- Local action for electoral reform
- Time for statesmanship
- Safe seats
- Benefit the nation and the voters
- STV v FPTP
- First Past The Post is destroying the Union
- Make a difference!
- Equality or Democracy – STV can deliver both
- STV Action’s evidence on Voter Engagement
- FPTP knackered - STV: A big improvement and absolutely fair
Israel debates electoral reform from time to time but, just as UK MPs are reluctant to change the First Past The Post system by which they were elected, so members of the Israeli Knesset are reluctant to change the national list PR voting system by which they were elected.
David Newman wrote in the “Jerusalem Post” today, “The introduction of constituencies to ensure regional representation, a mixed system based on constituencies and national party lists, the raising of the lower threshold to five and even 10 percent, as is common in many countries, direct elections of prime minister – these ideas have been researched and proposed ad nauseam, but have never been taken up seriously by the Knesset.”
He is certainly right to question the national list system currently used in Israel but, from our experience in the UK, we would caution against constituency or mixed systems using First Past The Post (FPTP) for the constituencies.
A “pure” FPTP constituency system would not be proportional. It would be unrepresentative and we cannot believe that that would be acceptable in a country that, for all the faults in its present voting system, has at least always enjoyed proportional representation for all its parties.
Mixed systems are neither one thing nor the other. They take the faulty FPTP constituency system and tinker with it to reduce some of its faults.
The Single Transferable Vote (STV) system in multi-member constituencies combines the best of list systems (party proportionality and fair representation) with the best of constituency systems (direct, personal, links between representatives and voters and direct accountability of representatives to voters).
STV also has other advantages, not enjoyed by either list systems or other constituency systems:
• It provides more choice to voters than any other known system.
• It can provide proportionality, not only between political parties but also between any other groupings (e.g. religious or gender) that matter to voters.
• It actually provides a closer link between representatives and voters and more accountability of representatives to voters than any other system.
• Unlike most systems, it increases voters’ power.
Unfortunately, the very great advantage for people, democracy and nations that it increases voters’ power is the very reason that it is unpopular with many politicians. More power for voters means less power for political parties and it is usually political parties that decide which voting system to use. All round the world, they usually choose systems that suit themselves.
In most advanced nations, politicians have made laws and regulations to control the activities of various professions, such as medical practitioners, lawyers, police officers etc. but who controls the politicians? In theory in so-called democracies, it is the voters at election time, but the voters are allowed only to vote by the system that the politicians have chosen so, in practice, voters often have little or no control.
The solution to this problem is to remove the choice of voting system from the control of politicians. For example, a Citizens’ Assembly could take evidence from fellow citizens, experts and abroad and then recommend a system for voters to choose in a referendum.
The ERS published an excellent report (“How not to run an election”) yesterday on last November’s elections for Police and Crime Commissioners in England and Wales and the appallingly low turn-out (15.1%; i.e. fewer than one in six) in the elections. Unfortunately, its summary (which is probably all that most journalists will read) omits the reasons people gave for not voting and the ERS’s highly pertinent criticisms of the voting system that the Government imposed.
According to the ERS, 19% (nearly a fifth) of non-voters gave their reason for not voting as “I don’t agree with electing police officials this way.” This is a very fundamental reason. These people do not sound apathetic or likely to be persuaded to vote in future at a better time of the year or with more information about the candidates. They sound like politically aware citizens who have taken conscious decisions not to vote because they totally disagree with electing police chiefs and/or the voting system used to elect them. It is not so much an abstention as a boycott.
The ERS rightly explains that the Supplementary Vote (SV) system used for these elections is an attempt to remedy some of the defects of First Past The Post elections, but depends entirely on voters’ ability to guess who the leading two candidates will be in the first round of counting. Many successful candidates were not elected by a majority of even the few votes that were cast. The Alternative Vote (AV) system would have been easier for voters to understand and use and would have produced fairer and more representative results.
Although proportionality cannot be a prerequisite for any election of single representatives, at least a preferential system like AV in single-member constituencies maximizes voter choice, minimizes wasted votes and empowers voters rather than political parties.
When a body, such as a Parliament or Council is being elected, the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system in multi-representative constituencies achieves the same as AV but more so plus proportionality.
South African, Eusebius McKaiser, queries in http://www.news24.com/Columnists/EusebiusMcKaiser/Electoral-reform-is-no... whether South Africa should replace its party list PR system of voting with a constituency based system.
In brief, he says the list system should be replaced, but goes on to warn against some of the disadvantages of First Past The Post (FPTP) constituency elections, except that it does not seem to have occurred to him that constituency elections do not have to be FPTP. Consequently, he mistakenly ascribes all the disadvantages of FPTP to constituencies.
He points out the power the parties have with list voting and the advantage voters would have if they could directly elect their MPs, but he also warns against gerrymandering and other disadvantages that he perceives in constituency based systems including, “the sometimes anti-democratic influence party leadership wield in England [sic], for example, where constituency based elections happen”.
The disadvantages he sees in constituency based elections are mainly to be found in FPTP single-member constituencies and not in STV multi-member constituencies as I have pointed out in my comment on his blog.
He likes the idea of a hybrid voting system, but I suspect he has not considered STV; perhaps had not heard of it when he wrote his blog.
The Conservative Party is divided in the country and the Commons on same sex (i.e. gay) marriage and it seems likely that there are similar divisions in the other parties although they may be less obvious.
Does the Commons represent the views of the country on this issue and do individual MPs represent their constituents on it? No-one really knows partly because it was not an issue at the last General Election and partly because, even if it had been, most people would have voted for their usual party even if they had to clench their teeth because they did not share the candidate’s views on same sex marriage.
Take the Surrey Heath constituency for example. The Conservative MP, Michael Gove, supports same sex marriage but the Chairman of the Conservative Association, Geoffrey Vero, opposes it. Who can tell which speaks for the local party, let alone the constituency as a whole, on the subject?
The Single Transferable Vote (STV) lets voters express their views on such non-party matters without voting against their party.
Suppose Surrey Heath had merged with neighbouring constituencies and the enlarged constituency had elected five MPs by STV. The Conservative Party could have nominated four or five candidates. As Surrey is very Conservative, three of them could have been elected but the voters would have decided which.
If the candidates’ views on same sex marriage were important to Conservative voters, those views would have influenced how they voted. Then they might have elected two who supported same sex marriage and one who opposed it or vice versa. Indeed, they might have elected three who opposed or three who supported. Whatever the result, the successful candidates would have represented their voters’ views on this controversial issue.
In trying to change the UK’s relationship with our European partners, David Cameron may well destroy his Conservative Party’s relationship with its Liberal Democrat coalition partner.
David Cameron has announced his intention, if he remains Prime Minister after the next General Election in 2015, of renegotiating the UK’s membership of the EU and then holding a referendum on the UK’s continued membership.
If, as Mr Cameron must hope, his announcement staunches the haemorrhaging of Conservative votes to UKIP, it must increase his chances of winning the election, but what then? To win outright and form a single party majority Government, the Conservatives must not only regain votes from UKIP, but must also win over Labour and Liberal Democrat supporters and there is little sign of that as yet.
Although anything is possible within the next two years, the best that the Conservatives can hope for at present is to retain their position as the largest single party and be in a position to lead another coalition government. If so, who would their partner be?
Labour and the Liberal Democrats have already criticized Mr Cameron’s new EU policy so it is unlikely that either of them would want to be in a Government whose main purpose was to renegotiate with the rest of the EU. UKIP does not really want to negotiate; it simply wants to leave the EU. In any case, it is a fairly safe bet that UKIP will still not have any MPs after the next General Election.
Although of course there have been some strains between the coalition partners, the Government has held together, but Mr Cameron’s EU speech is likely to alienate the Liberal Democrats and make it very difficult for them to work with the Conservatives after 2015. He may well have driven them towards Labour, which many individual Liberal Democrats see as a more natural ally than the Conservatives anyway.
The key question for electoral reformers is whether, if no one party has an overall majority in 2015, will the Liberal Democrats insist on STV, at least for local government in England and Wales, as the price of their support for one of the two major parties?
One of the Liberal Democrats’ problems is that they have been too nice in the past. Some of them get quite embarrassed about pressing for electoral reform because they might benefit from it. They need to be more realistic. In any case, STV would be good for democracy, the people and the country as a whole. Liberal democrats need to stand up and say or, better still, shout that. Perhaps the reality of being in Government since 2010 will have hardened them and made it easier for them to proclaim their belief in STV, which is one of their core policies.
Labour and Conservative supporters show no embarrassment at supporting First Past The Post, which benefits them, so why should Liberal Democrats be embarrassed about supporting STV, which would benefit the people generally?
In the meantime, we fear the Labour and Conservative Parties will not suddenly proclaim support for STV, but their party managers must already be thinking about their manifestos for the General Election in 2015. If they could include a commitment at least to review the voting system for local elections in England and Wales, that would open the door to negotiations with the Liberal Democrats if there is another balanced parliament.
The Liberal Democrats may be disposed to support whichever of the two major parties shows the greater interest in introducing STV for local government.
The Jersey Electoral Commission has recommended STV in multi-member districts for elections to the States of Jersey from 2018. You can visit http://www.electoralcommission.je to see the full report, which also covers other electoral issues.
The island of Jersey is a self-governing Crown dependency with a population of just under 100,000. Its Parliament is called “The States of Jersey”, which has 51 Members now. The island is divided into twelve Parishes which vary greatly in the size of their electoral rolls. At the head of each Parish is a Constable. This is an elected position, which at present carries an automatic seat in the States.
Among other questions, the citizens of Jersey are to be asked by referendum whether they want Constables to remain members of the States. The Commission has recommended that, if they do remain members, they should be elected by AV in single member districts.
We warmly welcome these recommendations for PR and preferential voting and hope they will be implemented. Supporters of electoral reform and their representative organizations may need to help those in Jersey to implement the suggestions.
We must all be very grateful to Derek Bernard (an ERS member in Jersey who first advocated STV and then gave evidence to the Commission), and to James Gilmour and the Proportional Representation Society of Australia, both of whom also gave evidence in favour of STV to the Commission. So far as we know, no other electoral reform organization gave evidence. Derek also wrote numerous letters to the Chairperson of the States’ Privileges & Procedures Committee for three or four years before the formation of the Commission of which she became a member.
So writing to representatives is not always the waste of time you may have thought it was!
The Irish Times - http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2013/0126/1224329299320.html - reported today that former Fianna Fáil minister Noel Dempsey has called for electoral "reform", with a reduced Dáil of 100 single-seat constituencies. He also said the Seanad should be retained, with members elected on a list system.
This would not be the first time that politicians in the Republic have tried to ditch STV. Irish Governments have already asked the Irish people twice in referendums and the people had the sense each time to vote to keep STV. It is not untypical that politicians oppose STV because it empowers voters rather than politicians but informed voters, such as the Irish, like STV.
We understand that the voting system in the Republic cannot be changed without the consent of the people in a referendum and we expect that Irish voters will continue to support STV, but we must be vigilant and prepared to help in the defence of STV if necessary.
The Law Commission for England and Wales has announced - http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/news/2012/12/317-law-commission-announces-c... - “a consultation to consider the reform of the UK’s fragmented and outdated electoral law” although it will exclude the elephant in the room of voting systems. Even so, you may want to give evidence on one or more of the many other issues, which the Commission is considering.
The consultation is not to start until late 2014, but the Commission has issued a Scoping Report, which you can see by clicking on the link above and then on another link. Although the Report is 94 pages long, a skim through will probably enable you to indentify those parts that interest you.
Although the consultation is to exclude voting systems, it should do no harm if you gave evidence that the voting system should be changed. Even if the Commission will not make a recommendation to change the system, your evidence that there should be a change will have been recorded and perhaps all the evidence, including yours, will be published.
As the Commission notes in its Scoping Report, most of the basic law relating to elections is based on First Past The Post (FPTP) even though other systems are used for many elections now, so the basic law has had to be adapted on a somewhat ad hoc basis. The Commission hopes to clarify the law by replacing the ad hoc provisions with more codified ones appropriate to each system.
Howard Davies: "We should now concentrate on one system."
Peter Morley, an active ERS member, sent an excellent e-mail, repeated below, to the “Daily Politics” BBC TV programme today.
This is an excellent opportunity for STV Action, the Electoral Reform Society and their members and supporters and oither reformers to get behind STV as the one alternative to First Past The Post.
May I suggest that you write in to support him? The address is firstname.lastname@example.org or, alternatively, you may contact the programme via Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/bbcdailyandsundaypolitics or Twitter - http://twitter.com/daily_politics.
“I am a keen watcher of Daily Politics and related programmes and have found Andrew Neil to be a most informative presenter (he always seems to have a clear and deep analysis to hand), and a focused interviewer - until today.
Today he was talking with Howard Davies and others about the elections across the UK today.
Both of them are intelligent and well read people yet when considering the different voting systems being used, they expected us to believe they hadn’t a clue and found some of them “incredibly complicated” and that explanations of the systems were “incomprehensible”!
This is just unbelievable - two people who can pronounce on world financial and political affairs cannot understand simple voting instructions for voters? It seems on this occasion, the research team providing Andrew Neil with back up information have let him down.
Howard Davies commented that as there have been so many experiments we should now concentrate on one system. I expect he intended that the one system chosen should be the one that does the best job!
The reason there are experiments is that our current voting system, First Past the Post (FPTP), is well and truly broken – it does not work except to give everyone a simple process when there are only two parties contesting elections! Those times are long-since gone as explained in “The Worst of Both Worlds: Why First Past the Post no longer works”, IPPR, Jan 2011.
I cannot remember who said it, but those voters who are confused, including, I suppose, both Andrew Neil and Howard Davies, were recommended to consult the Electoral Commission. Unfortunately, they will not find the EC of much help in that respect, although it will give explanations of how to vote. The Government published a review of electoral systems some years ago but it did not provide a fair conclusion based on a clear and reasonably thorough examination of the different systems in use. The research cited seemed clear but the conclusions just didn’t flow from the research.
Voters should instead consult the Electoral Reform Society which since 1884 has promoted the Single Transferable Vote. That was the result of the Society’s predecessor consideration all voting systems to decide which resulted in voters’ having the greatest personal choice, and in the most representative results.
The most recent research by the ERS attached, “Britain’s experience of electoral systems”, ERS 2007, not only explains the voting systems and their pros and cons, but also demonstrates yet again the merits of STV above all the other systems. Other authoritative groups come up with similar conclusions, for example “Choosing an electoral system, A report by the British Academy Policy Centre”, March 2010.
The first use of STV for Scottish Local Elections in 2007 liberated Scottish voters from the stranglehold of aging political parties and gave them far more personal choice than they had before. The results today will be analysed by the ERS, and compared with those from the other elections which have mostly used FPTP.
I was disappointed by Andrew Neil’s flippant and apparently “off-hand” remarks which suggested he did not have much an understanding and grip on this subject as he usually does on others which are far more complex and complicated. I expected more of him than that as he seems to want to improve our representative democracy yet derides and belittles attempts to find for the basis of that democracy a better way of getting voters’ representation right – he should be encouraging discussion not dismissing it as “incredibly complicated”. He should reserve such phrases to matters that truly require them such as the financial crisis.
I hope you will ask the ERS for more information when looking at the results next week.”
First and foremost, there’s no choice with First Past The Post. For example:
• If you are a Labour supporter who would like more women in Parliament but the Labour candidate is a man, you have to grit your teeth and either vote for the Labour man or for a Liberal Democrat or Conservative woman if you can, but those parties’ candidates may also be men.
• If you are a Conservative Europhobe faced with a Conservative Europhile candidate, you have to vote for the Conservative who disagrees with you on the EU or for the UKIP candidate who agrees with you on that issue but perhaps not on other issues.
• If you are a Liberal Democrat who would prefer a coalition with Labour but your Liberal Democrat candidate prefers coalition with the Conservatives, you either vote for the Liberal Democrat who leans to the Conservatives or you desert your own party and vote Labour.
• If you believe that the MP of your party has been a bad constituency MP or has abused the expenses system, you cannot vote against him (usually a “him”) without also voting against your own party.
In addition, as the Electoral Reform Society has pointed out:
“The current system means:
• Many of our votes just don’t count. Millions of people have no chance of deciding who their MP will be. Our votes are wasted by the system.
• Only a few of us matter. Parties continue to focus all their time, money and effort on a handful of 'marginal seats', so just a few thousand voters can decide who runs Britain.
• MPs can speak for the many with support from the few. Most MPs can be elected to Parliament even though the vast majority of voters don’t want them.
• A divided Britain. Whole parts of the country are ‘electoral deserts’ where parties have no representation despite having real support. Just ask Labour supporters across the South or Conservatives in Scotland and Wales.”