The least-bad voting system

Having given this a bit more thought and batted it back and forth with my Electoral Reform Minister, here's my final thought on the matter:

1. Multi-member constituencies are the way to go. So (for example) five existing parliamentary constituencies are merged into a five-member constituency, but to retain the constituency link, each of the original smaller constituencies ends up with one MP each.

2. It would be a one-man-one-vote system (preferably no postal votes).

3. The ballot slip would list each party's individual candidates, for whom you can cast your vote, but in case people want to vote for a party rather than an individual candidate, each party is listed as an option as well. So you can choose whether to vote for a specific candidate or a party generally. Obviously, if a smaller party is only fielding one candidate, it makes no difference whether you vote for the individual candidate or the party (as we will see below).

4. In the first round of counting, the individual candidates are listed in order of how many personal votes they received; and it is also announced how many 'party' votes each party received.

5. Each party can then allocate its party votes to its candidates in such a manner as to maximise the number of seat it wins, but it can only allocate votes to its second (or third) highest polling candidates once its highest polling candidate has enough votes (either individual votes or allocated party votes) to be ensured of a seat*. So there is an element of 'open primary' involved - a central party cannot just parachute candidates into safe seats.

6. The single candidate with the most votes can then choose which of the five original constituencies he would like to represent; the chances are it will be the one in which he polled most votes or in which he lives, but not necessarily.

7. It is clear than in our country, a white middle aged British man is at a slight advantage to other people in electoral terms, as he is the 'lowest common denominator' and probably best able to understand the concerns of the widest number of electors (an equation with two unknowns, that I grant you).

As a white middle aged English man, I'm not too fussed about that, but other people are. Clearly, as long as parties can only field one candidate in each constituency under First Past The Post, there is a tendency for all parties - across the political spectrum - to field white middle aged British men; and a tendency for the white middle aged British candidate to win the seat as against other candidates**. But as the larger parties would be fielding two or three or even four candidates in each MMC, the chances are that they would field an older or younger; female or non-white or non-Christian people as well to mop up extra votes on the side.

* This is simpler than it seems. If your best candidate has more than one-sixth of the votes cast then he's in anyway; if not, you top him up to that number and then allocate your remaining party votes to your next best candidate, and so on.

** Which seems fair enough to me, as this is the group least likely to have a particular grudge against any other group or any sort of hidden agenda.