Electoral reform - why I'm beginning to change my mind

Like most Conservatives, my opposition to proportional representation was once absolute. Yet four years in the House of Commons has forced me to think again. Put simply, the Commons isn’t working – it’s monumentally useless at holding those with power to account.

Why? If 7 out of 10 colleagues in your workplace thought they had a job for life, would your business or organisation be firing on all cylinders? Parliament neither.

With so many of our law-makers returned from “safe seats”, for far too many of our MPs there simply isn’t much realistic chance of being ejected by the voters on polling day. Without genuine competition to be an MP, the weeds of indolence and entitlement that choke Westminster are able to take hold.

Imagine if every MPs had to fight a tight contest every four or five years in order to keep their job? They’d be much more responsive. Fewer indefensible expense claims and perhaps more local surgeries?  They might be more responsive on policy, with fewer bailouts for bankers or Lisbon Treaties EU constitutions.

How best to ensure our MPs face proper competition?

Part of the answer is to hold open primaries and allow a recall mechanism. Since publishing Direct Democracy; an agenda for a new model party, and then making the case on Newsnight and Radio 4 the other week, I suddenly find everyone is talking about primaries and recall.   

Yet perhaps the surest way of having political competition would be to have multi member constituencies too?

There is a real danger, however.  Far from empowering citizens, most versions of PR - like the Euro election system – would in fact make politicians less accountable. Many kinds of PR would strengthen the party machines and insulate the political classes yet further. The nightmare would be to move from a system where 7 out of 10 politicians had a job for life, to one where it was 9 out of 10 (see Belgium or Germany).   

However, the multi members system that they have in Ireland would retain many of the advantages of our existing system – while exposing all MPs to genuine competition. 

There would still be a constituency link. You’d still vote for individual law-makers. You’d still produce working majorities in the Commons. Yet there would be choice and competition between law-makers. Indeed, competition would be within parties, as well as between them, giving us a more authentic spectrum of representation. 

Best of all, why not combine multi member seats, with open primaries to decide the list of candidates? Now that would be a genuinely open source way of doing politics. 

If you are a free market Conservative and you’re still not convinced, ask yourself this: If in 7 out of 10 Parliamentary constituencies there was a local supermarket or restaurant monopoly, we would expect there to be a poor service and high level of customer dissatisfaction.  So why do we tolerate such a system when it comes to deciding how we are governed? 

Conservatives need to apply the principles of choice and competition to our politics, not simply our economy.

UPDATE:  We'd not need multi members seats to make our politicians accountable if we had proper open primaries, points out a reader.  Correct. 

But proper primaries mean more than just a final hustings selection open to all local residents.  And it certainly does not mean a law dictating how parties select candidates for office.  

Rather, it means allowing local people to petition their returning officer to hold a proper ballot, open to everyone (see The Plan for details of the Bill).  In every Parliamentary seat.  Including for sitting MPs.  I think we're a long way from that.

Posted on 31 May 2009 by Douglas Carswell

Comments

Although quick off the mark we doubt we'll be the first to blog with reaction to the PM's disastrous performance just now on the Andrew Marr Show!

Evasive, self-serving, indecisive - in fact all we've come to regard as his trademarks, but in spades this time.

Like us. viewers will have been shouting at the screen for Marr to say something like, "No Prime Minister. YOU listen please."
Or to have the polling facts on hand showing the precise % of the public who DO want an early general election rather than, as this man in denial states, for him to 'clean up the system first' (repeated parrot-like ad nauseum l!). Marr also let him off the hook on answering whether he will be appointing more cronies to the Lords.
This was very poor journalism given the heights to which the Telegraph has risen and license payers and the electorate deserve far better.

No doubt we - and all your readers here - will have more to add later and we Essex Boys are gathering at lunchtime to watch the re-run together. This wretched Prime Minister is out of control and despite today's wonderful sunshine we feel a heavy cloud hanging over our nation.

Posted on 31 May 2009 10:23 by THE ESSEX BOYS

Here's my preferred electoral system. It has no hope of ever being considered, of course.
(i) Keep the voting system as it is, single-member constituencies with FPTP voting system.
(ii) introduce a right of recall to force by-elections
(iii) abolish general elections
The result would be that people would change their MP over time as political opinion changed in their area.
Governments would evolve over time too as the Commons complexion changed.
And as there's no general election, it breaks the party system with it's claim of 'being elected on a manifesto' - so the MP can ( and would have to ) be independent and really watch his back in representing his peoples interests or else he'd be kicked out.
Isn't this suggestion of a House full of independents how the Commons is supposed to work in theory anyway ?
Let's ditch the party system, not the voting system.

Posted on 31 May 2009 10:27 by John

Question is, would it result in constant coalition governments thus giving the Lib Dems power disproportionate to their size?

Posted on 31 May 2009 10:28 by Richard

So, Irish-style STV, with small multimember (three will do) constituencies to prevent proportionality?

I think that's an excellent idea.

Posted on 31 May 2009 10:30 by Martin Coxall

Gordon Brown widening blame is not acceptable.
announcing clean up on Andrew Marr extending into public sector is at best clutching at straws at worst dishonest.
I worked in the public sector in the 1980s (NHS purchasing) following published (with regular reminders) guidelines. Public servants spending public money had to be beyond reproach. No lunches with suppliers No gifts.No argument. Some MPs are bent, public sector workers low paid & honest. I am so **** angry stop deflecting blame and go

Posted on 31 May 2009 10:46 by Ian

We already have multi member representation at council level - usually three councillors per ward, and the system is a total failure thanks to the Local Government Act 2000 which introduced the cabinet system and made most councillors redundant.

I fail to see how a multi member parliamentary constituency would be any better.

The key to reform is to give MPs real power to hold the executive to account - reducing the power of the whips is one option - and to change the candidate selection process to prevent sitting MPs being readopted on the nod.

Posted on 31 May 2009 11:05 by Don't Call Me Dave

You are right to point out the effective monopoly enjoyed by sitting MPs in safe seats, and the attendant indifference/inefficiency/corruption that is likely to accrue from it. However, you don't need the complexity of any PR system to combat monopoly if you have a system of recall. Now, wait a minute; where did I read about the idea of recall? Oh, yes: I think it might have been in a really good little book called 'The Plan'. In any case, do we really need more MPs?

Posted on 31 May 2009 11:23 by Shakassoc

I'm unconvinced by multi-member constiuencies. There's too much scope for evasion when I need to talk to "my MP". Which one? What are the chances of things falling between the cracks? MPs aren't only legislators. They are also (suppose to be) my intercessors into the government juggernaut.

That's not to say I like the current system.

We currently suffer from an excess of "I want X to win but I don't think he will so I'll vote Y to keep Z out" and so Y gets a job for life. So I would like to see transferable voting. Put X first and Y second. If X isn't elected your vote transfers to Y. Z still doesn't get electd. But if everyone secretly feels like you do then X gets elected to your delight and surprise, and Y wishes he hadn't been so reliant on the colour of his rosette.

This would encourage people to actually vote the way they felt rather than to try to second guess how everybody else was going to vote. As a result the political disruptors of the status quo would become more of a threat to the conventional candidates who would have to raise their game in response.

Posted on 31 May 2009 11:29 by Bob Dowling

I don't think the multi-member regions that are currently in place for the EU Elections are better serving people that the current Westminster constituency model.

I also think that we should not move away from first past the post. Politics should be about majority rule; it is already easier to be heard in Westminster if you represent a recognised minority group than it is if you are an ordinary person experiencing everyday issues.

Perhaps the solution would be that if we had an elected upper house a different method could be used so as not to mirror the representations in the Commons.

I don't like PR but if the upper chamber was elected using a run-off system, similar to the Mayoral system used in London, where by you have a 1st and 2nd preference vote. Then if any candidate gets 50% or more they are elected. If not, then the two candidates with the most votes go into the run-off and their second preference votes are added to the 1st preference count.

I agree Parliament is not working well; but in my opinion PR will drive politicians further away from constituents and local issues.

Posted on 31 May 2009 12:14 by Daniel1979

You identify the problem with PR correctly: it simply means that MPs will be selected by their ability to get high up on party lists, strengthening the control of the central party.

My preferred solution is a Single Transferable Vote (STV) system, also called Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) and Alternative Vote (AV). This would destroy safe seats, while preserving the constituency link. Indeed, you could even use the same ballot papers! The only change you'd have to make would be numbering the candidates instead of putting an X by just one of them.

This would complement your open primary suggestion nicely.

(Alternative Vote is not to be confused with the Alternative Vote Plus (AV+) or Alternative Vote top-up proposed by the Jenkins Commission. AV+ was a sop designed to look like electoral reform without making much difference.

Posted on 31 May 2009 13:08 by Hugo

Wrong wrong wrong. At present we put ourselves up for election and the people decide. Under AV you would have to dilute your policies and ideology and water them down so much in order to try to be the least objectionable rather than the one motivating the largest number of people to vote for you as their first preference.

Posted on 31 May 2009 13:40 by Daniel Kawczynski MP

Douglas,

The voting system is irrelevent when there is no one to vote for.

The 3 main parties are all pro EU and pro big government, high tax.

The second tier parties are a mish mash of extremist views and are either very right wing or very left wing

Then we are left with the loopies,

Greens, natural law ( whatever happened to yogic flying?) or Britains got a talented politico ( the jury team)

I would rather like a party to arise out of this that was looking to re-establish democracy, that was willing to reduce the size of the state, to close down the quangos, and who would engage the public in deciding voting systems

This new party would need a manifesto of course, and it would help if they had a fairly substantial following already. What would also be really useful for the new party would be to have some people leading it that already had inside experience of politics at national and European level.

I can't think of anyone though....shame

Posted on 31 May 2009 13:53 by paul

I'm delighted to see you stand up and be counted in this debate. It's an exciting and dangerous time for electoral reform - exciting because everyone's talking about it, and dangerous because of the damage that could be done if it's seen to be a last-ditch attempt by Labour to cling to power, or keep the Conservatives out. STV will not be popular with your natural supporters, but as you say, it makes a lot of sense as part of a package of wholesale reform.

Posted on 31 May 2009 14:02 by Steve

Surely the best solution would be a strengthened system of open primaries- to make them statutory obligations for all "parties" that would involve a universal invitation to register.

I don't agree with having to see people with limited direct appeal representing localities. It would often be farcical, and would diminish the most popular and distinguished MPs.

Posted on 31 May 2009 14:32 by ed

Douglas, I agree with preferential voting as a means of voting at all elections if the UK, as long as the multi-member constituencies were not too unwieldy. For example, in Hull their are currently three seats. If this turned into one seat with three members, I think it would work and still retain MPs links with their constituents. All voters would also see how effective each MP was.

What I would not want to see is constituencies such as Yorkshire and the Humber. They are far too big and the majority of voters haven't the faintest idea who their MEPs are.

Posted on 31 May 2009 15:11 by Andrew Allison

I'm a huge fan of preferential voting, but it's worth pointing out that AV and STV are basically the same thing, but not quite. AV is STV *in single-member constituencies*.

The benefit of single member constituencies is that there's little to no chance of any of the creepy 'proportionality' creeping in.

However, AV wastes more votes than STV in multimember constituencies, because your unused votes for your favourite candidate can be redistributed to your next preference in the unfilled seats.

Another advantage is that if you want to vote Tory, but don't like your party-approved candidate, single member constituencies force you to dishonestly vote for another party.

In STV, you simply give your preferences to the two or three other Tory candidates, and not rank Mr X whom you dislike.

STV has many advantages over FPTP: it wastes far fewer votes, it reduces the number of safe seats, and it transfers power from the party machines to the electorates.

Posted on 31 May 2009 15:35 by Martin Coxall

A key disadvantage of PR and Multi-member constituencies would be the inevitable rise in Clientelism/Brokerage.

If you look at the example of ROI, PR hasn't made Parliament any stronger, just increaed the constituency role of the TD. The Taoiseach is almost as powerful as the British PM.

A system is needed which enhances the scrutiny role, not one which neuters it further.

Posted on 31 May 2009 15:47 by AJJM

We are all talking about radical ideas but frustrated by Gordons Brown unwillingness to call a general election. If it becomes obvious after thurdays elections that there was a massive protest vote decimating Labour support.
All non Labour MPs could resign and stand again in about 250 by elections. To maximis the preasure on GB this is not done all at once but say 12 every fortnight should be enough for this to dominate headlines for the best part of a year this has a secondary benefit of clearing out the non Labour corrupt leaving only corupt MPs who are all Labour if he insists on going on to the bitter end

Posted on 31 May 2009 15:48 by Ian

STV may be the best multi-member voting system, but it still has many, many problems. Most of all, parties need to guess how many seats they are likely to win, in order not to split their vote too much. There is no more choice than with FPTP in practice, and safe seats, in the form of "electoral stasis", are just as big a problem.
Wikipedia has a very good article on the issues here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_affecting_the_Single_Transferable_Vote
It suggests that STV seats need to be at least 11-member to be workable. Read Dan's blog if you want to know why seats of such size would be unworkable. On top of that, at that size the results would be proportional, leading to weak government!

My personal preference would be what Hugo suggests above. It, or something very similar, works quite well in the London mayoral election. There's no need whatsoever to move to multi-member constituencies if you establish open primaries!

Posted on 31 May 2009 16:04 by Henry Quisling

We can't afford to risk going down any route sympathetic to PR, even if there are forms of it you like, as the many different systems are a nightmare to understand and will simply confuse the issue in the public mind. Lessening opposition to PR because there's one form you like might result in a terrible PR system being bought in. Far better stick to FPTP and fight for open primaries.

<a href=http://newsjunction.co.uk/news>newsjunction.co.uk</a>

Posted on 31 May 2009 16:32 by David T Breaker

At present our voting system is a pig's ear as it tries to fulfill two functions at the same time.

1. To elect a local a representative to sit in the legislature

2. To elect a PM and executive

This means that unless a party I already agree with are in power I can't chose an independent to represent me without forfeiting my choice of PM.

So the only change that needs to be made ( and it solves all the whipping, party hack, donkey rosette wearing problems) is to directly elect the PM and executive
and seperate elections for constituency reps.

Posted on 31 May 2009 17:06 by paul

Please do not forget that it was P.R. that allowed a B.N.P. member to take up a seat in the London assembly even though they did not win at an overall constituency anywhere and now Boris Johnson has the misfortune to have to address the troll in the name of consensual politics.
Please do not allow this travesty of a voting method to enter British Politics any further. Even in a modified form which will just contrive the situation and render the voter even more alienated than they are now....

Posted on 31 May 2009 19:39 by Cornish Conservative

Paul,

I like your thinking. If I were involved in drafting a proper constitution for the UK one day (and Lord knows, I think a lot of us would love that), directly electing the PM and severing the executive from Parliament would be the most significant change.

Finally, we could fix the three-centuries-long hangover from the glorious revolution that laughingly masquerades as a constitution.

Posted on 31 May 2009 21:05 by Martin Coxall

Would anybody here favour a French-style two-round system for parliamentary elections?

i.e. if no candidate gets 50% or more of the vote, the top two go through to a second-round vote two weeks later.

It obviously has advantages and disadvantages, but I'm just wondering what y'all think.

Posted on 31 May 2009 21:11 by Martin Coxall

The BNP got in because people voted for them. It also happened in council elections up and down the country under FPTP. Rigging the election system is not the answer to the BNP, effective local politics that doesn't leave whole wards and towns feeling ignored and helpless is the only way to do that.

I'm glad Douglas has come out and said this today - electoral reform is not a panacea and reforming the relationship between the Executive, the whips and Parliament is just as important - but in no other field of activity would we look at a system so blatantly fixed to preserve the power of a duopoly and say that that was a positive thing.

And for those arch-Conservatives (or uncompromising supporters of whatever party or philosophy) out there: Do you ever get tired of party leaders watering down your beliefs to appeal to the middle ground? Worcester Woman? Mondeo Man? They do that because our political system punishes ideological debate - you might make a firey speech about raw ideals and radical policies and win a thousand new votes in an opposition stronghold, but if it scares off 2 swing votes in a key marginal, it isn't worth it.

If you want a politics of ideals and debate and radical ideas, the only way we will get that is by making every vote count and every supporter worth fighting for.

Posted on 31 May 2009 22:17 by Benjamin

I am a strong supporter of the Irish STV system as it retains a link between candidates and areas, gives every voter a voice and allows voters to rank candidates from the same party in an order of preference.

Posted on 31 May 2009 23:02 by PeterE

Paul 17:06. I agree. We need to be able to directly elect the PM and executive.

Cornish Conservative: True democracy allows people we find offensive the chance of being elected. This is the price we pay, but the alternative is the disaffection of the electorate we witness at the moment. You are not giving a coherent reason as to why we should not have electoral reform.

Posted on 31 May 2009 23:09 by Andrew Allison

We need to match MP's area of responsibility with their electorate.
So Nationaly empowered MP's needed to be elected nationaly.
Like County Sherrifs would be elected by the county.

We simply no longer need "constituancy reps", they are now in fact harmful

Posted on 1 June 2009 08:05 by DominicJ

Spot on. Writing as a non-Conservative voter, I am glad to see that there are Conservatives willing to embrace reform. We need to put an end to safe seats. MPs should have to earn every vote, not take their electorates for granted. Good on you!

Posted on 1 June 2009 14:17 by Lee Baker

Mr Kawczynski,
On the contrary, it is first-past-the-post that requires diluting policies. Here's a simplified model:

Imagine there are there are 3 issues, two major ones X and Y and one minor one Z. There are candidates from two major parties, the incumbent A, the other B, and a minor candidate C.

A supports X and opposes Y and Z.
B supports Y and opposes X and Z.
C supports X, opposes Y, and supports Z.

A and C only differ in their support for the minor issue Z. Imagine most people actually supported Z, but A and his party use their incumbency advantage to force it on the population.

Under first-past-the-post, A gets in, followed by B, and C doesn't get many votes. Even though people agree with C more than A, they don't want to waste their vote in case B gets in. AV fixes that. Under AV, people can rank C first, A second and B third, without worrying that B will get in.

When looking at A and C, they consider only the points on which they differ, and rank them accordingly. They don't have to consider B, an irrelevant alternative. Under first-past-the-post, they do, which is bad. See "Independence of irrelevant alternatives".

If C gets in, that's an improvement. If A still gets in, well, it hasn't made anything worse.

Posted on 2 June 2009 11:56 by Hugo

Martin Coxall said

"I'm a huge fan of preferential voting, but it's worth pointing out that AV and STV are basically the same thing, but not quite. AV is STV *in single-member constituencies*.

The benefit of single member constituencies is that there's little to no chance of any of the creepy 'proportionality' creeping in."

Good point. Thanks for that clarification.


Henry Quisling said "It, or something very similar, works quite well in the London mayoral election."

In the London mayoral election, you only got a second choice. Which turned it from a two-horse race to a three-horse race. Under AV, you get as many choices as their are candidates.


Cornish Conservative: The problem with the London Assembly election is that it used PR, not AV.

Posted on 2 June 2009 11:58 by Hugo

How about Radical Direct Democracy under a one-party state with an unashamedly elitist and much narrower franchise?

No point asking people to vote if they don't know or don't care, is there?

How about a party constitution that affords even more protection to the member than the Conservative Party constitution, which gives its members slightly more protection than a member of the BNP?

ARTICLE 1
Any citizen who has reached the age of 18 who accepts the Party's principles and is willing to join and work actively in on its behalf and agrees to pays his membership fees may apply for membership in the Party.

ARTICLE 2
(1) Members of the Party are to act in the National Interest.

(2) Members of the Party are at all times ordinary citizens. Party members must not seek personal gain or privileges, although the relevant laws and policies provide them with personal benefits and job-related functions and powers.

ARTICLE 3
Party members agree to the following:

(1) To interest themselves in the theories and practices of good government throughout the ages and throughout the world while suspending any cultural, religious, social or political prejudices they may have.

(2) To implement Minimum Government by which is meant the fewest laws and the lowest possible taxes necessary for Justice to subsist.

(3) To use these minimum laws and taxes in service of the greatest good of the greatest number.

(4) To practice personal responsibility while encouraging others to do so.

(5) To strive for the economic, social, cultural and educational advancement of the Nation.

(6) To speak out and address an issue that he perceives to affect the National Interest, even if it goes against the current orthodoxy (whatever that may be).

(7) To rigorously analyse the logic of any argument used or the truth of any statement relied upon.

(8) To act in accordance to with the highest standards of ethical behaviour that is consistent with Truth, Justice, Reason and the National Interest.

(9) To uphold the Party's solidarity, unity and singularity by resolving disagreements through debate, a thorough investigation of the issues and voting.

(10) To be open to discussion, whether in defending one's views or questioning another's.

(11) To maintain close ties with non-member citizens, informing them of Party policy and thinking, consult with them when problems arise, keep the Party regularly informed of their views and demands and defend their legitimate interests.

(12) To approve only laws that are proportionate to the evil to be addressed and in the National Interest, which are necessary to prevent crime, nuisance, damage to property and other ascertainable and provable evils. (For example, smoking in a public house or smoking in a public place is not a "provable evil." Citizens dying sooner as a result of smoking-related diseases that are self-inflicted is not provably harmful to the Nation.)

(13) To repeal any anti-discrimination "thought crime" legislation in existence that limits the citizen's freedom of association and contract.

(14) To refrain from

(a) using legislation as a means of favouring one group over another, such as apartheid, or

(b) using legislation to prevent citizens from exercising their freedom of contract and association

(15) To urge what is good and forbid what is evil, after due consultation and debate.

(16) To accept the truth of the following propositions in a speech made by Abraham Lincoln in 1865:

"You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of many by encouraging class hatred. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence. You cannot help them permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."

ARTICLE 4
Party members enjoy the following rights:

(1) To attend relevant Party meetings, read relevant Party documents, and benefit from the Party's education and training.

(2) To participate in the discussion of questions concerning the Party's policies at Party meetings and in Party newspapers and journals.

(3) To make suggestions and criticisms regarding the work of the Party.

(4) To criticise any Party organization or member at Party meetings, to present information or charges against any Party organization or member concerning violations of discipline or the law to the Party, to demand disciplinary measures against such a member, or call for dismissal or replacement of any incompetent or corrupt member.

(5) To participate in voting and elections and to stand for election.

(6) To attend, with the right of self-defence, discussions held by Party organizations to decide on disciplinary measures to be taken against themselves in the appraisal of work and behaviour; and call on other Party members to bear witness or argue on their behalves.

(7) In case of disagreement with a Party decision or policy, to make reservations and present their views to the Party, provided that they implement the policy while it is in force.

(8) To put forward any request, appeal, or complaint to the Party and be entitled to a substantive response.

(9) No Party member or organization has the right to deprive any Party member of the above-mentioned rights.

ARTICLE 5

Party oath to be sworn by members:

"It is my intention to implement the Party's programme of Minimum Government and work in the National Interest. I believe that the National Interest is best served by a meritocratic political system where there is no representation without taxation under which citizens practise personal responsibility, self-sufficiency and are educated, open-minded, ethical, versatile and rational in their decisions in the exercise of direct democracy."

Vote: Do you like the sound of these membership rules?


http://www.1party4all.co.uk/Home/Account/TopicForm.aspx?topicsId=107

Posted on 2 June 2009 18:05 by Andromeda

Will right thinking Tory workers & supporters who believe in PR, like myself have a dilemma if there might be a Referendum on it in the next year? Is there a Conservatives for PR movement?

Posted on 1 May 2010 09:53 by Arun Ahluwalia

Make A Comment