rural–urban proportional uses the single transferable vote (STV) for urban constituencies and mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) for rural ridings. It recognises that STV works better in more densely populated urban areas, and but is much less suitable in sparsely populated rural constituencies.
Rural–urban proportional has been proposed as one of three possible systems to be adopted in British Columbia should voters decide to adopt a proportional voting system in a 2018 referendum in the province.

Total Representation
Total Representation involves election of Constituency and ‘Party' MPs. Constituency MPs are elected by the FPTP method. Party MPs are elected by pooling all the votes cast for the unsuccessful candidates in all the constituencies and dividing them proportionally among all the parties which fielded candidates in the election.
Constituency boundaries would need to be redrawn to accommodate a smaller number of constituency MPs.
The system is untried.

Direct Party and Representative Voting (DPR Voting)
Voters cast two votes - a 'Party' vote, and a 'Representative' vote. Each vote is a single choice - the voter marks their choice with a single X
The 'Party' vote determines the success of the party. The 'Representative' vote determines which individual becomes the MP for the local constiituency.
The candidate who gets the most 'Representative' votes is elected as the MP for the constituency (a simple plurality).
The 'party' votes, aggregated nationwide, determine the number of votes each party has in the parliament and therefore which party, or parties, can form the Government.

For votes in parliament, the Party's parliamentary votes are shared out equally amongst the parties MPs.
As a result, each MP has a vote that has a value which may be more or less than one.
On ‘non party political’ issues, each MP has an equal vote.

see comparison
between DPR Voting and STV as a direct replacement for FPTP.
DPR Voting is a way of introducing proportionality to our political system while retaining much of the existing familiar electoral system. It addresses the main criticisms of the FPTP and avoids the main criticisms of other proposed systems of electoral reform.
 
Comparison of the features of DPR Voting and STV (The Single Transferable Vote)
STV
DPR Voting
PR
STV – seats in Parliament are approx proportional to overall votes
(but note that STV 'can produce unexpected and distorting outcomes' - Malta 1981, 1987, 1996, 2008
DPR Voting – Party voting strength in Parliament is proportional to votes cast in the election (but small parties may fail to achieve the threshold)
Constituencies
STV is intended for Multimember constituencies
DPR Voting is intended for single member constituencies and would not need constituency sizes to change.
Constituency Boundaries.
Boundaries and constituency size are potentially contentious, and are important to the way the system works
Boundaries and constituency sizes are not important to the way the system works and do not affect the election result.
Party Neutrality
STV favours, or works better with, a three party system
(because, in order to achieve proportionality, MMCs need to be large when 4 or more parties with evenly distibuted support compete.)
DPR Voting can accommodate any number of parties but small party representation depends on where the threshold is set.
Simplicity
STV is a preferential voting system. Ease of voting depends on the size of the constituency and the number of candidates.
Counting is a complex process.
The electoral system is difficult to explain.
Voting and counting are simple, quick and familiar.
The basics of the system are easy to explain
It would require some changes to the way MPs vote in parliament
Wasted Votes
A few. Some voters will still find that their first preference candidate never gets elected.
There are no wasted votes. Every 'Party' vote cast makes a (small) difference to the result of the election.
Safe Seats
There are no safe seats in either system
Tactical Voting
With STV, there is some scope for tactical voting.
With DPR Voting, (party) tactical voting is redundant.
‘Marginals'
The significance of Marginal Constituencies is much reduced.
There are no Marginal constituencies
Voter Choice
STV – the voter may have a choice of candidates from within one party from which to choose.
DPR Voting – the voter has two votes, one for their choice of party, and one for their choice of MP. The voter can vote for the party of choice and the candidate of choice without the one compromising the other.
Party Lists
Neither system uses a Party list.
In Parliament
STV - Parliament would be populated with MPs from different parties in numbers broadly proportional to the votes cast for the parties.
DPR Voting – Parliament would be populated with MPs elected as the local choice. It is not possible to say if this would reflect the present plurality system or whether the mix would in time reflect overall voting trends.
Small Party Representation.
STV would increase small party representation.
With DPR Voting there is an imperative for every party to win at least one constituency in order to exercise its full party vote value. If a party does not win a constituency but does exceed the voting threshold it is limited to one MP with a single vote (Automatic election).
Independent MPs
It is hard for Independent MPs to be elected because many votes will still be cast for a party label. In addition the candidate has a much larger constituency to campaign over.
DPR Voting – Party labels would be less of a handicap to the Independent Candidates and the smaller constituency would make campaigning easier and cheaper for independents.
Psephology
STV - interpreting voting results is complex.
DPR Voting – Results would be much simpler to interpret than STV or FPTP.

Multimember constituencies (MMCs) have disadvantages compared to single member constituencies (SMCs)

Single Member constituencies (SMCs)

  • SMCs are smaller geographically, and have smaller numbers of constituents
  • Being smaller they encourage personal and local involvement in politics.
  • The MP can be better aware of, and responsive to, the concerns of constituents.
  • Individual candidates can be known locally, even if they are not nationally prominent.
  • Election campaigns can be conducted by small organisations at lower cost per candidate.
  • Smaller constituencies encourage local involvement in campaigns rather than central control.
  • Personal contact between MPs, candidates, and constituents is easier, and thus more likely.

Multi Member constituencies (MMCs)

  • MMCs typically have 5 members and are therefore 5 times bigger (size of total electorate, but also geographically) than single member constituencies
  • Having several MPs elected for your constituency means the constituent has a choice of MP to contact. (but each MP has a very much larger constituency to cover.)
  • Having several MPs elected for your constituency means the direct line of responsibility between MP and elector is blurred
  • Larger MMCs disadvantage Independent candidates who may have limited campaigning resources.
  • An MP may have to do much more travelling in a larger constituency
  • In an inner city MMC the geographical size of the constituency may be manageable, but in rural areas the sheer size of a 5 member MMC may make it impractical for constituents to visit their MP, or vice versa, so MMCs are reduced to, eg, 3 member constituencies
  • The degree of proportionality of the system depends on the interraction of the size of the MMC and the number of political parties contesting the election.

How is DPR Voting different from MMP or AMS?
(MMP - The Mixed Member Proportional system is also known as AMS, the Additional Member system.)

Similarities and differences
MMP and AMS are very similar to DPR Voting in many respects, and have the common goals of electing Single Member Constituency MPs as well as achieving a form of Proportional Representation.

MMP/AMS are known as Mixed Member electoral systems. Some MPs are directly elected as constituency MPs, some are elected by the party list method, which may be a regional list..
In MMP and AMS sufficient additional MPs are appointed from Party Lists by a calculated method (the method can vary slightly) so that the expanded parliamentary parties have approximately the number of votes that reflect their PR share.

DPR Voting is a 'Single Member, Party Proportional' electoral system.
All MPs are directly elected as constituency MPs. One MP for each constituency.
DPR Voting achieves Party Proportionality simply, as follows. The Party vote in the General Election determines the 'proportional number' of votes each parliamentary party should have in Parliament. These votes are shared out amongst the elected members of each parliamentary party. All the MPs of a particular party will have an equal share of the Party's total number of votes.

The main consequences are
1 With MMP there are two types of MP, those elected as constituency MPs and those elected from the Party List. Election from the List is by an agreed formula. The closed party list system reduces voter choice in favour of party control. Parties choose the candidates and determine their priority order on the list

With DPR voting, all MPs are directly elected as constituency MPs *. There are no Party List MPs.

2 When changing from FPTP, MMP requires either fewer larger constituencies or a larger number of MPs in the parliament (to accommodate the Party List MPs who do not have a constituency).

DPR does not require constituencies to be redrawn. The system works with the same constituency boundaries and the same number of MPs.

3 With MMP you may have ‘overhang' seats. 'Overhang' seats occur when a party wins more constituency seats than it would be entitled to from its proportion of (party list) votes. 'Overhang seats may be managed by increasing the overall number of MPs. Different rules apply to different systems for dealing with such a situation.

With DPR Voting, the equal sharing of the Parliamentary Party votes amongst the elected members (resulting in a decimal vote value for each MP) means no extra MPs are necessary. *

4 With MMP a medium sized party can have MPs elected by the closed party list system to the parliament without contesting any constituencies. (unless the allocation of list seats to a party is made conditional on winning a constituency)

With DPR Voting, to be elected, all MPs must fight and win a campaign in a constituency. There is an imperative for every party to win at least one constituency in order to exercise its full Parliamentary Votes. If a party does not win a constituency but does exceed the voting threshold it is limited to one MP with a single vote (*Automatic election).

5 With MMP, the makeup of the parliament is a combination of constituency MPs and Party List MPs, the whole broadly reflecting the party political balance in the country.

In DPR voting the party political balance is achieved for votes in parliament because MPs have an equal share of their Parliamentary Party's votes. Similarly to FPTP, all MPs are locally elected constituency MPs and they have a responsibility to represent all their constituents equally on apolitical issues.

* except in the case of ‘Automatic election', where a party does not get any constituency MPs elected but still manages to get enough Party votes to exceed the agreed threshold. In this case, the party concerned qualifies for one MP (the Party Leader) to be elected to the parliament as an MP without constituency.



 

Direct Party and Representative Voting is a form of Proportional representation (PR) which has the simplicity of the existing 'First past the post' system, maintains the single member constituency, and requires little change to the existing voting system
 

DPR Voting - simple, practical electoral reform