Electoral Reform
I’m pissed off at how few people who vote today will actually see their vote achieve anything. I’m pissed off at how alienated the population has become with the political process. I’m pissed off at the fact that so many people rightly believe that their vote won’t change anything.
If you are too, sign this petition like wot I’ve just set up. I doubt it’ll achieve anything – after all, Blair happily ignored all those people who protested against the Iraq war so he can happily ignore this – but we can but try.
Here’s the text:
The 2005 UK general election campaign has demonstrated more than ever that large chunks of the population see their vote effectively going to waste. On an equal share of the popular vote, the three main parties are incapable of getting an equal share of the seats in Westminster.
Proportional Representation may not have all the answers – we may lose local representation in Westminster and fringe and single-issue parties like the BNP and UKIP may end up with seats in the House of Commons – but at least then every vote would count.
We want our votes to count. We want future elections to be fair. The UK electoral system needs reform.
Every time I get any urge to support PR, I happen to meet some of the great British public… The better solution is surely to just people like me in charge and be done with this voting frippery.
The problems with PR are probably worse than the problems with FPTP, on balance. We’d have dodgy European style consensus driven politics, where the minor parties rule the roost by controlling the coalition make-up. We wouldn’t be able to deliver a good kicking to people who genuinely deserve it, both the old-style Portillos, and the soon-to-be-defunct Jack Straws of this world. And it would entrench dull centre-left politics in British life and cause me to emigrate.
I realise that point 3 wouldn’t stand up in a court of law, but feh…
I agree that PR isn’t an ideal solution, and that it’s got the potential to be even worse. But with a modified form of the kind of regional list system used for European elections I reckon it could work. The major thing is that they need to do something to sort this mess out…
Not necessarily. There are plenty of systems that allow keeping the constituency link and proper accountability – allowing voters to ‘kick the rascals out’ come election time. Closed national or regional lists give too much power to parties. With open lists (so, e.g., tory voters get to choose their Con candidate) and/or PR-STV (ordering of preferences in multi-member constituencies of reasonably small size), many of the criticisms are dealt with. In fact, there is evidence the constituency link is stronger under these than FPTP. You don’t get perfect proportionality like ‘pure PR’ but you get a hell of a lot closer than we get now. Whatever your politics, the current system is unfair in the extreme. And not just to the centre-left: the rebirth of the Tories in Scotland is totally dependent on PR (though not the system I would choose, btw).
Sure, I just don’t trust a majority party in the Commons to enact electoral reform fairly. I mean, why should they? Neither of the two big parties have anything to gain, and everything to lose.
Like it or not, if you’re a member of either main party, FPTP is the least worst option. I may produce unrealistic majorities, but it does promote centrist politics, to some extent, and it does require parties to get a widespread level of support. If the Boundary Commission met more often, it could work a whole lot better.
How about if we had an upper chamber chosen by PR or a variation of it. Then there would be a chance for new parties and small parties to make their voices heard without removing the sacking ability of FPTP.
It would also give people living in their political opponent’s safe seats a voice.
Each voter could then have two votes, one party and one candidate. Party lists should be open as Jarndyce said.
Andrew – agreed, but parties don’t always behave purely selfishly. There is also the ‘selfishness of altruism’ approach: they behave apparently altruistically for fear the voters will punish them for being totally partisan in electoral system design. BTW, we needn’t totally rely on the parties to sign away their built-in advantages: in New Zealand the pressure came from the people, via a referendum they thought would never be won. As an aside, this issue is the very biggest reason I vote Lib Dem: every vote for them does count, because every vote they get without proportional seat allocation adds to the pressure for electoral system change.
EU-Serf – there’s one problem with the Lords proposal. How would it look to have a second chamber obstructed on key legislation by a lower house that had precedence in law but was fundamentally less representative of the British people? Stupid, basically. I’d wager that’s one reason Blair has stalled so badly on upper house reform of any substance.
I sympathise with you, but don’t think that PR is a preferable solution – democracy is the least worst form of government. Under many PR systems you have no say over many individual people who you “elect” and in many instances your vote really doesn’t count very much, even though you feel as if it does. Is feeling valued worth the downsides, the messy and unstable coalitions (a la Italia), the minority agitation potentially holding the balance of power etc.? I’m not convinced. The problem is the invigoration of politics; the system hasn’t changed since the apparently vibrant 70s.
I’ve written at length about this several times, and suspect that I will be again this weekend, but I always think STV suffers from being grouped in with a lot of other electoral systems under the umbrella heading of PR. Personally, I think it’s the best (OK, least worst) electoral system given the nature of British politics because it actually reinforces many of the strengths of the system without the downsides of the various PR systems that are suggested. Like I said, more at the weekend, no doubt.
During the campaign someone mentioned run-off voting which would keep the constituency accountability while putting an end to tactical voting, as people can vote with their hearts to begin with and their heads afterwards. I also like the idea of people having to have an absolute majority to be allowed to govern, even on a local scale. The danger is of course the bipartisan polarisation that we see now in the US…But I wouldn’t be able to stand voting for “the party” rather than “my MP.” That’s the worst kind of polarisation – people vote for a checklist ideology and not a person. Ugh.
The two-round system, unfortunately, would be very unlikely to produce a result any more proportional than we get with FPTP. It hasn’t in France. Really, it’s just a single-member plurality system with a couple of bells and whistles on.
Wasn’t it a 1997 Labour Manifesto Pledge to have a referendum on PR?
In his memoirs, Paddy ‘Bomber’ Ashdown says Blair specifically said to him ‘you can trust me on this’.
Not one of the former Eastern Bloc countries pick FPTP when communism fell. It is blatantly unfair that a party who has most votes cast against it should have a hefty majority.
Yet Margaret Beckett says we should retain it because ‘it’s the system the British people understand’
Ah, right then. We’re just too thick to use the one everyone else has. Thanks for your confidence and respect, Margaret.
Pingback: The Monjo Blog
I live in Northern Ireland and voted tactically for my second choice candidate, but it was still a wasted vote as they finished second to DUP, who had about twice as many votes.
I’m sure nobody in London wants to have to look at all those smug DUP faces either. They are an embarrassment to the large minority of sensible, intelligent people in NI.
In short, under PR, I could vote for who I wanted, UUP and SDLP would have a lot more seats, and Alliance would probably have one or two MPs at least.
PS. On another subject, why are Sinn Fein allowed to stand if they are not going to take their seats? That just means that those people in SF constituencies who did not vote SF have no representation of any kind at Westminster! Surely the second place candidate should become their MP by default.
Sinn Fein MPs are allowed to take their seats. They just choose not to, as it involves swearing the parliamentary oath, of which the following is the basic essence:
“I …………… do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law.”
Naturally enough, as Sinn Fein want independence from the Crown they can’t swear to this, and would probably argue that the people who voted for them wouldn’t want them to either.
But just because they are unable to participate in debates and votes doesn’t really alter the platform that being elected gives them by all that much – they are still, after all, such a small party that they can hardly make much of a difference. There’s a useful research paper on the oath and the Sinn Fein situation here (.pdf download) if you want to check the details.
Still, it doesn’t alter the fact that it must be insanely frustrating to be a sensible moderate stuck in the Northern Irish political system. You’re stuck with a bunch of nutters as your elected representatives, and with the current FPTP system combining with all the irrationality and macho bullshit they all spout it looks like there’s still no real end in sight.
Thanks for the link. V interesting. I can understand why Sinn Fein would, quite reasonably, not want to take the oath, (as may other individuals representing any party, or none, for their own reasons).
However, it seems that SF would not take their seats even if the oath was abolished, the central issue for them being that they don’t recognise the authority of Westminster in NI. So why then do they even want to stand for election to a House which they believe has no authority in the constituency that they represent? Wierdos.
And what if all MPs decided not to take their seats? Then where would we be? (Better off, some might suggest ;-) But seriously, that brings me back to the argument that if you don’t plan to take your seat then you shouldn’t be allowed to stand.
Sorry to get off topic – this was supposed to be about electoral reform and PR or something, wasn’t it?
The same argument could be made about Eurosceptic MEPs going to Brussels/Strasbourg – a lot of the UKIP MEPs proudly announced that they planned to do as little work as possible out there, so you could again ask what’s the point?
I assume the mentality of both UKIP and Sinn Fein is along the lines of “well, by working within their electoral system they have to acknowledge us, but by refusing to participate in their parliamentary system we not only weaken it by lessening its numbers but also show it our contempt”.
But as much as I detest the likes of Sinn Fein, Paisley’s lot, UKIP, the BNP and so on I firmly believe they should all be allowed to stand – as should anyone. If you start down the path of refusing people the right to stand just because they don’t plan to take up the seat it’s not long before you could argue that minor parties shouldn’t have the right to put up candidates as they haven’t got a chance of winning.
I know that’s not what you’re saying, but by denying people a platform you often end up making them stronger – viz. Gerry Adams’ massively raised profile during the ridiculous period when he couldn’t appear on British TV without having his voice dubbed over. He had far more impact then than he does now. Censoring things makes them more powerful simply through the publicity it generates, and denying people the right to stand for parliament would be a form of censorship.
Which sort of brings it back to PR – after all, all those Tory votes in safe Labour seats and vice versa are being ignored under the present system – another form of censorship?
Pingback: The Sharpener » Getting specific on PR