House of Straw

The front page of the Guardian today reports that the government is backing the introduction of a number of reforms to how we elect MPs. Principal among them is the idea that the current first past the post voting system will be replaced with the alternative vote

According to the paper:

“Ministers will begin a consultation effort on the plan after local elections in May, and hope the measures will increase the authority of MPs and reduce voter disengagement. In the 2005 general election, only 61% of those eligible participated. Under the alternative voting system, ballot papers would allow for a second preference vote which would be redistributed from the lowest-scoring candidate’s share until one candidate has more than 50% of the vote.

The decision to examine Commons voting systems has been prompted by proposed reforms in the House of Lords, which will almost certainly be elected by a proportional voting system. Cross-party consensus has been reached on most elements of a smaller second chamber.

Ministers fear that the Commons will have difficulty retaining its status as the pre-eminent legislative chamber if peers, elected by proportional voting, can claim greater authority than MPs, who are sometimes put in office by less than a third of the electorate. Straw has warmed towards the alternative voting system in the past two years, seeing it as an improvement on the first-past-the-post system.

Michael Wills, the constitutional affairs minister, praised the alternative voting system at a meeting on electoral reform last month. “The alternative vote has many attractions, including the fact that you have to get 50% plus one in that constituency, therefore you have a greater legitimacy,” he said.

Private research on the impact of the second vote commissioned by the campaign group Make Votes Count found that it tends to result in the number of seats gained being more proportional to the number of votes cast. This could possibly damage the Conservatives.

But the research also suggested that the Tories could gain an overall Commons majority with a smaller share of the vote than under first past the post.”

Read the rest of the report here

A cynic would argue that the prospects for electoral reform for the Commons look brighter now that Labour risk losing the next election and would point to the fact that the 1997 manifesto commitment to review the system and put it to a referendum was quietly shelved on the back of a massive majority in the election of that year. Turkeys, as the saying goes, don’t vote for Christmas.

The government published its review of the use of different electoral systems in the UK since 1997 in January. This is a very useful document for helping to deliver electoral reform in the classroom and every Politics department should have a copy. Although I wouldn’t recommend that students necessarily should have one. Weighing in at 197 pages, it will soon exhaust printer ink.

You can download the pdf report here

Here I provide an extract of a section on the arguments for and against different electoral systems.

“The main advantages of the FPTP system are said to be:

• it is a well-established system in the UK. It is easy to understand and
everyone knows how it works

• ballot papers are easy to complete – a cross by a single candidate.
Counting, equally, is relatively easy – the candidate with the most
votes wins the constituency election and represents the people of that
constituency at Westminster

• Members of Parliament represent constituents within a defined
geographical area, which makes it possible to identify constituents and
their representatives and to build links between them. It is possible for an
MP to be reasonably independent of his or her party, if he or she retains
the support of the local party

• the winner-takes-all aspect of the system encourages the major parties to
maintain a broad appeal, thus discouraging extremism. It is also difficult
for extremist parties to establish a strong enough base to win seats at
Westminster

• the system allows the electorate to be decisive about who should be the
party of government. Unpopular parties can be removed completely from
power

• more often than not, governments have a working majority in Parliament,
so that decisive government is possible. This enables the formation
of a clear opposition in Parliament who can present themselves as an
alternative to, and check on, the government of the day.

The main disadvantages of FPTP are said to be:

• it is capable of delivering highly disproportional outcomes at the national
level. Governments can be elected without a majority of the popular vote
and can even win a majority of seats without winning more votes than any
other party.

Arguments for and against different voting systems

• many constituencies are ‘safe’ seats for particular parties, with little
prospect of changes. Therefore people who do not support the majority
party have no prospect of making their vote ‘count’. Similarly, even voters
supporting the winning candidate may feel that their votes serve only to
increase an already large majority

• campaigning, particularly by the national parties, is strongly focused
on a few marginal constituencies (and even specific areas within these
constituencies). This trend is accentuated as campaigning technology
becomes ever more sophisticated

• movements of opinion can be heavily exaggerated, with large swings
in seats from one major party to another. Landslide majorities may not
reflect public opinion

• governing parties equipped with large majorities may not pay sufficient
heed to opinion in Parliament or amongst the general public

• small parties tend to be excluded from parliament unless they have a
strong base in a particular region. Those with an even spread of support
across the country are particularly penalised. This reduces the diversity of
views expressed in Parliament, and alienates voters who do not wish to
vote for the major parties

• in areas where most constituents do not vote for their elected MP, it can
be difficult for them to feel properly represented.

Proportional systems in general

There are many varieties of proportional voting systems but there are three
broad types used in the UK:

• those where the vote is for a party list, either at national or regional level

• the Additional Member System, which combines the First Past the Post
system at constituency level and a party list at regional or national level

• the Single Transferable Vote in multi-member constituencies.

Some of the advantages of proportional systems are said to be:

• that the outcomes are proportional at a national level, appealing to
people’s sense of fairness and ensuring that everyone’s vote counts in
some way.

• voters have more choice as more parties have the chance of being elected.
Minority interests can be represented in Parliament

• voter turn-out tends to be around five percentage points higher in
countries with a form of PR, including List PR

government tends to be by coalition (or through a minority government
supported in Parliament by an agreement with other parties). This means
that a wider range of interests are represented in government and that
parliaments tend to have a stronger hold over the executive

• it is possible to maintain constituency links under the AMS or STV.

The arguments against proportional systems are said to be:

• the prevalence of party list systems, in whole or in part (as in the Additional
Member System), makes the candidate and representative remote from
the voter, compared with single member constituencies

• where party lists are combined with constituency members in the UK
experience, there is a tendency for conflict between the two types of
representative

• the tendency towards coalition or minority governments can have a
number of negative effects. It can take a long time to form a government;
governments may be indecisive on policy agendas; small parties can have
significant power in coalition formations; and parties which have become
unpopular with the electorate may be able to retain a stake in power

• voters may not really know what policies they are voting for, as successful
parties are those that are able to negotiate the best deals in coalitions as
they are being formed

• there may be stagnation over time, with the same parties regularly forming
governments. This may lead to more extreme parties forming in order to
express grievances.”