Some Proposals on Electoral Reform

By

Stuart Yates

The reality of the 2005 UK General Election prompts some thoughts on electoral reform. I am aware that this is a very large and potentially complex subject but I have deliberately chosen not to carry out research into current thinking, preferring to start from a blank sheet of paper. It may well be therefore that those familiar with reform proposals will recognise some of the arguments and may well indeed know of the arguments against them. The aim is to outline a process that would correct the most glaring fault with UK elections at present: the fact that a sizeable minority (and sometimes a majority) of votes simply do not count. They are indeed counted but are then effectively discarded. If you vote Conservative and live in a safe Labour seat (or vice versa), then your vote is meaningless. It is no wonder that many voters are so apathetic.

House of Commons

Outline Process

General Elections

1. Each party, of whatever size, selects its candidates in order of preference. For example, Labour would, presumably, put Tony Blair as number one, with Cabinet members following on downwards. Candidates are not connected with a particular constituency (but see below for how links with consituencies are created and maintained). A deposit is required as now for each candidate and each party declares how many candidates it is fielding.
2. Ballot papers are effectively universal. The form lists the parties and the voter is required to vote for just one party. Against each party name is the number of candidates fielded nationally for that party. In this way, small/individual parties who choose names similiar to national parties can be identified.
3. Standard information about each sitting MP standing for re-election would be independently compiled and sent to the local electorate with the poll card. This would include such facts as attendance and voting record, so that voters can have some factual information on the MP's track record.
4. An additional box is provided on the ballot paper with the question: 'Would you like your present MP to continue representing you?', with 'Yes', 'No' and 'Don't care' as alternative answers to cross. This would be irrespective of whether or not the present MP is in fact standing. If not, it indicates how the MP was regarded: a farewell message. If the MP is standing, it serves to capture the constituency voters' wishes which we shall see below are honoured. It will be noted that a voter may vote for one party and vote 'Yes' for the sitting MP who is from a different party, or indeed vote for a party and vote 'No' against the sitting MP from that party. All these decisions are meaningful and count towards the appropriate action, as shall be seen later.
5. The votes are counted locally and nationally and the count of Yes/No/Don't care votes are totalled locally together with the usual statistics on turnout and the votes received by each party at constituency level. Having tallied the national vote, seats are awarded to each party on the percentage of the national vote gained by each party. Sitting MPs who gained a majority of 'Yes' vote and who are standing in this election retain their seat in that constituency. In this way, valued local MPs are retained within the constituency and continuity of service is provided. New candidates or existing MPs who did not get a majority 'Yes' vote from their constituency are allocated a seat according to their ranking by their party. For example, Tony Blair (number one Labour candidate) would stay at Sedgefield if a majority of voters in Sedgefield vote 'Yes' to retain him, whether or not Labour had a majority there. If a majority of Sedgefield voters voted 'No' or 'Don't care', then Tony Blair would then represent the constituency with the largest Labour majority, being regarded as the most valued party representative.
6. The parties work down their lists, allocating candidates to constituencies according to the majorities gained (subject to sitting MPs holding onto their seats with 'Yes' votes) until all the seats are taken. Candidates further down the list do not become MPs at this election. The party with an overall majority forms the Government. When there is no overall majority - more common under this system - parties negotiate a coalition or the largest minority party forms a government. Under this system all votes count and small parties gain precisely the representation in Parliament that their share of the vote warrants.
7. There is a need for rules governing situations when the number of Mps in a party who gain a majority of 'Yes' votes are more than the number of Mps allocated to that party on the share of the national vote. In this case, the 'surplus' Mps who gain the lowest percentage of 'Yes' votes would not continue for those constituencies. By definition, whatever their status in the party, no other seat would be available as all other Mps in their party have gained more support from their constituents. This illustrates one way in which MPs are individually accountable to the electorate.
8. General elections will be held at set intervals - say five years.

By-elections can be caused by the departure of the MP from politics by choice or by death, or in one circumstance by an MP changing allegiance to another party or becoming an independent MP. If an MP departs altogether, a by-election is held with the ballot paper format exactly as for a General Election (although the candidates are in effect known, being the highest person on each party's list). 'Yes' votes for the departing MP provide the voters' verdict on his or her performance. If an MP changes allegiance and got a majority 'No' or 'Don't care' vote at the last election (at whatever constituency), or is a new MP, a by-election as above is also called. Only if the MP gained a 'Yes' majority at the last election, by definition from this constituency, will he or she be allowed to continue and there is no by-election. Again, in this way, valued MPs are rewarded.

Advantages/Disadvantages

• The overwhelming advantage is that all votes count. No vote is a wasted vote. Every person's participation in the electoral process is meaningful.
• Smaller parties are represented fairly, according to their share of the total vote. Yes, this does mean that parties such as the BNP are likely to get a few seats, but are we not supposed to be a democracy? Unless a party is a proscribed organisation, in which case it will not appear on the ballot paper at all, all shades of opinion are entitled to be represented according to the support given them by the populace.
• There remains a link between MPs and their constituencies, such that good constituency MPs are able to continue to serve their constituents irrespective of the party preference of that constituency. Equally, poor Mps are left in no doubt what their constituents think of them. There is some real accountability here.
• Valued senior politicians are not subject to the vagaries of swing marginals or tactical voting. We can allow ourselves the schadenfreude of witnessing public figures losing their seats (think Portillo) but the country can ill-afford to lose the talents of able politicians and party leaders are entitled to have at their disposal the people they choose, their best team.
• There is likely to be a reduction of independent MPs, elected on their personal appeal. This is a small price to set against the advantages. It also represents the reality: apart from wishing to keep a valued MP (catered for in the above system) people vote for a party or a party's policies.
• There is likely to be far fewer landslide victories and far more 'hung' Parliaments, which might be seen to create weak governments formed from coalitions. This is my personal view, but I see large majorities as basically anti-democratic: they enable the Prime Minister at the time to do what s/he wishes for several years (an elected dictatorship), then bring in populist measures, manipulating the economy if necessary, at a time of the government's choosing, in order to regain power. Coalitions also force politicians to move away from the black and white arguments: 'we are right, they are wrong' towards cooperation, consensus, reflecting the views of the population at large.
• Constituency boundaries can be re-drawn without any political effects - benefits or drawbacks - whatsoever and become a purely administrative matter.
• Nationalist - Welsh, Scottish, Irish - parties have influence in the UK Parliament according to their share of the total UK vote, not according to the votes in each region.
• Local campaigning will be affected. A sitting MP will clearly campaign in his/her constituency. Other parties would send people to support local activists according to their belief on how many votes can be won there, but there would not be the traditional fight beween several 'local' candidates.
• Tactical voting would be eliminated or substantially reduced.

House of Lords/Second Chamber

UK politics is bedevilled by its history in having an unelected second chamber. There is a need for second chamber but it needs to be elected whilst not just reflecting the current power balance in the House of Commons. The purposes of a second chamber also need to be defined. In outline, the second chamber's purposes/powers are defined as being a reviewing/amending function as at present: bills can be delayed but not overturned. In addition, it is proposed that the second chamber have a responsibility for proposing legislation for consideration by the House of Commons.

Outline Process

General Elections

1. There would be a general election to the second chamber at the mid-point of the life of the current House of Commons.
2. Candidates would be aligned to political parties and represent constituencies in the same way as Mps with two important differences. The whipping system needs to be much lighter so that members can have more discretion in voting and it would be preferable to have fewer constituencies, perhaps in the order of 250-300.
3. There is some merit in members being seen to be 'senior' members of society, in which case an independent scrutinising body could play a useful role in approving candidates from lists submitted by parties.
4. The process otherwise is exactly the same as that for the House of Commons, as above.
5. Members would be appropriately paid for their services as scrutineers of the government's legislative programme and for their time spent in the constituency, sounding out opinion, supporting their constituents and looking at areas for legislation that the government of the day has overlooked.

• The second chamber would not just be a mirror image of the House of Commons, as it would be if elections to both Houses took place at the same time. In this way, the elections to the second chamber provide a real opportunity for the electorate to communicate their feelings to the government during a Parliament.
• Members of the second chamber would have a 'proper job', responsible to the electorate at a local level as well as at the national level.
• It sweeps away the anachronistic situation in which unelected people have influence over the way in which the laws of this country are determined.
• The primary legislators in the House of Commons would need to be more mindful of the views of an elected second chamber when controversial legislation is being proposed, especially if the mood of the country is in line with the second chamber.

Other elections

It is acknowledged that local, county council, Welsh Assembly, Scottish Parliament, Northern Ireland and European elections also bear scrutiny and what is proposed at UK national level may, or may not, be appropriate at other levels. It is not proposed to consider these at the present time as the main focus is on reform of the general election process (and thus how people are represented) and the way in which a second chamber is constituted.

However, the presence of 'regional' assemblies of one type and another and the methods by which the general election is determined are somewhat intertwined. There is also the question of representation at UK level of areas served by a regional assembly. These are structural issues rather than means of selection/representation issues, having to do for instance with whether an MP representing a constituency within a regional assembly area should be able to vote on legislation over which his/her assembly has legislative powers. There are a number of solutions available but considering them is beyond the scope of the present exercise.

Conclusion

I am aware that this area is very complex and that what is proposed here is sketched in outline form only. These proposals, as I said earlier, may have already been proposed and found wanting. Nevertheless, if reading this serves to spark interest and pressure for change from people who have not considered the matter before, it will have been worthwhile.

Electoral reform is not a mere optional extra, a tinkering with fine details. It is vital for the operation of a democracy that the electoral process is fair, that votes count and that public opinion is accurately represented in the legislative institutions. The present system does not do this and our democracy is so much the weaker as a result. The time for change is long overdue.

April 2005