I have just returned from the Council of Europe “Forum for the Future of Democracy”, attending on behalf of the Lord Speaker. Curiously, nobody challenged my right to be there, as an unelected legislator. I listened a lot and spoke a little.
The Council gathers together roughly twice as many countries as the EU, from Andorra to Ukraine, with several from the previous Soviet bloc. There was much intense discussion of the merits of various electoral systems. A survivor of the Communist era warned me: “Beware the most dictatorial of all Party Lists – that with only one name on it – like you have with First-Past-The-Post in the UK !”
Throughout the whole continent there is a move to try to make elections more effective, in an attempt to revive trust and participation in democratic politics. However, with the current volatility in the public mood, the only certainty for 2010 must be uncertainty.
P.S. If you have been betting on a Conservative landslide next year I suggest that you think again. For some people, David Cameron has seemed so sure-footed until now that it is mind-boggling that he should blunder so spectacularly: imagine promising to give high priority to legalising full-blooded fox hunting just as “Fantastic Mr Fox” hits the big screen! No contest. I advise you to get down to the betting shop quick, before the odds change.
In fairness to the Conservative leader the Hunting Act was a dreadful piece of poorly conceived and divisive legislation, and I fully support its repeal in favour of more sensible legislation.
In addition I’d consider Party List to be the most dictatorial – FPTP does have other benefits even if it struggles to give accurate voting representation in the legislature, namely single-member representation and single-party government.
That said, I remain agnostic about electoral reform. I’m happy to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of all electoral systems, and if the UK were ever to adopt a different one from FPTP I wouldn’t be sorry.
I think that as these primary-style PPC (s)elections start becoming more common the future of the First Past the Post system is safer. Who is going to put up with a party list of party-approved homogenous-thinkers under PR when they once were able to choose a local party candidate themselves?
PR is a dire system which entrenches party-loyal politicians who can’t/don’t want to think for themselves. What a shame the EU has decided to ban us from returning to FPTP for European elections, eh?
The best way to make elections more effective is to localise power as much as possible. Unfortunately that seems to be at odds with the ultimate ambitions of those who run the European Union, where centralisation in the hands of the few seems to be the name of the game.
I’ve gone off betting since I lost £10 on the Irish Lisbon vote %. But, if anything, I think the the ruination of Roald Dahl’s novel in all-american film form will energise those who support people’s right to hunt!
First past the post has its downside as we know. But by comparison, the system used in the UK for European parliamentary election is rubbish! You talk about being an unelected legislator, but the European elections return several such legislators in each region. The first on the list for each of the major parties is almost certain to be elected however people vote.
In first past the post, voters can feasibly vote against candidates they don’t agree with, such as when Peter Law won Blaenau Gwent. Even with the extreme anger people felt in that case, that wouldn’t have happened in the Euro elections as voting against a party means penalising the second- and third-place candidates.
Now, if only they could have boxes alongside each name instead of at the top of the list, that would be true democracy. Otherwise I’d rather have the likes of you representing the country in Europe – at least the fact you are appointed is transparent – not some of the people who are “elected” under the present PR system.
I hate the concept of party lists. They separate the ability of the voting population to vote for/against a particular candidate and leave things to the party bosses. This means a candidate may be despised by his local voters but by virtue of being at the top of the list is guaranteed a seat unless the party vote completely evaporates. It was noticeable when I wrote to my MEP’s prior to the European elections the ones at the top of the party lists were the slowest in getting back to me (if they did at all).
On the subject of hunting: I don’t care. It seems to excite a lot of passions on both sides of the house but as far as I can tell the legislation hasn’t saved a single fox from being killed. It’s certainly not an issue on my radar when weighing up who to vote for.
There are forms of proportional representation that include local representation.
MMP (as per Germany) is one such; in this system part of the chamber is elected directly by constituencies (identical to the current FPTP system in the UK), and the remaining seats are allocated to parties (from lists) to “top them up” until they are represented proportional to their vote. Voters have two votes: a candidate vote, and a party vote. The candidate vote determines who is elected in their particular constituency, and the party vote determines the national percentage of votes some party gets, and hence their total number of seats in parliament.
Another PR system is STV, in which voters chose from several candidates in multi-member constitutencies.
With regard to party lists, it is possible to have an ‘open list’ system, so that the specific people elected can be held directly accountable, because people voted directly for them.
P.S. I would still bet on a Conservative landslide.
I’m glad to see we all agree on the dangers of a closed party list. However, that is not the form of PR that most reformers want. Instead, we should go for the suggestion made here by Jonathan that the VOTER should have the opportunity to put candidates in order of preference, not the party. This objective is best met by the form of PR known as the Single Transferable Vote.
Could I just point out that in the countries where ‘Open’ Party Lists are in place, most people still tend to vote ‘above the line’ and don’t bother choosing the candidates individually?
My experience of this comes from Australian elections and some others…
I’m not sure that’s a problem. The order of the candidates can still be determined by the votes of those who do indicate a preference. People who don’t care can just select a party.
Lord Tyler,
Andorra may have increased it influence with United States by a greater factor in a shorter time than any other country in history. A major league baseball player of note has changed citizenship from Cuba to Andora prior to playing on one of our best teams. The US is also the place to look for countries other than Andorra for many separate constituions (the States themselves)where party list are not used. There have been many lvels of “label” and “ticket” packaging over the years from nearly a party list system to systems where such an idea is seen as nearly pure evil.
As an unelected legislator you ought to feel right at home in Europe. The European Commission which is the only body which has the power to promulgate legislation in Europe, is unaccountable and unelected and working, not so slowly, to further economic and political union.
And I don’t like it a bit!
Lord Tyler must realize that as soon as we introduce PR into the Lords you’ll have ‘Lord Griffin’ and ‘Lord (Anjem) Choudary of the East London Mosque’ standing alongside you in ermine.