Alex Parsons

4. As the Government said in their submission (EVO 11) “The legitimacy of the voting system, on which decisions are made that affect the whole country, must be considered paramount.” Given this the current system has a significant issue - multiple different versions of the results of votes. 5. House of Commons votes are counted in two separate ways: the procedurally significant count done by the tellers (which determines the outcome in the chamber) and the count via the passes (which is how individual votes are publicly communicated via Hansard). Reviewing only votes in July 2025, 19 of the 25 votes (76%) shown on votes.parliament.uk indicate a mismatch between the total number of individual votes on each side and the teller totals. 6. Generally this is by one or two votes (and might sometimes reflect tellers including themselves incorrectly) - but sometimes one or two votes is important. In 2024, a vote was passed by a single vote, and the two systems disagreed on if this was a win or a draw (effective defeat given the Speaker votes against change in cases of a tie). Procedurally, the teller count was the one that matters - but this is an area there should be absolutely zero uncertainty about

Ah I thought I'd counted at some point, in some Procedure Committee evidence. It doesn't matter until suddenly it does! committees.parliament.uk/writtenevide...

votes.parliament updated and we've now pulled that data down - so this is now a *bad* example. But the point stands on other, better, examples!

Off by one: How Parliament counts votes is out of date We shouldn't have several different tallies for the same vote.

More on this www.mysociety.org/2024/05/14/o...

Ten minute rules don't go anywhere etc, but it would be nice if the Commons didn't have two counting systems that reach different conclusions.

Beyond transparency | Fabian Society Fabian Society

For @thefabians.bsky.social , @juliacushion.bsky.social and I wrote about improving parliamentary data/standards around MPs financial interests: fabians.org.uk/beyond-trans...

TWFYAlex's comment on "AMA: mySociety (TheyWorkForYou, WriteToThem, WhatDoTheyKnow, etc.) - Monday 8th December 2025 @ 13:00" Explore this conversation and more from the ukpolitics community

How we think about (and categorise different kinds of) 'pro democracy tech' www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics...

Talking through the editorial approach to the voting summaries
www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics...

TWFYJulia's comment on "AMA: mySociety (TheyWorkForYou, WriteToThem, WhatDoTheyKnow, etc.) - Monday 8th December 2025 @ 13:00" Explore this conversation and more from the ukpolitics community

How we try to make change within institutions
www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics...

Where we're laying the groundwork to be able to include public statements MPs (and others) make about their vote www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics...

Enjoyed doing this, a few of the things if people want to read things. Here's a thread going a bit further on an answer about our data publishing bsky.app/profile/alex...

We've got the new constituencies on MapIt, want to hook into DC's candidates data again, and then some ??? about how much we can bring new TWFY features to the Senedd/S Parliament. Always good to chat! (and I think I said I was going to book something in about something unrelated!)

Feels like what's been happening is the creation of exile as a criminal punishment, for some citizens but not others.

Will pick this up again after little person in bed if anyone has more QUESTIONS

Current year is the highest since 2008 - what happened in 2008? Well it looks like one vote had a high number of abstains, and can then switch back to the website to see more votes.theyworkforyou.com/decisions/di...

How many times did MPs 'abstain' in recent years? Simple little query

So you can just do SQL queries of 20 years of voting data, without even having to download any of it. e.g. here the people who have the most votes in the Commons in the database.

TWFYAlex's comment on "AMA: mySociety (TheyWorkForYou, WriteToThem, WhatDoTheyKnow, etc.) - Monday 8th December 2025 @ 13:00" Explore this conversation and more from the ukpolitics community

Small tangent from this comment asking about our Votes data APIs - what's really cool about how we're publishing bulk data is you can use duckdb to query it www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics...

Added APPGs All-Partly Parliamentary Group on Dementia in Sport Digital Creators Future Generations Hazaras National Parks and National Landscapes Pakistani Minorities Public Sector Efficiency The Baking Industry The Southeast and Gatwick Diamond Growth Gateway The Survivors of Fayed and Harrods Anti-Social Behaviour Breast Cancer Cancer in Children and Young People Credit Unions Equitable Governance Family Hubs Indian Traditional Sciences Literacy Male Suicide and Mental Health Open Finance and Payments Outdoor Learning Play Responsible Credit All-Party Parliamentary Kidney Group Broadcasting, Entertainment and Arts Unions Future Homes, Skills and Innovation

Removed APPGs Cycling and Walking Women and Enterprise Fusion Energy Industrial Strategy Male Suicide Open Banking and Payments Park Homes Pensions and Growth The UK Fresh Produce Network Christians in Parliament Usher Syndrome

Have run the difference checker for the new December APPG register pages.mysociety.org/appg-members...

Talking so far about FOI, technology and democracy, our editorial approach with voting summaries, and anything else you want to know.

Doing this in a few minutes, your last chance to ask questions (I mean, I will always answer questions here. Love questions)

On a purely factual point, Trevor Phillips’s column in the Times misrepresents our reporting in casting doubts on claims that there were more boys called Patel than Smith at Dulwich in 1980 (we did not report 1976 as the year it occurred). 1980 roll shows 13 Patels and 12 Smiths.

Like, obviously it rains a lot, but Glasgow does look nice when it rains

Happy to concede that the constitution allows the Lords to delay, that there is a fuzzy space around PMBs that mean it might effectively be a power to kill legislation.

It's just not a good analysis to say there are no democratic implications in doing so.

The Lords is a non-democratic space within a democratic system, and is intensely aware of that in how it does and doesn't use constitutional powers it unquestionably has.

In part because of the recognition that the Lords' negotiating power comes from having those powers hovering nearby but using them would raise questions that might be disruptive.

It is, in fact, such an obvious argument that every time the Lords might be able to do something interesting with its powers, there is an internal debate about if it's democratically proper that they do.

A coherent democratic argument that the Lords shouldn't delay legislation is that no-one elected them. It's an explicitly anti-democratic part of the constitution. You can think it's good that's in there, but that's the simple, coherent democratic argument.

Have previously had a problem with how loose Elliott is shifting between "democracy"/"constitutional"/"just a good idea" - and look, what democracy means is contested and none of us are bound to agree "that's democratic" because there was a Commons vote 75 years ago. That's silly.

It is therefore not merely the case that it is legally possible for the House of Lords to delay the enactment of legislation for a year; it is also the case that, if and when the Lords chooses to do so, it acts pursuant to a process that reflects a balance of power determined and blessed by the democratic chamber. In such circumstances, it is difficult to see how it can coherently be argued that judicious use by the House of Lords of its delaying power is democratically dubious or otherwise constitutionally improper.

This is incidentally the bit I think is the bad leap in this blog publiclawforeveryone.com/2025/06/20/w...

Oh yeah, agree. I just think there's a "think again" narrative of the Lords that tries to hint what's going on is "oh, they made a good, reasoned, argument" - rather than this is backed with a stick, and sometimes the stick has some views.