Proportional Commons

Any connection with @politicsuk.bsky.social ?

Perhaps they will replace Nobel Prizes -- then one day, we may have "FIFAs" in peace, economics, physics and goalkeeping? 🤔

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

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 four divisions in the debate, three of which would have changed result, if seats matched votes:

Yes. He is now independent.

This amendment prevents use of the reserved mandation powers in this Bill until the Government produces a report on the reasons why the powers are needed and the effects of the use of the powers and resolves any issues raised in the report.

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. 2025-12-03: Pension Schemes Bill: Amendment 15 The 153 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 11,419,662 voters. The 301 MPs voting 'No' represented 7,286,657 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

2025-12-03: Pension Schemes Bill: Amendment 15

The 153 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 11,419,662 voters.
The 301 MPs voting 'No' represented 7,286,657 voters.

Aye majority = 4,133,005

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

This amendment would remove the ability of the Government to set mandatory asset allocation targets for certain pension schemes, specifically requiring investments in UK productive assets such as private equity, private debt, and real estate.

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. 2025-12-03: Pension Schemes Bill: Amendment 16 The 142 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 9,937,749 voters. The 301 MPs voting 'No' represented 7,315,934 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

2025-12-03: Pension Schemes Bill: Amendment 16

The 142 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 9,937,749 voters.
The 301 MPs voting 'No' represented 7,315,934 voters.

Aye majority = 2,621,815

But result was No 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

@stevedarlingmp.bsky.social
@wendychambld.bsky.social
@sarahgibsonmp.bsky.social
@charlotte-cane-mp.bsky.social
@sarahdykeld.bsky.social

Here is the proportional recount of the vote tonight on your NC3. As you see, it would have succeeded, if seats matched votes.

This new clause would allow the Secretary of State to establish investment funds to encourage investment in areas such as high streets, social housing, care homes, clean renewable energy, and other investments with clear social benefits.

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. 2025-12-03: Pension Schemes Bill: New Clause 26 The 76 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 4,677,011 voters. The 296 MPs voting 'No' represented 7,172,655 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

2025-12-03: Pension Schemes Bill: New Clause 26

The 76 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 4,677,011 voters.
The 296 MPs voting 'No' represented 7,172,655 voters.

No majority = 2,495,644

See ALT text and 🧵

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to provide, by regulations, for the use of a valid SR1 form to make it easier for a person to demonstrate that they are terminally ill for purposes related to compensation from the PPF or FAS.

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. 2025-12-03: Pension Schemes Bill: New Clause 3 The 86 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 8,304,152 voters. The 298 MPs voting 'No' represented 7,195,703 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

2025-12-03: Pension Schemes Bill: New Clause 3

The 86 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 8,304,152 voters.
The 298 MPs voting 'No' represented 7,195,703 voters.

Aye majority = 1,108,449

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

The Green popular vote in GE24 ought to have resulted in around 42 seats, even without the recent surge in support.

To see what difference this would make to votes in the Commons, give @propvoting.bsky.social a follow 🙂

One more statistic?

In the last 12 months, 47% of 324 divisions held in the Commons would have changed aye/no result, if seats matched votes -- including every vote on the budget resolutions.

That is, in these votes, opposing MPs represented more people but the government won anyway 🤷‍♂️

Yes, not sure what happened. I'm pretty sure I added it! Just posted a follow-up.

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. 2025-12-02: Budget Resolution No. 9: Basic rate limit and allowance for 28-29 to 30-31 The 345 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 8,242,588 voters. The 174 MPs voting 'No' represented 14,364,932 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

Missed the graphic on this one, somehow. Apologies:

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

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 seven divisions in the debate. Every single one of them would have changed result, if seats matched votes.

See ALT text.

See publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbi...

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. 2025-12-02: Budget Resolution No. 64: Rates of alcohol duty The 349 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 9,877,311 voters. The 172 MPs voting 'No' represented 13,251,210 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

2025-12-02: Budget Resolution No. 64: Rates of alcohol duty

The 349 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 9,877,311 voters.
The 172 MPs voting 'No' represented 13,251,210 voters.

No majority = 3,373,899

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

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/FinanceDocuments/BudgetResos261125.pdf#page=20

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. 2025-12-02: Budget Resolution No. 51: Inheritance tax (pension interests) The 360 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 10,508,779 voters. The 164 MPs voting 'No' represented 12,670,513 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

2025-12-02: Budget Resolution No. 51: Inheritance tax (pension interests)

The 360 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 10,508,779 voters.
The 164 MPs voting 'No' represented 12,670,513 voters.

No majority = 2,161,734

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

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/FinanceDocuments/BudgetResos261125.pdf#page=19

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. 2025-12-02: Budget Resolution No. 50: Inheritance tax (limiting reliefs etc) The 321 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 8,194,520 voters. The 181 MPs voting 'No' represented 14,556,757 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

2025-12-02: Budget Resolution No. 50: Inheritance tax (limiting reliefs etc)

The 321 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 8,194,520 voters.
The 181 MPs voting 'No' represented 14,556,757 voters.

No majority = 6,362,237

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

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/FinanceDocuments/BudgetResos261125.pdf#page=14

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. 2025-12-02: Budget Resolution No. 28: Capital gains tax (employee-ownership trusts) The 360 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 10,100,785 voters. The 162 MPs voting 'No' represented 12,560,377 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

2025-12-02: Budget Resolution No. 28: Capital gains tax (employee-ownership trusts)

The 360 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 10,100,785 voters.
The 162 MPs voting 'No' represented 12,560,377 voters.

No majority = 2,459,592

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

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/FinanceDocuments/BudgetResos261125.pdf#page=10

2025-12-02: Budget Resolution No. 9: Basic rate limit and personal allowance 28-29 to 30-31

The 345 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 8,242,588 voters.
The 174 MPs voting 'No' represented 14,364,932 voters.

No majority = 6,122,344

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

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/FinanceDocuments/BudgetResos261125.pdf#page=10

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. 2025-12-02: Budget Resolution No. 5: Income tax (savings rate for future) The 363 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 10,271,874 voters. The 164 MPs voting 'No' represented 12,666,980 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

2025-12-02: Budget Resolution No. 5: Income tax (savings rate for future)

The 363 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 10,271,874 voters.
The 164 MPs voting 'No' represented 12,666,980 voters.

No majority = 2,395,106

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