The Lizzy PR-2 Voting System (2024)

Evie’s notes: please note well that first, Katrina is writing this in January 2022. And second, I can assure you, her predictions for the 2024 election result were genuinely written before the result became known. I would’ve posted this article before that result but fate/the Goddess intervened and I was forced to spend the entire afternoon and evening trying to unblock our drain with a snake. To no avail, as it turned out, until the Friday morning, when it cleared with a whoosh! on the fourteenth attempt.

Anyway – here is Katrina’s article from January 2022, in which she introduces you to her PR-2 voting system and then burbles on about a few things, in her usual idiom (and do pay attention at the back there, because all of this is sure to play a part in the ongoing narrative). Although her predictions are, well, half-right perhaps, her analysis seems spot on to me. Especially when she states that once you know the result you have a lot more information about what the cabal’s gameplan is, which is clearly to bring in PR in order to enable fascism. This also requires creating the internal socio-economic conditions for fascism (austerity etc.) coupled with a perceived external threat (Russia). Add a war in the Middle East and conflict in Africa and you have a flood of refugees into Europe, thus enabling the entire continent to go full-on fascist by the 2029 EU elections. Suffice to say that liberal socialism is the only antidote to this, and don’t say you weren’t warned…

On that note – those like yours truly who are familiar with most elections being rigged should be intrigued by the fact that this one almost certainly wasn’t (aside, perhaps, from a few important constituencies here and there). The clue is in the turnout, which Katrina greatly overestimated (partly because of a kind of cognitive bias from her own world where they have a very engaged public with well over 80% turnouts). This clearly points to the fact that the cabal, having done their genuine polling (reflected in the local election results from May), discovered that the natural, un-rigged result gets them exactly the result they want. They have also sent a very strong message to Starmer, reminding him he is their tool, and they can get rid of him in 5 years very easily. The fact he got fewer votes overall than Corbyn in both 2017 and 2019 (and most of those only because people wanted the Tories out), and only around a third of the vote, is the most important information about this election. And if the agenda is to have PR, to enable fascism, then this 34% utterly reinforces that, since having one third of the vote and two thirds of the seats (and only elected with some 20% of the eligible electorate) clearly indicates the system doesn’t work. Now add up Tories plus Farage and you have a fascist government (the cabal could merge those two anytime they like, remember). And once again, this likewise demonstrates that a proper (liberal) socialist party would’ve trounced it. The cabal are acutely aware of this, of course – meaning all they really need to do is ensure there is no socialist option. Their shills in the so-called ‘socialist campaign group’, as with Bernie Sanders in America, perform their job admirably there, hoodwinking people into voting Labour or Democrat, rather than forming a new socialist party and changing everything. The true takeaway from this election result is that the majority of the British voters already voted for fascism, in one guise or another. Admittedly, most of them might not realise it so overtly, but that’s what they did. ‘Centrism’, after all, is ‘right-wing’. The ‘Green’ Party are simply eco-fascists, and clearly have their manifesto dictated to them by the World Economic Forum. So, add Tories, Reform, Starmer’s crypto-fascist Labour, and that’s a serious majority. Throw in a crisis as a pretext for ‘unity government’ and there you go. Like I say, don’t ever tell me you weren’t warned…

[Update: I’ve decided to split this into three parts, because it does end up fairly long. This part 1 is her PR-2 system, part 2 is her predictions, and part 3 is her parallel world electoral history. Blame her, not me.]

Ok. I have become minded to do a post and pin it to this section. That post will be a brief summary of the manifesto, somewhat along the lines of some of our campaign leaflets. I will then regularly update it to provide links to more detailed articles explaining each policy. It seems a sensible approach.

This post I thought I would write about our voting system, which is a two-choice PR (hence the PR-2 designation). I should briefly outline this before I embark on a burble, or you’ll get angry with me (likewise I’ll probably have to split it into parts, knowing me).

So, you have two choices. This is not a ranking or an alternate choice thing. Your second choice counts for half a vote. You can use it for the same, or different, to your first choice. There is no minimum threshold for smaller parties (roughly every 0.25% of the national vote would get you a seat). There is a none of the above (NOTA) option. For every 0.25% NOTA get an MP on the additional list, randomly selected from the population, like with jury service. Constituencies, with closed lists, range in size from 5-10 seats. As for independents, if they get 2.5% in their constituency, it’s onto the additional list with them. I’ll give you some more details later on, but hopefully that gives you a good picture to be going along with.

So now I get to burble.

One of the policies I most enjoyed concocting back in 1991, when we formulated our beautiful manifesto, was the innovative voting system, which formed part of our sweeping constitution reforms. Aside from anything else, our voting system actually gets people engaged in democracy, so we have turnouts well above 80% now, and it finally fulfilled its promise in our 2015 election, which pundits quickly took to calling the ‘Rainbow Parliament’, given the number of minor parties that got in (more on that later). This engagement is somewhat aided by one of our many public holidays which you don’t have (we have a lot more than you, including various pagan ones – it helps reduce alienation, you know), namely ‘Democracy Day’, which takes place on the first Thursday in May each year (which is the usual date for elections, and also, every four years, the date when the People’s Assembly gets reshuffled, as it were – more on that later). So we have a whole load of carnivals, with women dressed as Suffragettes and suchlike.

For children, in the few weeks running up to an election they would have a mock one of their own, all organised by themselves, with candidates chosen and debates to be had, with supporters learning desktop publishing to produce pamphlets and the like (sometimes in old fashioned Diggers & Levellers type language, which is great fun). The voting age was lowered to 16, by the way, and furthermore, anyone who gets 2 D-grades or higher (that’s 60% or higher) on the PLEMS double O-level (politics, law, economics & media studies – as you can imagine, most schoolchildren have invented their own, ruder acronyms – it’s a double O-level, with each of those four subjects counting for up to 50%) is also entitled to vote. Children take their O-levels at 14, I should mention. This means around two-thirds of 14-15 year-olds can also vote. Some people think every person should have to do these O-levels and only those who pass should get the vote. Well, I’ve studiously avoided getting into that debate, although it would certainly make a massive difference in your world, assuming they allowed me to write the syllabus.

Democracy, after all, can only function if the people are fully informed.

The English – that’s to say the Anglo-Saxons – are exceptionally proud of our democracy, and rightly so, seeing as what you might call ‘liberal socialism’ has its roots in the Anglo-Saxon moots & thanes and so on (as with modern democracy itself, for that matter). Socialism is localism, and only works from the bottom up, not from the top down, as is the case in the fascist deception that is Marxism. Hmm. I am, as a medieval historian, amongst other notable talents, minded to give you a proper British history lesson sometime. You have, after all, been governed (or subjugated, rather) by a small minority group whose (cultural) identity originates with the Normans in 1066. What we would now call ‘fascism’.

[Please don’t embark on one your diatribes, Katrina. I wasn’t going to. Good. Carry on, then.] These reforms were essentially intended to not only take back control of our country from the Establishment [(which had subjugated the people since 1066) What did I say Katrina? That’s only because you’re a mountebank, Guy. Your surname isn’t Gisborne, by any chance?], but to make it reform-proof itself. That’s to say, if any Establishment party got a sniff of power in the future and threatened to undo those reforms, the people wouldn’t vote for them. It is a truism in politics that if people are contented, they do not vote for change. This is, of course, one of the things that should wake people up to the psychology of these malevolent creatures. If ‘political power’ was all they were after, then the best way to ensure that continues is to genuinely do right by the people and make their lives secure and happy. They would obviously love you for it and never vote for anything else.

But the Establishment don’t do that, do they? Clearly, it’s not really about political power. It’s about minority group survival and a further marker of their immaturity that they believe the only way they can maintain that survival is through subjugation. It suggests they know that if the people psychologically understood them, the fact that they are monsters, then pitchforks would emerge. Likewise, these monsters clearly get a kick out of subjugation and the inflicting of suffering on humanity (this is why you will end up with the 1984 boot-in-the-face version of dystopia, not the Brave New World version). In my world, interestingly, we have indeed confirmed that pathology with neuroscience, which is to say predominantly the use of fMRI brain scans, which clearly show addictive neural pathways. This led us to actually classify them as a different hominid species. I shall have to expand on that some time. I only mention it now because, if you have been following my Journal, you’ll know that I am currently being a very willing subject in consciousness studies at the Faculty of Neuroscience here at Cambridge. I’ll be telling you about that soon.

But I mustn’t get ahead of myself.

Some of our other constitutional reforms, as you might guess, involved some fairly predictable policies like dissolution of the Establishment’s Monarchy, along with appropriation of most of their assets – in particular our own coastline. Were you aware, for example, that in your world the so-called ‘Crown Estates’ own something like 50% of the British coastline? All those fisherfolk having to pay rent to those usurpers. Badly done, Helen. Badly done. Likewise they owned far too much of our land. Thus, along with the coastlines and other legacies of the Crown Estates there was also the repeal and reversal of the Enclosures Acts, which I have previously mentioned somewhere.

Whilst I still have my medieval historian’s hat on, one thing you may wish to contemplate is that by virtue of Henry Tudor’s clear act of treason in 1485, not only he, but every one of his successors has effectively been illegitimate. And that also means that every single piece of legislation signed off by the monarch since then is also illegitimate. Stick that in yer pipe and fumer it, Monsieur Magritte.

Another reform was the House of Lords. This was simply swept away and replaced with the ‘People’s Assembly’ (PA). This is comprised of some six hundred members, serving four-year terms. It is split into three groups of equal size for the purposes of selection. The first group is comprised of ‘experts’ in a very wide range of fields, from culture to science and so on. Some ‘religions’, like the Church of England, are allowed to select a few representatives, for example. I notice that your House of Lords has a silly number of such people. Ours has two right now, if I remember correctly. The second group of two hundred is direct applications, as you would when applying for a job. About a third perhaps of this group is people who’ve had prior experience in local government (and charities) and are well-respected in their communities. The final two hundred is random selection from the public, as with jury service (although we also have a professional juror service, whereby there are one or two professionals on every jury for important cases, which has drastically reduced the number of miscarriages of justice).

The PA has a few important powers which your HoL doesn’t have. In matters of war and peace, for example, unless we are directly attacked on our own territory, the decision to use military force requires a two-thirds majority in both houses. None of the wars you keep tolerating would happen under our system, it goes without saying. The PA can also vote to force the Commons to make peace [which did in fact happen in 2003 (this is another story which Guy tells me I’m not allowed to tell you about yet)]. The PA is also able to force debates in the Commons on issues and potential/suggested legislation, including a binding vote. Obviously the Commons can vote it down, but it does mean greater democracy, because the people are entitled to send petitions to the PA for consideration. Anything above 100k signatures and they have to debate it, although they don’t need to vote on it (they often do, though). 250k and above and that will force a debate and an advisory vote in the PA which, if passed, will then get sent down to the Commons likewise for a binding vote. This arrangement is similar to the relationship between the (directly elected) European Union Parliament and each national parliament, following the passing of the new EU treaty in 2016, which effectively eliminated the (unelected) European Commission, and restored national sovereignty for legislation and economic policy (that’s another thing I’ll have to tell you about later).

There’s a bit more to it than all that, but hopefully this gives you an idea. Selection of members is carried out by a fully independent selection committee, by the way. There really is zero political influence on this committee, and it’s very protected by our version of MI5 which, unlike yours, is staffed by people who genuinely protect the population, not the Establishment. How else, after all, do you think your version of ‘Keir Starmer’ has got to where he is? When I first arrived in this dystopia of yours and discovered that Starmer was the Labour Party leader and, obviously, the Establishment’s choice for next Prime Minister (it’ll be yet another tragedy and disaster if that happens, by the way), I knew that name rang a bell but I had to scour my memory for it. Then it suddenly came to me. This was one of a number of MI5 spies who were unmasked in 1993 when F-Section (counter-subversion) was somewhat forced to do a proper job instead of spying on anti-Establishment activists and political parties (like our own Green Party as the Lizzies were at the time). If I recall correctly he quietly emigrated to Canada and is probably working as either a lawyer of sorts, and/or moonlighting for the Canadian Intelligence Service. Not that he was ever a particularly accomplished asset, that is.

[I vaguely remember Helen (F4/0 – chief agent runner for F-Section) telling me his codename was ‘Derek’ which made me laugh. Yeah, that’s how I remember that. You can’t call her Helen, Katrina. Why not? It’s as good a pseudonym as any. Call her Daphne Green. What are you talking about, Guy? What kind of a pseudonym’s that?! Ask your friend Annie. Annie Machon? That Annie? The very same. Oh, hold on – you said she wrote a book and you still haven’t given me a copy. And I can’t very well go out and buy one myself or it’ll end up in my metadata. Stella’s autobiography likewise. I’ll get that for you, sure. So what’s this about Helen? Daphne, Katrina, Daphne. Ok, Daphne. This is the same person we’re talking about, right? Real name Victoria. Recruited Lisa and Annie, that one? Hippy girl? Same one, sure. Hence the pseudonym Daphne. In what way? Didn’t learn much Greek at school then? Very funny. Explain. Daphne means ‘Laurel’ in Greek. Oh. Well that’s a bit too obvious. How did Annie get that one past the censors? Good question. So what happened to Victoria? Daphne, Katrina. Ok, Daphne. And Annie, for that matter? You’d best read the book. I’m sure you’ll be able to read between the lines. Has this got something to do with Shayler? Mossad Minotaur’s asset? Zio-Shayler? Indubitably. Limited hangouts, cognitive infiltration and suchlike. Honey trap? I don’t know about that. Hmm. You know she was willing to do a honey trap on Shayler, before he got himself rumbled in Game Theory? I believe you mentioned something along those lines, Katrina. Well, I’ll read the book in Norwich, if you can get it to me before then? Uh? I’m off to Norwich to swim in their lovely 50m pool, remember? Plus it’s a fine city, you know. Very well. I’ll come and meet you there. Good a place as any for a clandestine meeting. You’re enjoying this, aren’t you, Guy? New lease of life, Katrina. New lease of life. I’m very glad, Guy. So, Daphne it is, from now on? Yeah, ok, Daphne it is. Oh – are you going to edit out that bit about Starmer? I think it best, don’t you? No, I don’t. He was clearly spying on environmental activists during the McLibel case, and covering for Bob Lambert, that spycop. The people need to know. Besides, they’ll think I’m mad anyway. I would put it on hold for now, Katrina. Wait for the opportune moment. *sigh*. Fair enough, handler darling, fair enough.]

Well, vote for the deceitful bastard if you want, but if you do, you will only get what misery you deserve and don’t say I didn’t warn you, eh.

Except your children won’t deserve it. And they will grow up to despise you.

Anyway, I digress. Voting system. Right.

As I say, we have a two choice proportional representation system, with the classic large constituency ‘closed list’ (i.e. decided internally by the parties). Some of the smaller parties have suggested that voters should be able to put some kind of ranking for each person on a party’s list alongside their ‘X’, which would determine the order of candidates. Personally I think that’s unnecessarily overcomplicating things and most people agree (they’d have to learn all about each candidate aside from anything else, and voters shouldn’t have to expend that much effort). So, we have a mixture of constituency sizes ranging from 5 to 10 representatives. For sizes 5-7 votes are divided by 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and so on. For the larger constituencies, 8-10, it’s 1, 4, 7, 10 etc. This, you’ll note, means that smaller parties have a much greater chance of getting an MP in those larger constituencies. Especially because there is no minimum threshold, unlike in some other countries where it almost seems designed to prevent small parties from getting anywhere. The most notorious example of this, at least in your world, was the first post-German reunification election in 1990, where the German Greens got just under the 5% threshold and so didn’t win any seats (they got around 6% in our version – and that changed the course of events significantly, as I can now see by comparing these two histories – I am loving this what-if stuff).

But here we come to the fun bit, which is the two choice aspect. This is not, as you might have thought, an ‘alternative vote’ thing, which is a deceit if ever there was one, seeing as it tends to shore up support for the first two candidates – in your system, you can be assured those first two are Establishment-approved. No, in our system you actually have two choices. Your second, however, only counts for half a vote. You can use it for the same, or a different party/candidate. And like I said, there is no minimum threshold for minor parties. An exception to this is independent candidates, who initially needed to receive 3.5% of the vote in their constituency, to win a seat on the additional list. This was later reduced to 2.5%. Similarly with ‘none of the above’. To answer your obvious question ‘what happens if NOTA win?’ the answer is deliciously simple. For every 0.25% of the total national vote which NOTA receive, they get one MP, likewise on the additional list (selected from the constituencies where they received the most votes, in descending order). Again, this is chosen by random selection as with jury service and the PA. People selected for any of those roles are allowed to say no, by the way, without needing to provide an excuse. Ahead of the first real test of this new voting system in 2008, some pontificating pundits tried to make people nervous by asking what happens if all those previously apathetic non-voters, along with all the ‘anarchists’, decide to vote NOTA and turn the parliament into a chaotic mess. This was hyperbole, as it turned out. In 2008 NOTA got just over 1%, and all four of those randomly selected people did a fine job alongside the (if I remember correctly) five independent candidates. It’s hovered around that 1-1.5% mark ever since. Similarly for the independents as it happens, with 5-10 (often re-elected because they do such a good job as a local MP).

While we’re on the subject of independence, since the independence of Scotland (2011) and the re-unification of Ireland (2015), we have a parliament of 600, with somewhere between 10-20 on the additional list. The smaller parties also have a second method of gaining MPs, which is similar to the principle with NOTA. Namely, once you remove any votes they received which resulted in a direct election of an MP, for every 0.25% of the national vote share which remains, they receive one MP for that additional list. Mathematically, if we have around an 80% or so turnout with the total eligible voters just shy of 60 million (we have a larger population than you), then you’re looking at around 48-50 million people voting. Then add on the half a vote for your second choice, and we’re talking 75 million votes total. So, 0.25%, nationwide, is equal to 187,500. Given that we aim for one MP for approximately every 100,000 people, it is clearly democratically fair that if you receive 187,500 votes nationally, but no directly elected MPs, those voters deserve representation.

One of the best aspects of this system is voter satisfaction. It’s why we have such high turnouts and voter engagement. That’s to say, every voter knows they can vote for what they believe in, so there is no tactical voting. And the end result reflects this, which is always within one standard deviation (in this case, around +/- 3%) in terms of seat-share versus vote-share, especially for smaller parties. The second choice, which most people think very carefully about, further reinforces this. I’m sure you can understand how, psychologically, most people would vote for one of the two main parties (soft left, shall we say, and soft right – in our case, Lizzies and Connies), then often use their second choice for smaller parties, the intention of which is to send a particular message, or help ensure plurality. I say 2015 was the breakthrough year for the smaller parties, mainly because they finally got it into their heads that campaigning for people’s second choice votes would just about get them over the line.

Likewise, 2015 was the year when the Conservatives genuinely, and believably, stated that they would not dismantle the Liberal Socialist system which had brought such prosperity and happiness and self-confidence to the people (not to mention a drastically lower tax burden). Prior to this, at the previous two elections (2008 and 2011), it was clear the majority of the population was still anxious about losing their Lizzy government, and that security and prosperity along with it. Ironically, this led to the Conservatives themselves (well, David Cameron, that is, effecting a cheeky, if posh, grin) accusing the Lizzies of being the new staid and risk-averse Conservatives and the Conservative Party as the dynamic progressive radicals. Nice try, Dave, but it’s not gonna work. Well, it sort of did, in the sense that he increased their vote share from around 23% to 27%. And if it wasn’t for Farage, they probably would’ve got to the one third mark.

Whilst we’re on the subject of Farage, I reckon I can afford a little prediction for your own next election. The trick for working it out is to understand that the Establishment effectively decides what election result it wants well in advance. It then closely watches the genuine polls (not the official ones, which simply reflect the result desired by the Establishment, and are intended to influence you), in some areas quite specifically, and then, if the ‘natural’ (i.e. not rigged) result matches what they want then they don’t need to rig it. If it doesn’t, then they have a sufficient period of time to organise their vote-rigging operation. Thus, you have to be of the ‘conspiracy theory’ persuasion to understand all of this. You simply work out, psychologically as much as anything else, what the Establishment want, then you translate that into percentage vote shares and seats. For your next election, for example, I would imagine they want a repeat of your 1997 election.

Hmm. This is already getting quite a long burble, isn’t it? Ok, then, I’ll have to entice you into coming back for more with yet another patent to be continued…