Appearing before the Joint Committee on the Draft Constitutional Renewal Bill yesterday, Labour MP Graham Allen repeated a proposal he has variously advocated: that is, knocking through the chamber of the Commons into the division lobbies, thus creating space for each MP to have a desk and to be able to vote electronically. In my earlier post on recording abstentions, I mentioned my opposition to electronic voting. In response, Cassilis asked the reasons for my opposition.
My reasons derive from the merits I see in the present method of voting. By having to walk through the division lobbies emphasises the significance of a vote. Simply sitting at a desk pressing a button reduces the significance – you just press a button and that’s it. Voting is important: having to make an effort to vote reminds one of that fact. There is also a practical political advantage. You get to see people in the lobbies. This can be valuable, not least for seeing party leaders, ministers or colleagues in order to pursue a particular issue. Members are conscious of this value and it is incorporated in their planning (‘I will button-hole the minister in the lobby this evening’). It is useful even if the person you want to see is going into the other lobby. It may also have a value in allowing tempers to cool, and the business managers to have a quick worrd, following a particularly heated debate.
I also do not see that electronic voting would have significant advantages. The main claim for it is that it saves time. However, the time-consuming feature of voting is not necessarily casting a vote but getting to the chamber in order to cast a vote. Eight minutes are allowed from a division being called to the doors to the chamber being locked. That is to enable members to get to the chamber from wherever they are in (or indeed outside) the parliamentary estate. Walking through the division lobby is not particularly time-consuming. Unless, therefore, there are more compelling reasons that I have overlooked, I for one prefer to stick with the existing method.
I see a lot of it as a disdain of many for anything ‘old’ and a love of all that’s new and shiny and still smells of polystyrene balls.
You’re absolutely right about the need to stick with the current system, moreover: ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.’
If a simple e-petition system for the Lords, which is an important mechanism for communicating with the public, cannot be afforded; why should money be spent on this?
On the technology front, have a look at the problems with Diebold voting machines in the US. Problems with reliability, no paper trails, confused voters, spiralling costs, not to mention conspiracy theories galore.
The Lords would be insulated from the worst of these problems, but the underlying problems still remain. I am a great believer in technology as a solution to all the worlds problems, however this is not a problem. Electronic voting seems to be a solution in search of a problem.
An advantage of e-voting is that it could enable voting for those unable to be attend. Is it a requirement for the parliamentarian to be there in person?
It is amazing to me that Lord Norton is here defending the sanctity and importance of voting when a scant two weeks ago he was arguing that the referendum process inevitably produced overly simplistic clauses that didn’t reflect the gravity of the issue being proposed. Indeed, it was shocking to see that the evidence used to reject the effectiveness of the vote was drawn from the way that people treat telephone surveys. It seems that we have a contradiction of sorts here. Assuming that voting is an act of some gravity and that fact distinguishes it from merely choosing or expressing a preference, then this undercuts the earlier argument that the odd results gleaned from the mere expression of preference on a telephone survey should be used to draw any conclusions about voting in general.
Actually this sort of tension is in many ways unsurprising. The uk has adopted a trajectory recently that ends in something which doesn’t look at all like a democracy. A lack of bail, a general disdain for taking seriously the opinion of the people, a near constant level of surveillance in public, a restriction on speech so severe that it makes the critique of the government’s policy on the EU and immigration fraught with legal peril and an alteration of the fundamental sovereignty of the kingdom without so much as input from the people all show quite clearly that the welfare state is incompatible with robust democracy.
The reason why is all too clear as well. When the government is in the business of defining the people’s interests rather than providing them with the freedom to pursue their own interests as they conceive of them, there is little justification left for taking seriously and responding to the will of the people. After all, the will of the people risks contradicting the construction of their interests by the state. On a day when the US acknowledges that the right to self defense is fundamental, even if it results in an increase in the use of force by individuals, it is sad that the UK cannot even bring itself to acknowledge that the right to speak one’s mind is so fundamental as to be outweighed by the fact that others find such expression noxious.
Betty Boothroyd as guest on the Antiques Roadshow, October 2007, demonstrated the Division Bell Transmitter (serial number 1) that causes the electrical bells to ring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_bell
It was in excellent condition given that it was manufactured in the 19th century. I’m not sure but I believe the same system is still in use today except we are on transmitter number 5.
http://www.connected-earth.com/daysout/MuseumofLondon/3Dobjects/obj003.htm
It demonstrates that the Victorians were very keen on high technology so not withstanding your objections might a compromise be to have an SMS text message sent out to the Parliamentarian when the lobby bell sounds?
Parliamentarians wear ID badges these days. Its not only for security but perhaps to stop strangers wandering into the lobbies and being counted as happened on 27 February 1771.
Should individuals use a swipe card to gain entry to the lobby? As of old, does the bell ring in local pubs and restaurants; the individual has only eight minutes to get to their lobby after the bell rings?
Ref: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/p09.pdf
Electronic voting in parliamentary chambers as distinct from that in polling booths for the electorate is to me a good thing. Given the familiarity of a member with the system, this is where technology is welcome to be applied to speed things up and help improve accuracy and believability. It would also have two important side effects.
First is that the chamber would have to have space for every member. This would mean that busy debates would be more efficiently run and that parliament would look more like a workplace and less like a boisterous private members club.
Second is that the business of voting would remain secret whilst at the same time becoming much more apparent to the electorate. Looking at 42 days, for example, it would be more of a criticism that the chamber was only full when the vote was taken rather than that the chamber was predominantly empty through the debate. I think the visibility of the process of voting to the electorate is a better priority than having it possible to use it as a social event where one can influence. However, obviously, I can’t know what I don’t see.
I can understand the temptations of conservatism on fundamental procedures such as this, but if Europe or indeed a devolved legislature was run like this we’d be crying out for reform. Just because precedent lets us get away with something doesn’t make it right, the argument must be made further as to why refusing to modernise is a good idea.
ladytizzy: yes, members have to be present to vote. They do not necessarily have to go through the lobbies, though, if ill or infirm. In the Commons, all that is required is that the Memner be in the precincts: s/he can be in an ambulance in New Palace Yard and a whip then has to check that the Member is present (and alive). One does not see much of this in periods when a Government has a working majority – seriously ill members are not brought in – but it is employed at times of narrow votes (as happened in the 1974-79 Parliament). A decision not to bring in a seriously ill MP (he died a few days later) was responsible for the Callaghan Government losing by one vote the vote of confidence on 28 March 1979. In the Lords, the requirement is to be in the chamber: a clerk checks whether the occupant of the Woolsack wishes to vote and will also see if peers who are present but may have mobility problems wish to vote as well and makes a note of their votes.
Brett: You are confusing two things. There is no contradiction. I have an objection to referendums. The mode of voting is a separate issue. If there is to be a referendum, then the question would be relevant in the context of whether one goes to the polling booth or is allowed to vote electronically.
nuttyxander: with a membership of 646 MPs in the Commons and approximately 750 peers in the Lords, the last thing we need is individual desks for members! We want a debating chamber, not an aircraft hanger. If we had a smaller membership (and a newly-designed building), then there may be a case for creating individual seating arrangements. In the present set-up, it is a non-starter. Bear in mind that there is not space in the existing chambers for all the existing members. I am familiar with the argument that through electronic voting one can vote if not secretly (names would be recorded) then at least without having to walk against the flow of one’s colleagues into a different lobby. That cuts both ways. I see it as emphasising the weight to be accorded to voting. When I vote against my colleagues, I have to go in a different direction – physically as well as politically. It emphasises the significance of my action. I admit much may depend on the psychology of the individual. Were anyone to give me a strange or disapproving look, it would make me more, not less, determined to vote in the way I planned.
nuttyxander: one further thought on the use of the word ‘modernise’. The use of the term is fairly pervasive in discussion of changes in Parliament: ‘we must modernise’. One sees a similar development in the USA with use of the term ‘change’ by candidates in the US presidential race. It is essentially meaningless. It covers everything and means nothing. One has to look at proposals on their individual merits.
Electronic voting does not increase accuracy or believability. See the problems I pointed to with Diebold above.
Would we, there are a great number of the tech community who would disagree with you. As an real-life counterpoint to your assertion, the Dutch government have decided, that as long as a decent alternative exists, they should not use voting machines (apologies for the Babelfish link).
There are complications with electronic voting, a few starters: do you allow proprietary software? How do you ensure there are no usability problems? Can you trust the vendor (the CEO of Diebold was quoted as saying, ‘committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President.,’ shortly before the election in 2004)? Can you trust the individuals who maintain the system? What happens if it gets cracked? How do you deal with people voting for members who aren’t even there?
The only reasons presented for electronic voting are: 1) if Europe were a Democracy, they would do it; 2) it’s modern, so must be good. To start, these just don’t seem like valid reasons and even if they were the benefits are far outweighed by the security, maintenance, usability of such a system.
There are far more pressing items on the modernising agenda, such as producing electronic copies of bills. Seems there’s a bit of ‘pet project syndrome’ going on here.
Thank you Lord Norton, your reply to my question has further intrigued me.
You have illustrated that a member need not go through a lobby door to register their vote. Your argument may be seen as one of proximity rather than principle.
The public may vote in person, by proxy, or by post, for their representative thus any problems with e-voting are of a technical nature, again, not those of principle.
E-votes by a member could be made public as quickly as a walk-through. I recognise I’m unlikely to change your mind but is there room to argue that more votes are more likely if Parliament allowed off-site participation?
ladytizzy: It was once possible for peers to vote by proxy. Of-site participation would almost certainly increase the level of voting, but I am not sure what benefit there is in that. It runs counter the point I make about the symbolic importance of voting. If peers cannot make the effort to attend, why should they be allowed to vote? By requiring members to be present to vote, there is the greater likelihood of them actually listening to the debate or at least checking the merits of the issue with others before voting. There is also the point in the case of the Lords that voting in a division is taken as indicating attendance for the purposes of claiming allowances for that day. If we had off-site or proxy voting we would need to change the rules. Off-site voting encourages laziness in relation to one’s parliamentary duties; I don’t think we should then reward it financially as well.
If the rules once allowed proxy voting, it proves rules can be changed.
I am surprised that a parliamentarian sees no benefit of increased voting ability; doesn’t this run counter to the democratic process? The symbolism of walking through a door rather than putting a red or green hat on or showing a red or green light is lost on me, I admit.
Non-attendance = laziness is a matter you are better placed to comment on, though it seems a harsh generalised statement about your colleagues. Have you had to choose between, say, attending a vote and giving a key lecture?
The issue of paying peers to vote has a ring of unintentional ‘sleaze’ and might explain some abstentions. Again, a matter of changing the rules, rather than using the existing system to support your argument.
I understand some local councils have installed cameras to stream their debates live, a system that would allow peers to follow the debate and, given a decent set-up, would enable them to contribute and vote.
We’re not destined to agree on this, are we?
ladytizzy: The basic position is that we are a debating chamber; the opportunity to listen to others, to intervene, to see the reaction of ministers and others is central to the process. Video-conferencing or simply voting by texting a vote are no substitute for proper debate and dilute the importance of the exercise. I have variously had to miss votes because of prior commitments. The payment is in order to enable one to attend and participate in the work of the House. If one does not attend, then there is no obvious justification for claiming travel, overnight accommodation and subsistence costs.
Ahh, the burka gambit, nice move. I empathise somewhat but isn’t this blog an experiment on the merits of proper debate in another format?
I’m still not clear – would a peer get allowances for attending a debate that doesn’t lead to a vote? Is the allowance system more, or less, similar to a local council?
ladytizzy: one can have an online discussion but rarely in the depth that can be achieved in a two- or three-hour face-to-face debate. For better or worse, how someone speaks – not just what they say or write – can influence attitudes. On your last point, allowances in the Lords are not the same as for local councillors, in that local councillors now receive their allowances automatically: as long as they attend to the minimum required by statute, they are paid the full allowance. With peers, you can only claim allowances for the days you attend the House. There is a maximum figure for each of three categories: overnight accommodation, subsistence, and secretatarial/research. One can claim up to the maximum for each category for each day of attendance. I gather a majority of peers do so. I don’t. I claim most of the overnight accommodation allowance, but my claims for the other categories – based on what I actually spend – usually come well under 50% of what I can claim.
Lord Norton, you would be the last person I’d believe trying to clamber on the allowances gravy train, given how and what you write about here but thank you for explaining the framework between councillors and HoL.
Returning to our online discussion, you make claim to the depth of debate between peers though Baroness Murphy implied there could be as little as three or four minutes per person in a popular debate. As she asserted, there’s little time to put a fulsome argument on a singular point once the niceties have been observed.
As she said: “…one very distinguished educationalist on our benches feels very aggrieved that he will not be able to cover anything in depth…” (25 June 08)
You may also want to take her to task when she commented “After all, for politicians to criticise people who only vote when they feel they understand the issues when political peers go through the lobbies without a clue on what they are voting about seems to me an extraordinary attitude to parliamentary business.” (7 June 08)
Cross-bencher comments may not appeal but in one of your earlier posts (3 April 2008) you later commented that valuable discussions and transactions have been made in the Bishop’s Bar. Would I be crossing the line if I questioned where the debating chamber starts and ends? Could it not be at the end of a laptop?
So annoying to see smilies instead of ‘8’ followed by right-hand parentheses.
🙂
ladytizzy: the debate is certainly not confined to the chamber. The chamber is but one means, but a core one, for pursuing an issue. As crucial are committee rooms – more of my time is taken up in committee than in the chamber – and in the more informal environment of the dining rooms (especially for me the Bishop’s Bar)and corridors. The inter-action at a personal level is crucial. One cannot have the same sort of discourse online.
As for short debates, they can be very valuable. Last week’s debate on higher education enabled more than twenty peers with a range of experience to make extremely good points. Because their experience is varied, there was no repetition of the same point. Having to keep to five minutes (except for the proposer and front-bench speakers) meant that you had to decide what were the most salient points you wished to convey. It is a useful discipline as well as making for a good debate.
To bring my points together, after last week’s debate on higher education – it was a three-hour debate – I repaired to the Bishop’s Bar for lunch, as did some of the other speakers, so we were able to discuss informally some the points raised in the debate.
I share your frustration about the unintended appearance of smiley faces, but I know now what to do to avoid their appearance!