Hi Walter, Erm.....it looks complicated.



In common with a lot of people I find it difficult to read pages and tables of numbers.



A voting system has to have the confidence of the electorate so it needs to be expressible in words. That's why FPTP is popular; because it is the simplest of concepts, but it doesn't work where there is more than a binary choice. It doesn't even work then where there is a conflict between votes cast and seats won. Democrats in the US saw Trump triumph with a minority of the popular vote in what was essentially a binary choice. (Sorry. You know this.)



I don't see it as a priority that the system should be designed to produce a majority. (One of the stated aims of PR2) There is nothing inherently wrong with a hung parliament if it reflects the divided opinions of the electorate. If this leads to a more consensual politics so much the better. Thatcher and Blair both had landslide majorities in parliament with well below half of the votes cast. Both abused the power they won. (in my opinion)



The STV system in Scotland for Holyrood elections seems to work well. It is widely believed that this system was foisted on Scotland to prevent the SNP nationalists being able to gain a majority. In that respect it failed while FPTP was delivering hung parliaments in Westminster against its stated aims. The referendum on proposed change to the electoral system for Westminster was cynically manipulated by a campaign which was blatantly disingenuous to the point of outright deceit; which goes to show how easy it is to bamboozle the public.



My favourite example of the demonstrable fairness of STV is that despite gaining only around 7% support in her constituency, Ruth Davidson (whom I personally despise, but who represents a constituency of opinion which in a democracy has a right to be represented) was able to take a seat in Holyrood and indeed become leader of her party there. STV allows the voter to prioritise a local choice and state a party of government choice aswell. Both votes may be cast for the same party or different parties.



Scottish voter intentions in the recent general election for the Westminster parliament are impossible to discern because, being run on FPTP system, tactical voting was rife and targeting of campaign resources and collusion between parties allowed some perverse results in the usual manner of the three horse race. Retrospective application of any PR system to the results of that election would only serve to mislead because of the distortion caused by tactical of voting on the day.

Back testing of election results are not a reliable guide to how a system will work. Too many people cast votes against a candidate or party in a tactical way. STV allows voters to vote FOR what they want. Evidence for the effectiveness of PR2 would be more instructive if tested against STV than FPTP.



Whatever the system it must not only be fair it must be accepted to be fair which means it must be understood by those who are voting.



