“Yet for the current system there is now a more important challenge, one that has led me to fundamentally reassess my views.”

You’re afraid you might lose power under it.

I used to fight to retain our electoral system.

when it suited New Labour and gave you a disproportionate majority, which your leaders relished..

Now I see it is central to our democratic rupture

Just when Gordo decides he doesn’t like FPTP that much as it may result in a disproportionate walloping, you too decide that it’s not that hot a system. Quel surprise!

Tom, the central cause of the f*ck-up that stands in place of a healthy polity in the UK is not the electoral system: Some MPs are decent enough folk, but there are not enough of them to provide the Commons with a sufficient decency/public service ethos: they haven’t been able to rein in the freeloaders, the careerist drones and the hugely over powerful, amoral party machineries.
Never mind all the bullshittery being spouted about voting systems, it’s the calibre of too many MPs and the hold that centralised parties have over them, with their techniques of promoting unprincipled, unthinking, uncritical, unquestioning lobby fodder, bullying those who dare dissent, and ‘dark arts’ of a deeply undemocratic nature.

Tom – though I doubt you are reading these comments – I would first like to thank you for the role you played in the undermining of Tony Blair and the coronation of Gordon Brown.

Very well done on that one.

As for your principled conversion to electoral reform, well I’m sure it will be treated with all the respect it deserves.

Oh Richard, so cynical. To be honest, I don’t care why Tom has changed his mind. I care that he has done so, and admitted that it was MPs such as himself that stopped the promised reform Blair promised in 1997, one of the promises that got me, and many like me, so enthused about his Govt in the early days.

Tom, it takes guts to admit you’re wrong, especially on such a substantive issue when you’ve put a large part of your political career fighting against it. For that, you have my respect, if not full agreement. I have a quibble though:

Unlike some other voting systems, it allows the retention of a geographic link between MP and electors.

STV also retains this link, and also returns us to the position we had pre 1948 where many MPs shared their constituency and represented a coherent geographic area rather than a line redrawn on a map every ten years or so.

Given that, amongst others, Barbara Castle was convinced that her selection to fight Blackburn in 1945 could not have happened if she wouldn’t be sharing the candidacy with a pre-existing male colleague, and that experience from Ireland shows that STV strengthens the constituency link, could we not have a preferendum allowing the voters to choose between the differing systems?

I think it’s wrong that Labour voters in Cornwall have no one representing their views or votes in Parliament, I think it’s damaging that so many seats are considered ‘safe’ and neglected by campaigns teams in all the main parties (allowing both extremism and corruption to rise in those areas).

I will support a move to AV, but couldn’t we have the option of going the whole hog, at least in population dense areas like the metropolitan boroughs?

Alisdair, we wrote at the same time.

Never mind all the bullshittery being spouted about voting systems, it’s the calibre of too many MPs and the hold that centralised parties have over them

Crucially, multi-member seats can do a lot to address both these concerns—it gives MPs a stronger individual mandate as they weren’t just elected by party label, and allows for MPs within a seat to share responsibilities out, while also diminishing the ability of the centre to parachute their favoured apparatchiks into place.

There are a number of decent, effective MPs, but they seem, from what I can tell, to overwhelmingly represent seats that were, when they were first elected, considered to be marginals.

I agree with you there, Mat, but any system which has a party list element, which I fear is waht will be pressed in place of FPTP would further entrench the centralised party machinery.

Tom, it takes guts to admit you’re wrong

Hohoho – has Watson ever done anything that wasn’t at his master’s bidding?

Agree completely, I personally believe closed list systems to be worse than FPTP—they give you proportionality, but that’s a tertiary objective for me, I want to change the system for the EU elections just as much as I want to change it for Westminster (post tangentially on this on its way I hope).

Tom – I think it would be good to have a discussion on why the government isn’t considering STV, and instead prefers AV.

Are there any discussions or thoughts we can be referred to, so we know why there is such a push for AV over STV?

cjcjc – as constructive and intelligent as ever I see.

Basic political science tells us that political parties propose electoral reforms that promote their own party interests. The current fashion for Labour figures to trumpet the case for AV is entirely consistent with this.

This is why the issue of electoral reform – having rightly been raised in the wake of the expenses scandal – is one that should be explored using a deliberative citizens’ convention process that is completely outside the party-political machines. The citizens of Ontario had the wisdom to adopt this approach in 2005, and it worked successfully. (They adopted a form of PR for elections to the state legislature.) (I’ve just posted on this over at Next Left.)

If Labour were to adopt this idea, instead of making too-obviously partisan proposals for AV, then this might conceivably help give the government a sense of mission and purpose it currently lacks. It would be a radical way for Labour to regain some momentum. But just calling for AV is the wrong thing to do in itself, and only reinforces the perception of a party/government that is devoid of any substantial vision.

I thought you were on your break!

Listen, I probably do support electoral reform – but anything proposed by Brown (and – surprise! – one of his little coterie pops up claiming to have suddenly seen the light) is not going to fly.

The Tories will push the partisan angle and – you know what – on this occasion they are right.

This package of reforms is not designed to bring about real change. It is a transparent ruse to neutralise the issue of expenses before the election. The proposal for a discussion on PR is nothing but a naked political move designed to put the Tories on the wrong side of the argument.

What we need is a precise, targeted package of reforms. What we are being presented with is a glut of hurried, ill-conceived, crowd-pleasing measures. Each element carefully selected for pure partisan advantage. It is not the unelected second chamber that is at the root of the disconnect between people and parliament. Nor is it the first past the post voting system or any of the other targets of Labour’s newfound reforming zeal.

What we need is a set of decentralising measures, mechanisms to shift the balance of power away from the centre and the executive towards parliament and the people. This means renewing and revitalising the legislature. It means an end to the reliance on statutory instruments. It means more time for debate. It means a more robust committee system. It does not mean abolishing the Upper House or any of the other radical reforming mechanisms trotted out by the beleaguered, bewildered rump of this demoralised and discredited government.

So my “constructive” comment is, if you want electoral reform, keep Watson and his ilk out of it.

Or do you consider the man who is probably the ultimate partisan to be helpful in countering the Tory accusations?

The picture he paints of his Damascene conversion is simply laughable.

Thanks for the thoughtful comments. It might help if I elaborate on my thinking. I’m responding in a hurry so cut me a bit of slack for the stream of consciousness.

1. Why a referendum? Frankly, the political parties have proven they cannot reach a consensus around almost any reform. The only way to sort it out is with a referendum. That kind of makes my motives irrelevant. If people want change, they can vote for it regardless of my position, or Gordon Brown’s for that matter.

2. I’ve been mulling this over for some months. My thinking has been seasoned by serious policy debate using the new digital tools. When I set the blog up in 2003, it felt like I was in frontier land. But the digital policy debates I’ve been involved in changed the way I think about politics. Frankly, it convinced me that party structures were holding back meaningful engagement. I guess that’s another story.

3. A change to the voting system will not save a Government if it remains unpopular- particularly with AV. So the argument about it being a desperate act is spurious.

4. The ethos behind electoral reform – that everyone has to give a little – should be applied in this policy area too. I know many want a purer PR system like STV but it isn’t going to be possible to build any broad alliance in Parliament for that.

I’ll drop by later this afternoon to pick up on other comments. Thanks for your views.

though I doubt you are reading these comments

Well I take that comment back.

None of the others though.

Tom:

(1) You say that ‘the political parties have proven they cannot reach a consensus around almost any reform. The only way to sort this out is with a referendum.’ The parties in Parliament can’t agree because of their conflicting interests. This is why it makes sense, in terms of the integrity and legitimacy of any reform, to initiate a citizens’ convention process to draw up recommendations prior to any referendum. Why should the eventual referendum be on a proposal brought forward by one specific party that, inevitably, will be shaped by its own calculation of electoral interest?

(2) I’m not sure what your point is under (2).

(3) Granted that a change to AV now won’t necessarily save Labour from defeat at the next general election. But we’re not really talking of reform for the next election. We’re talking about future electoral reform where the two contenders are AV and some form of PR (or a compromise like AV+). In this longer-term context, AV looks more in Labour’s interest than PR, and so your point doesn’t escape the objection that Labour figures like yourself are trumpeting AV for partisan reasons.

(4) Your argue that everyone in Parilament has to ‘give a little’ on this issue. If so, it hardly looks as if AV is the fairest compromise. Why not AV+ which gives the supporters of PR something?

But there is a more fundamental problem with this image of parties in Parliament ‘giving a little’ over electoral reform. You are, again, just assuming, without argument, that the decision about what reform to put forward is properly in the hands of the parties at Westminster. Sorry to sound like the proverbial broken record, but this ignores the obvious possibility that the process of making a recommendation, to be taken to a refrendum, could be taken outside the Westminster context by means of a citizens’ convention.

By the way, you can’t appeal to the constituency link issue to make the case for AV versus PR.
There are forms of PR which retain constituency link – like the one the citizens of Ontario chose when their politicians gave them the power to determine what form electoral reform should take.

Do you have anything to say to these points?

What we need is-

proportional representation, an elected second chamber, voting from 16, elected Chief Constables, a Bill of Rights and a written constitution. We need direct involvement with the electorate to achieve these.

And yet I read today

Proposals for a citizens’ panel on a bill of rights have been blocked by a Treasury refusal to provide £1m to fund it.

Oh all right then, we’ll put the million towards ID cards instead. Glad to see Gordon is serious about this and in full control of the process.

I’m glad to see that the momentum is behind AV or SV rather than STV. But after having rethought this and read a lot of the articles that have appeared here and elsewhere, I still prefer FPTP.

I worry that AV will increase the likelihood of electing the least-hated of the two main parties and encourage negative campaigning (not that I think there’s anything wrong with negative campaigning, just that I don’t think it’s a good idea for the system to encourage it) and deals with smaller parties for endorsements leading to second preferences, rather than giving voters positive reasons to vote for a particular party.

If we do go with AV, more important than the actual system we use is procedures for spoilt ballot papers. Any ballot paper filled in that would currently be legitimate, should be regarded as a first preference with no second preference expressed. If two crosses but no numbers are written on the ballot paper, it might be best to consider whichever of the two options remain in the final round as a second (or third, fourth etc) preference, unless both parties remain in which case the vote would be invalid. Otherwise lots of people will be disenfranchised the first election after the new system is adopted. Without these kinds of measures I would campaign vociferously against a new voting system – with them I could just about accept SV or AV without a top-up element.

(As an aside, I prefer SV to AV as AV encourages a values-based vote rather than a class vote, but that’s one of my idiosyncrasies so perhaps peripheral at best.)

f two crosses but no numbers are written on the ballot paper, it might be best to consider whichever of the two options remain in the final round as a second (or third, fourth etc) preference, unless both parties remain in which case the vote would be invalid.

It’s a bit patronising isn’t it? I am sure people can rank things, especially when there will be a blaze of publicity on how the new voting system works.

We may even see a reduction in unspoilt papers as people concentrate on the new system so they get it right.

#19

Most people will get it right; there will be a significant minority who won’t. Politics doesn’t necessarily feature big in everyone’s lives like it might in yours or mine. Plenty of people don’t think about it except when they go to vote. It’s not patronising to say that after years and years of doing it one way, changing the system (to a more complicated system too) will see more people follow incorrect procedures. I have more concerns about disenfranchising these people than I do about disproportionality. I’m not saying this stops us from adopting a more complex system, I’m just saying we need to be aware of possible effects and build in ways of making sure votes still count.

I posted these comments on Tom’s own blog, but thought I’d put them here too;

I have two points to make – the first about how we should think through changes to our voting system, the second about the lack of constituency representation at Westminster.

The cornerstone of our thinking about how to improve the voting system should be our conception of what we think democracy ought to be. Do we want a democracy in which different views are considered and a compromise negotiated? Do we want a democracy where the will of the majority trumps that of the minority? Do we want a democracy where people have as much control over their lives as possible? These are the sort of questions which must be addressed prior to thinking about what kind of electoral system we want. The debate about the voting system is premature, we must first debate the essence of what our democracy should be. Our voting system must be premised on our notion of democracy.

In the Guardian version of the article, you say this;

“Though Westminster watchers often overlook this relationship, most MPs believe that the responsibility to be a local area advocate is what keeps a system rooted in common sense.”

But I am sceptical about the strength of this link. As you know, what happens at Westminster at the moment is that MPs represent specific constituents to specific government departments or agencies with regard to specific issues. Constituents aren’t really represented in your voting because the party whip largely dictates which way you vote. Basically the constituency is only represented in the way you vote in so far as a plurality voted Labour – that is a massively indirect link. If we change our democratic system, a priority should be to strengthen the link between MPs and their constituencies.

http://petespolitics.wordpress.com

What shite, Tom.

The reason we need STV, certainly not AV, is so the electoral system is representative once again. Which could have been argued that MP themselves represented their constituency That stopped, and is still not true while you have the vile political careerists sitting as MPs.

Changing the voting system is not the only solution to parliament’s waning authority.

That one line stood out most – you want authority back in parliament? Or is it I am so fucking angry at you lot that I read it wrong? 500 monkey’s could run this country better than the shower we have now – including the Tories. Fight for your constituents while you have time left on the back benches, Tom – or they, like the rest of the electorate, will show you who really does have the power.

“I’m not saying this stops us from adopting a more complex system, I’m just saying we need to be aware of possible effects and build in ways of making sure votes still count.”

The implementation of a new system would have to be associated with a publicity frenzy of how to vote. On top of that, we could have people at polling stations to help with the first election under such a system, huge posters too. It’s not about being interested in politics or not, people would be more than capable, and the help would be there.

@4: I will support a move to AV, but couldn’t we have the option of going the whole hog, at least in population dense areas like the metropolitan boroughs?

This is a good point. In rural areas, an STV constituency would be large, but in urban areas it would be the right size, e.g. Edinburgh might be one 5-member STV constituency.

#23 That’s all great. What’s wrong with the measures I outlined to make sure that if some people still get it wrong, their vote will still count?

tim f: do you have any evidence that other countries using more complicated electoral systems than FPTP suffer the problems you are concerned about? The problem you are concerned with sounds, at most, like a purely transitional one, which could be handled effectively by advanced publicity and education.

Such a small problem (as I suspect it is likely to be) seems a very small price to pay to get away from the current electoral system which effectively disenfranchises huge sections of the electorate. Effective disenfranchisement is the flip-side of radical disproportionality, particularly for those who support parties that get moderate levels of support that are evenly spread through constituencies rather than geographically concentrated. How do you think the people who voted Alliance in 1983 felt when they ended up without about 10% of the seats in the Commons that Labour got on almost the same share of the popular vote? Isn’t that ‘disenfranchisement’?

Tim, having observed a few counts, there are problems with spoilt ballots in any system, and in addition most ROs will work hard to make sure every vote is counted if at all possible (we approved a number of ballots on Sunday that were filled in incorrectly but obvious in their intent).

Studies from Scotland showed that STV and preference voting was understood very well by almost all electors, despite it being a new system, whereas AMS (as used for Holyrood) still causes confusion. Can’t give a link to that, sorry, can’t recall where I read the study.

But any new electoral system will require explanation, however “number in order of preference” is fairly easy to explain—and minor parties trying to get 1st prefs will do a lot of extra explanatory work in the first few elections anyway.

Sorry for delay in picking up on other comments. The latter comments drill down into the detail of the characteristics of the AV voting system vs others.

I’m reminded of Burke’s phrase that “change always brings certain loss and only possible gain” when arguing for big Constitutional change. It’s axiomatic that there isn’t a perfect electoral system. Yet for the points outlined in the original post, I think AV is now favourable to other systems. Here’s a little more detail as to why. I’ve tried to take on board as many comments as possible. Again, please forgive the hastily written response:

1. Simplicity vs Complexity: tim f and left outside discuss this. It is important that the system is simple. I think ranking candidates will should be acceptable to most voters though design of the ballot paper, public education and other factors will play an important role in ensuring that the system is fully understood.

There are some systems that require filling out two different ballot papers. I think we could expect a significant increase in unintentionally spoilt papers if this were to be the system adopted for Westminster elections.

2. Legitimacy and Authority of the People: Stuart White and others ask why this government is choosing this system. The simple answer is that I don’t know whether this government will support AV. AV remains my personal choice for the reasons I’ve outlined.

I’m not opposed to a citizen’s convention, though I think is would be nigh on impossible to get a consensual position out of it. If there were to be a referendum though, I would expect the Electoral Commission to endow the various campaigns with enough support to allow them to clearly explain their case. I’m also not opposed to offering a range of electoral systems in a referendum.

3. Geographic Link: Pete B. Take your point about the Whip but I think your analysis does not fully appreciate the subtlety of the current legislative process. The views of constituents help MPs formulate their response to proposals before they get to the division lobbies. They have plenty of time to influence the course of legislation before a vote takes place. There are many examples where legislation is shaped before the Clauses of a Bill are put to a vote.

Tom: you claim that it will be ‘nigh on impossible’ to get a ‘consensual’ recommendation out of a citizens’ convention. I don’t know that anyone proposing a citizens’ convention expects the assmbled citizens to be unanimous on a particular reform at the end of the process. They could select between two or three options at the end of the process by a vote. And that proposal would then go a referendum. We do have a real-world case – the Ontario citizens’ assembly in 2006/7 – and that worked very well in arriving at a proposal (though I gather from comment over at Next Left that when the party machines kicked in during the ensuing referendum the process was undermined).

Like I said, I’m not opposed to that. I’m just less optimistic about a positive outcome.

Why bother bringing parliament into the 19th century with Reform involving various forms of PR?
Better to jump into the 21st century with Fully Representational Democracy.

Technology now allows each MPs vote in parliament to be weighted according to actual votes gained.

All candidates clearing their deposit would be entitled to attend parliament, the increase in numbers would be able to take on the committee work currently done by the house of lords.

PR gives too much power to the party mandarins, FRD reconnects parliament with the people.