The European Parliament’s Constitutional Affairs Committee has recommended that some MEPs should be elected from a pan-European list drawn from at least one third of the Member States. The recommendation comes from a proposal by British MEP, Andrew Duff (Liberal Democrat).

STV Action is neutral about whether there should be a pan-European list but, if there is to be one, we strongly recommend that the MEPs on it should be elected by STV.

The typical voter’s first choice would probably be for a candidate who is from both that voter’s party and country. The kind of list system the UK uses now to elect MEPs would prevent that. If the top of the pan-European Conservative list was a German, a British Conservative voter might have to choose between voting for the German Conservative and, say, a British Labour candidate. STV would let British Conservatives choose a British Conservative candidate first.

Now let’s say a British Labour voter has chosen a British Labour candidate as first choice and there are no other British Labour candidates. The freedom of choice that is available only with STV would let the voter choose between another Socialist candidate (say, French) or another British candidate (say, Green). With a party list system, this would not be possible.

Of course, some voters might want to vote other than on party or nationality. For example, a voter who wanted more women in the European Parliament might prefer to vote for women across national and party boundaries. Only STV would allow this.

I wish all readers a very Happy New Year.

Although we lost the battle last year on AV, the war is by no means over.

There is widespread dissatisfaction with the political system in the UK.

Some people are unhappy about the present political system but take First Past The Post for granted and don’t realise that there are better voting systems. They just condemn politics generally. We have to educate them.

Some support various reforms, such as allowing voters to recall MPs in some circumstances, which might scratch the surface of the problems, but they don’t realise that changing the voting system could help much more. We have to educate them as well.

Yet others support proportional representation (PR) to achieve greater fairness between the political parties, but they don’t understand that most types of PR except STV would increase the power of political parties; they don’t realise that only STV would increase voters’ power and freedom of choice and would reduce the power of parties. We have to educate these potential allies who might otherwise be our opponents by campaigning for inferior forms of PR, which would be against the interests of voters.

Of course, many politicians understand only too well that STV would reduce party power and increase people power and that's why they oppose it.

Only STV would provide real PR (People Representation).

Warmest wishes,

Anthony Tuffin.

We very much regret to announce the death on Friday 16 December of Henry, Lord Kitchener at the age of 92. He was the third Earl Kitchener and the title has died with him.

There will be a cremation for family only and there will be a memorial service in the Spring.

He was one of those rare creatures, a Conservative who strongly supported electoral reform. A mathematician, he believed that STV was the fairest voting system yet invented and would be good for the country. He had been a stout supporter of STV for very many years. Despite his age, he attended AGMs of the Electoral Reform Society until very recently.

He was a member and Vice-President of the Electoral Reform Society and a Registered Supporter of Make Votes Count In West Sussex.

Electoral reformers will miss him greatly.

Congratulations to Michael D Higgins, who won this AV election against six rivals. With 39.6% of the 1st preference votes compared with 28.5% for Sean Gallagher, the runner-up, he would probably have won if the election had been by first past the post. However, that would have been unsatisfactory. We would not have known how the other 31.9% would have voted once it became clear that their preferred candidates could not win. Under the UK’s first past the post system, he would have won despite 60.4% of voters having voted against him. This would not have been a real mandate.

As it is, the election was held by the Alternative Vote (AV) system, which is so much more democratic than first past the post. As no candidate had at least half the votes in the first stage of counting, the losing candidates were eliminated and their votes were transferred as directed by the voters. Still no candidate had half the votes, so the process was repeated until only the leading two candidates remained.

The result of the final stage of counting was:

Higgins 1,007,194 (61.6%)
Gallagher 628,114 (38.4%).

Thus Mr Higgins had a clear overall majority and a real mandate for the presidency.

This proves the value of AV for filling a single vacancy.

I cannot show the full result in tabular form here, but you can see it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_presidential_election,_2011#Result.

AV (the Alternative Vote) should NEVER be used to decide among policy options offered in a referendum. Why not? Because the policy option that has the greatest overall support could well be rejected in an AV count.

Ireland’s voters go to the polls today to elect a President by the Alternative Vote (AV) – the voting system that UK voters rejected in a referendum earlier this year.

There are seven candidates. If the Irish used the first past the post voting system used in the UK, there would be a danger that the winner would have only just over a seventh (say 15%) of the votes; i.e. that nearly six-sevenths (say 85%) of the voters did not want the winner!

Fortunately, Ireland uses the much more democratic AV system, which will make sure that the winner is elected by over half the final votes and will thus enjoy the confidence of the majority.

The result is expected on Saturday afternoon (29 October).

We’ve had a referendum ON AV. What about referendums BY AV?

The Scottish Government is reported to be considering a three-way referendum on Scotland’s future in the UK and some UK MPs are demanding a three-way referendum on the UK’s future in the EU. In both referendums, the choice would be between:

• Retaining the status quo;
• Negotiating a new relationship within;
• Leaving.

Surely even the most adamant supporter of FPTP and opponent of AV in the recent referendum can see the danger of running a three-way referendum by FPTP.

Would supporters of compete independence accept the result if the status quo won with 33% of the votes with 32% for each of the other two options? How would supporters of the status quo feel about the opposite result? Come to think of it, how would any group feel about coming second in, say, a 44 – 42 – 14 vote?

Frankly, it would be unrealistic and rather silly to assume that the side that came second would accept any such result or that the public would have any faith in it.

The only sensible way to hold a three-way referendum is by AV. It would ensure that the result reflected the views of the majority of voters.

For the benefit of new readers, let’s explain how it works:

Voters would simply vote “1” for their first choice and “2” for their second.

All the first choices would be counted. If one of the three options had more than half the votes at that stage, it would be the winner.

If not, the losing option (in third place) would drop out and its votes would simply be transferred to the second choices of its supporters. Whichever of the two remaining options then had the more votes (i.e. over half) would be the winner.

Then we’d all know which option the majority of voters wanted. Don’t politicians want to know what the majority of voters think?

Labour politicians may well be right that the Conservatives want to abolish compulsory registration because they (Conservatives) think that voluntary registration would give their party an advantage. However, it is equally true that Labour probably want to keep compulsory registration because they think that favours them.

It’s just like the argument about voting systems. Labour and Conservative politicians accuse the Liberal Democrats of wanting STV so there would be more Liberal Democrat MPs and Councillors but, of course, we all know that Labour and Conservative politicians want to keep FPTP because that gives them more seats nationally than STV would.

Politicians should no more decide such issues than generals should decide whether to go to war. An alternative for voter registration would be a period of public consultation (preferably with politicians keeping quiet, but that might be too much to expect) by the neutral Electoral Commission followed by a recommendation by the Commission.

According to the Mail Online of 13 October, the SNP Government of Scotland proposes to allow 16-18 year olds to vote in a referendum on Scottish independence in 2014 or 2015. It is calculated that this would add about 125,000 (3%) to the Scottish electorate. Apparently, Scottish teenagers tend to be more nationalistic than their elders so, presumably, the SNP hope that this move will boost the vote for independence.

I understand that a referendum held by the Scottish Parliament would be only advisory so far as the law was concerned but, of course, it could be persuasive and, if there was a majority for independence, the SNP would no doubt claim a moral victory and use it to press the UK Government for independence.

The UK Government, especially one led by the Tories who oppose votes at 16, might say that the result was flawed by the children’s votes and almost certainly would do so if the margin of victory was less that the number of voters under 18. The UK Government might even then hold its own referendum in Scotland for electors with a UK franchise (i.e. over 18) in the hope of getting a different result. Imagine the constitutional wrangling!

Purely from an electoral reform point of view, I believe that Scottish independence would be good for England. I think there would be tremendous pressure, not least from Labour, to introduce PR for what was left of the UK to avoid a permanent Tory government.

Nevertheless, STV Action should remain completely neutral on both Scottish independence and lowering the voting age in Scotland to 16 and I hope that other electoral reform organizations will also avoid taking sides on these issues. Whichever side they took on either of these issues, they would alienate loyal supporters of STV who legitimately held the other view.

In STV News 11/05 (the latest edition of my irregular e-newsletter), I mentioned that Alan Wilcox had suggested in http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-never-mention-stv-again-25276.html that electoral reformers should change the name of STV and I asked for readers’ reaction. Those receive so far are repeated below. Please feel free to blog your own comments.

John Probert:

“Heaven Forbid! STV isn’t in any sense a “British” idea (unless maybe a Brit. was smart enough to invent it!).
It’s a universally valid concept and it would be very demeaning to pander to the baser instincts of nationalism by calling it “British” Proportional Representation.
And why gratuitously upset the Irish? Anyway – aren’t we all (except UKIP) Europeans now?”

Comment: It’s true that it is a universally valid concept but, actually, a Brit (Thomas Wright Hill) first proposed transferable voting in 1821 and another Brit (Thomas Hare) is generally credited with the conception of STV in the 1850s. I discovered very recently that it was once called “British Proportional Representation”.

Colin Buchanan:

“Having sold STV for Council elections in an international professional body to which I belong (and acted as returning officer for 24 years for them), I am extremely doubtful about claiming it is 'British' (even if Mill and Hare have the initiating credit). One wouldn't want to sell universal suffrage, or secret ballots, or scrupulous methods of counting as 'British' - they are clearly right, and in no sense sectional or partisan. So I urge retention of a name on the tin which describes what is in it.
We could perhaps redub FPTP this way (as you know, I am very doubtful about the usefulness of the existing title as a boo-word - the NO campaign even made a virtue of it). Suppose we dub them the 'British Random Electoral System'?”

Comment: Or perhaps we could reduce some of FPTP’s apparent simplicity by using its more formal name, “Single Member Plurality system”.

Piers Milne:

“For what it's worth, I absolutely hate the BPR mouthful and think it would be an absolute disaster as a name. STV in the short form may also have had its day. However, the full name, by containing the word Single, could still be a winner because it automatically thwarts the "people would get more than one vote" killer which the No campaign used to devastating effect against AV in the Referendum last year. Also STV was seldom mentioned during the Referendum, in either the short or full forms, except as a future goal, and no part of the AV Yes campaign made more than passing reference to it, so it didn't attract the abuse and invective that AV did and might continue to be a "marketable product". If it is actually effective to appeal to the traditionalists, how about: "The New Single British Vote"?”