Proportional Commons

The main business in the Commons today covers two debates on:

- Road safety
- Obligation to assess the risk of genocide in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territories

The debates may continue until 5pm. There are unlikely to be divisions.

See commonsbusiness.parliament.uk/Document/102...

Timeline - SI 2026 - Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026 - Statutory Instruments - UK Parliament Timeline for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026

statutoryinstruments.parliament.uk/instrument/d...

This chart is a proportional recount of a vote in the House of Commons. The top two bars show the number of MPs from each party who voted Aye or No in the division. The bottom two bars show the number of voters those MPs represent. For example, if a party won two million votes in the general election and half of that party's MPs voted in the division, that would represent one million voters. 2026-02-04: Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026 The 392 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 13,134,949 voters. The 116 MPs voting 'No' represented 10,402,972 voters. In many cases, more voters are represented by the MPs on the losing side. This is because seats don't match votes with First Past the Post (FPTP). Recounts are shown in terms of ideal MPs who all represent the same number of people. The method is not a simulation of a PR elected Commons. It is intended to highlight the distortion of FPTP. For more details, see the FAQ: https://tinyurl.com/4hxyc8e7

2026-02-04: Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026

The 392 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 13,134,949 voters.
The 116 MPs voting 'No' represented 10,402,972 voters.

Aye majority = 2,731,977

See ALT text and 🧵

At end add “except papers prejudicial to UK national security or international relations.”

That's presumably this one:

I thought it was okay to post, tbh. But an image search found that link with more background.

Was there smoke on the water too? 🙂

Inspired by Space 1999, a Miniature Volkswagen Space Transporter Alvis Pi, a Space 1999 fan, created this model, the Volkswagen Space Transporter, mixing an Eagle with a Volkswagen van, the end result is fantastic. It was built from a VW Hasegawa kit, plastic pip...

Here's some more detail about the piece:
designyoutrust.com/2021/01/insp...

Five Reform UK MPs voted no, but there is no vote recorded for Nigel Farage:

votes.parliament.uk/votes/common...

This chart is a proportional recount of a vote in the House of Commons. The top two bars show the number of MPs from each party who voted Aye or No in the division. The bottom two bars show the number of voters those MPs represent. For example, if a party won two million votes in the general election and half of that party's MPs voted in the division, that would represent one million voters. In many cases, more voters are represented by the MPs on the losing side. This is because seats don't match votes with First Past the Post (FPTP). Recounts are shown in terms of ideal MPs who all represent the same number of people. The method is not a simulation of a PR elected Commons. It is intended to highlight the distortion of FPTP. For more details, see the FAQ: https://tinyurl.com/4hxyc8e7

It passed the proportional recount too:

@rhapsodyangel.bsky.social

This chart is a proportional recount of a vote in the House of Commons. The top two bars show the number of MPs from each party who voted Aye or No in the division. The bottom two bars show the number of voters those MPs represent. For example, if a party won two million votes in the general election and half of that party's MPs voted in the division, that would represent one million voters. 2026-02-03: Universal Credit (Two Child Limit) Bill: 2nd Reading The 453 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 15,092,103 voters. The 104 MPs voting 'No' represented 8,413,018 voters. In many cases, more voters are represented by the MPs on the losing side. This is because seats don't match votes with First Past the Post (FPTP). Recounts are shown in terms of ideal MPs who all represent the same number of people. The method is not a simulation of a PR elected Commons. It is intended to highlight the distortion of FPTP. For more details, see the FAQ: https://tinyurl.com/4hxyc8e7

There was one division in the debate. The result would have been the same if seats matched votes:

Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill - Parliamentary Bills - UK Parliament Current version of Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill with latest news, sponsors, and progress through Houses

bills.parliament.uk/bills/4059

This chart is a proportional recount of a vote in the House of Commons. The top two bars show the number of MPs from each party who voted Aye or No in the division. The bottom two bars show the number of voters those MPs represent. For example, if a party won two million votes in the general election and half of that party's MPs voted in the division, that would represent one million voters. 2026-02-03: Universal Credit (Two Child Limit) Bill: 2nd Reading The 453 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 15,092,103 voters. The 104 MPs voting 'No' represented 8,413,018 voters. In many cases, more voters are represented by the MPs on the losing side. This is because seats don't match votes with First Past the Post (FPTP). Recounts are shown in terms of ideal MPs who all represent the same number of people. The method is not a simulation of a PR elected Commons. It is intended to highlight the distortion of FPTP. For more details, see the FAQ: https://tinyurl.com/4hxyc8e7

2026-02-03: Universal Credit (Two Child Limit) Bill: 2nd Reading

The 453 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 15,092,103 voters.
The 104 MPs voting 'No' represented 8,413,018 voters.

Aye majority = 6,679,085

See ALT text and 🧵

🤷‍♂️ I should stick to psephology!

Praya Dubia?

No idea really, but it was an interesting search 🙂

Q: Could recounts be used for other elected bodies? Yes, nothing about the recount method is specific to the UK House of Commons. Any elected body, where the number of representatives from each group does not reflect the number of people who voted for that group, can be processed. For example, the following shows recounts of votes in a UK local council and the Canadian Parliament, respectively:

To quote the Proportional Commons FAQ (tinyurl.com/4hxyc8e7):

This chart is a proportional recount of a vote in the House of Commons. The top two bars show the number of MPs from each party who voted Aye or No in the division. The bottom two bars show the number of voters those MPs represent. For example, if a party won two million votes in the general election and half of that party's MPs voted in the division, that would represent one million voters. In many cases, more voters are represented by the MPs on the losing side. This is because seats don't match votes with First Past the Post (FPTP). Recounts are shown in terms of ideal MPs who all represent the same number of people. The method is not a simulation of a PR elected Commons. It is intended to highlight the distortion of FPTP. For more details, see the FAQ: https://tinyurl.com/4hxyc8e7

This chart is a proportional recount of a vote in the House of Commons. The top two bars show the number of MPs from each party who voted Aye or No in the division. The bottom two bars show the number of voters those MPs represent. For example, if a party won two million votes in the general election and half of that party's MPs voted in the division, that would represent one million voters. In many cases, more voters are represented by the MPs on the losing side. This is because seats don't match votes with First Past the Post (FPTP). Recounts are shown in terms of ideal MPs who all represent the same number of people. The method is not a simulation of a PR elected Commons. It is intended to highlight the distortion of FPTP. For more details, see the FAQ: https://tinyurl.com/4hxyc8e7

There were two divisions in the debate, one of which would have changed result, if seats matched votes:

https://commonsbusiness.parliament.uk/Document/101843/Html?subType=Standard#_idTextAnchor006

This chart is a proportional recount of a vote in the House of Commons. The top two bars show the number of MPs from each party who voted Aye or No in the division. The bottom two bars show the number of voters those MPs represent. For example, if a party won two million votes in the general election and half of that party's MPs voted in the division, that would represent one million voters. 2026-01-28: Opposition Day: Youth unemployment The 91 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 5,319,782 voters. The 283 MPs voting 'No' represented 6,804,037 voters. In many cases, more voters are represented by the MPs on the losing side. This is because seats don't match votes with First Past the Post (FPTP). Recounts are shown in terms of ideal MPs who all represent the same number of people. The method is not a simulation of a PR elected Commons. It is intended to highlight the distortion of FPTP. For more details, see the FAQ: https://tinyurl.com/4hxyc8e7

2026-01-28: Opposition Day: Youth unemployment

The 91 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 5,319,782 voters.
The 283 MPs voting 'No' represented 6,804,037 voters.

No majority = 1,484,255

See ALT text and 🧵

https://commonsbusiness.parliament.uk/Document/101843/Html?subType=Standard#_idTextAnchor005

This chart is a proportional recount of a vote in the House of Commons. The top two bars show the number of MPs from each party who voted Aye or No in the division. The bottom two bars show the number of voters those MPs represent. For example, if a party won two million votes in the general election and half of that party's MPs voted in the division, that would represent one million voters. 2026-01-28: Opposition Day: British Indian Ocean Territory The 102 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 8,242,259 voters. The 284 MPs voting 'No' represented 6,925,922 voters. In many cases, more voters are represented by the MPs on the losing side. This is because seats don't match votes with First Past the Post (FPTP). Recounts are shown in terms of ideal MPs who all represent the same number of people. The method is not a simulation of a PR elected Commons. It is intended to highlight the distortion of FPTP. For more details, see the FAQ: https://tinyurl.com/4hxyc8e7

2026-01-28: Opposition Day: British Indian Ocean Territory

The 102 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 8,242,259 voters.
The 284 MPs voting 'No' represented 6,925,922 voters.

Aye majority = 1,316,337

But result was No because seats don't match votes.
See ALT text and 🧵

Timeline - SI 2026 - Medical Devices (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2026 - Statutory Instruments - UK Parliament Timeline for Medical Devices (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2026

statutoryinstruments.parliament.uk/instrument/C...

This chart is a proportional recount of a vote in the House of Commons. The top two bars show the number of MPs from each party who voted Aye or No in the division. The bottom two bars show the number of voters those MPs represent. For example, if a party won two million votes in the general election and half of that party's MPs voted in the division, that would represent one million voters. 2026-01-28: Draft Medical Devices (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2026 The 294 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 7,580,311 voters. The 108 MPs voting 'No' represented 8,914,732 voters. In many cases, more voters are represented by the MPs on the losing side. This is because seats don't match votes with First Past the Post (FPTP). Recounts are shown in terms of ideal MPs who all represent the same number of people. The method is not a simulation of a PR elected Commons. It is intended to highlight the distortion of FPTP. For more details, see the FAQ: https://tinyurl.com/4hxyc8e7

2026-01-28: Draft Medical Devices (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2026

The 294 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 7,580,311 voters.
The 108 MPs voting 'No' represented 8,914,732 voters.

No majority = 1,334,421

But result was Aye because seats don't match votes.
See ALT text and 🧵

This chart is a proportional recount of a vote in the House of Commons. The top two bars show the number of MPs from each party who voted Aye or No in the division. The bottom two bars show the number of voters those MPs represent. For example, if a party won two million votes in the general election and half of that party's MPs voted in the division, that would represent one million voters. In many cases, more voters are represented by the MPs on the losing side. This is because seats don't match votes with First Past the Post (FPTP). Recounts are shown in terms of ideal MPs who all represent the same number of people. The method is not a simulation of a PR elected Commons. It is intended to highlight the distortion of FPTP. For more details, see the FAQ: https://tinyurl.com/4hxyc8e7

This chart is a proportional recount of a vote in the House of Commons. The top two bars show the number of MPs from each party who voted Aye or No in the division. The bottom two bars show the number of voters those MPs represent. For example, if a party won two million votes in the general election and half of that party's MPs voted in the division, that would represent one million voters. In many cases, more voters are represented by the MPs on the losing side. This is because seats don't match votes with First Past the Post (FPTP). Recounts are shown in terms of ideal MPs who all represent the same number of people. The method is not a simulation of a PR elected Commons. It is intended to highlight the distortion of FPTP. For more details, see the FAQ: https://tinyurl.com/4hxyc8e7

This chart is a proportional recount of a vote in the House of Commons. The top two bars show the number of MPs from each party who voted Aye or No in the division. The bottom two bars show the number of voters those MPs represent. For example, if a party won two million votes in the general election and half of that party's MPs voted in the division, that would represent one million voters. In many cases, more voters are represented by the MPs on the losing side. This is because seats don't match votes with First Past the Post (FPTP). Recounts are shown in terms of ideal MPs who all represent the same number of people. The method is not a simulation of a PR elected Commons. It is intended to highlight the distortion of FPTP. For more details, see the FAQ: https://tinyurl.com/4hxyc8e7

There were three divisions in the debate, none of which would have changed, if seats matched votes:

This amendment would bring the Act into force on the day on which it receives Royal Assent.

This chart is a proportional recount of a vote in the House of Commons. The top two bars show the number of MPs from each party who voted Aye or No in the division. The bottom two bars show the number of voters those MPs represent. For example, if a party won two million votes in the general election and half of that party's MPs voted in the division, that would represent one million voters. 2026-01-27: Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill: Amendment 1 The 87 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 5,037,376 voters. The 307 MPs voting 'No' represented 7,461,716 voters. In many cases, more voters are represented by the MPs on the losing side. This is because seats don't match votes with First Past the Post (FPTP). Recounts are shown in terms of ideal MPs who all represent the same number of people. The method is not a simulation of a PR elected Commons. It is intended to highlight the distortion of FPTP. For more details, see the FAQ: https://tinyurl.com/4hxyc8e7

2026-01-27: Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill: Amendment 1

The 87 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 5,037,376 voters.
The 307 MPs voting 'No' represented 7,461,716 voters.

No majority = 2,424,340

See ALT text and 🧵

This amendment, taken together with amendment 4, would provide that regulations made under Clause 3 are subject to the affirmative procedure.

This chart is a proportional recount of a vote in the House of Commons. The top two bars show the number of MPs from each party who voted Aye or No in the division. The bottom two bars show the number of voters those MPs represent. For example, if a party won two million votes in the general election and half of that party's MPs voted in the division, that would represent one million voters. 2026-01-27: Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill: Amendment 2 The 61 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 4,223,111 voters. The 306 MPs voting 'No' represented 7,463,622 voters. In many cases, more voters are represented by the MPs on the losing side. This is because seats don't match votes with First Past the Post (FPTP). Recounts are shown in terms of ideal MPs who all represent the same number of people. The method is not a simulation of a PR elected Commons. It is intended to highlight the distortion of FPTP. For more details, see the FAQ: https://tinyurl.com/4hxyc8e7

2026-01-27: Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill: Amendment 2

The 61 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 4,223,111 voters.
The 306 MPs voting 'No' represented 7,463,622 voters.

No majority = 3,240,511

See ALT text and 🧵

This amendment would require British citizens to be prioritised for places on UK Foundation programmes and for interviews and places on speciality training programmes from 2027 onwards.

This chart is a proportional recount of a vote in the House of Commons. The top two bars show the number of MPs from each party who voted Aye or No in the division. The bottom two bars show the number of voters those MPs represent. For example, if a party won two million votes in the general election and half of that party's MPs voted in the division, that would represent one million voters. 2026-01-27: Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill: Amendment 9 The 91 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 6,154,973 voters. The 374 MPs voting 'No' represented 11,853,036 voters. In many cases, more voters are represented by the MPs on the losing side. This is because seats don't match votes with First Past the Post (FPTP). Recounts are shown in terms of ideal MPs who all represent the same number of people. The method is not a simulation of a PR elected Commons. It is intended to highlight the distortion of FPTP. For more details, see the FAQ: https://tinyurl.com/4hxyc8e7

2026-01-27: Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill: Amendment 9

The 91 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 6,154,973 voters.
The 374 MPs voting 'No' represented 11,853,036 voters.

No majority = 5,698,063

See ALT text and 🧵