PV Now does not go against the proposed Commission but prepares the ground for its likely findings. If they go for ATV, PV can easily be extended to that. If they go for AMS, PV is a better foundation for that than the usual FPTP. If they go for a referendum then multi-choice with PV is much better than last time’s simplistic yes/no binary choice.
How can anybody argue against that? It’s win-win. It’s not PV or Commission, it’s PV and Commission plus better options for Commission..
<Alan, 04 Dec 25>
I believe I can. Here goes . . .
Killer Concern #1
As ChatGPT explains, in great detail, neither STV nor AMS can conceivably be implemented before the next election, even if detailed work on implementation started tomorrow. For instance, from a standing start, AMS took over 10 years to implement in Scotland, and Scotland has a tiny population compared with England and NI combined.
Also, ChatGPT predicts that implementing STV in England, Scotland and Wales would take “2–3 electoral cycles of work, not one.”
2.1. STV (as in Northern Ireland)
To use STV for Westminster:
- You’d need to replace almost all existing single-member constituencies with multi-member constituencies (3–6 MPs each).
- That means a complete Boundary Commission redesign, public consultations, and likely political battles in every part of the UK.
- You’d need new rules for how many MPs per area, how to group current seats into larger ones, how to ensure geographic and community coherence, etc.
- Counting STV for 650 seats, each with multi-member races, is a much bigger administrative and logistical lift than AV-style PV on existing boundaries.
In NI, STV works because:
- The Assembly is smaller and designed around multi-member constituencies.
- The political context (power-sharing, community representation) is specific and fragile.
Rolling that system out for every Westminster seat by 2029 (or earlier) would be a massive constitutional project – you’re talking about boundary redistributions + legislation + public education + systems + testing. Realistically, that’s 2–3 electoral cycles of work, not one.
2.2. AMS (as in Scotland/Wales)
To use AMS across the UK:
- You must decide how many list MPs vs constituency MPs (e.g. 50–50? 60–40?);
- Create regional list areas and decide their boundaries;
- Decide whether lists are open or closed (do voters choose people or just parties?);
- Decide whether the list formula is the current Additional Member formula, full MMP, or something else;
- Accept that there will now be two types of MPs:
- Constituency MPs (directly elected)
- List MPs (chosen from party lists, often seen as less “locally accountable”).
Again, that’s a major redesign of how Parliament is composed, not just a tweak to how we mark the ballot. It’s politically heavy and takes time.
So, in summary:
STV and AMS are not “drop-in replacements” for the next UK General Election.
They require re-drawing boundaries, changing the number and types of MPs, and re-educating the entire electorate. Done properly, that’s a 10-year project, not a 3–4 year one.
In contrast:
PV in single-member constituencies is something we can legislate and run properly by the next GE, because it keeps the same basic map and the same number and type of MPs. The only big change is how we count.
Killer Concern #2
Both AMS and STV are designed to deliver party-political proportionality, not genuine voter preference. I believe it’s time for our country – the country that invented RPD – to return to concept of RPD, that’s to say one MP for each constituency returned on the basis of individual voter preferences, not party-political manipulation. Back when there were only two major parties likely to form a government, FPTP might have been a reasonable electoral system. It clearly isn’t today. And, even as far back as 1909, Sir Winston Churchill said of FPTP voting, “The present system has clearly broken down. The results produced are not fair to any party, nor to any section of the community. In many cases they do not secure majority representation, nor do they secure an intelligent representation of minorities. All they secure is fluke representation, freak representation, capricious representation.”
Fortunately, the answer is simple, Optional Ranked Choice Voting, aka Preferential Voting, aka PV Now.
Killer Concern #3
Implementing AMS or STV in the UK would do nothing to increase voter confidence in politics and politicians in the UK. Stacked up head-to-head against PV they look like grubby manipulations that ignore the real preferences of individual voters.
In contrast, if we can create a coalition of single-issue and cross-party campaigns to align behind PV (not some mythical alternative that’s not even the best answer for the UK, I believe we can actually persuade voters – especially young voters – to get seriously excited about voting at the next GE, thereby paving the way for a wider fresh start to politics in the UK during the next Parliament.
Killer Concern #4
AMS and STV make the chances of ideal, genuinely Independent Candidates ever getting elected virtually zero. As you know, I see the election of at least one genuinely Independent MP at the next election (the name Mark Le Sage somehow comes to mind 😊) a vital ingredient in enabling a fresh start to politics in the UK to blossom post 2029.
P.S. As Groucho Marx might have said, “These are my Killer Concerns, and if you don’t like them… well, I do have more Killer Concerns.”😊
Bye for now, Alan