I am constantly amused and amazed by the antipathy of some Peers and MPs to any form of improved voting systems for elections to Parliament, when they cheerfully adopt such fairer mechanisms for so many other purposes.
For example, the election for the Deputy Speakers of the Commons, just completed, employed the admirable system of Single Transferable Vote (STV). Leadership elections for all parties carefully avoid any use of First-Past-The-Post (FPTP), knowing it to be capable of ludicrous distortions.
Unfortunately, those who have arrived in either House by the present method almost always seem to have been resistant to allowing the public a say in deciding on the merits of other options. Is this about to change?
The emphasis the Liberal Democrat negotiators placed on putting electoral reform for the Commons to a public referendum, and the acceptance of this by the Conservative leadership, may mark a major step forward. The last minute, deathbed repentance of the Labour leadership on this issue may also prove timely, assuming that the new Leader does not resile from their manifesto commitment.
Hitherto, Parliament has been only too pleased introduce fairer systems for every other type of elected assembly, and for its own internal elections, but has never taken its own medicine. People rightly ask why something that’s good enough for elections in Parliament would be so terrible for elections to Parliament.
I personally think there is some strength to the argument that the very different roles of the Houses should lead us to different emphasis in the choice of electoral systems. The validity of the strong constituency connection for MPs may lead to a choice of Alternative Vote (AV), or AV+, as preferable there, with the clear line of accountability given priority. For the reformed second chamber the emphasis might need to be on greater proportionality, and independence from parties, with STV. I am delighted that my Conservative colleagues in the Coalition have now recognised the grave danger of using FPTP for our House. That would have caused constant friction between Senators and MPs and would have guaranteed repeated distortions of public support.
This is a fascinating example – and a very salutary one – of the advantage of parties with previously diametrically opposed positions having to sit down together and think through again what they are hoping to achieve. In this case, I think we’ve arrived at an extremely sensible conclusion. Significantly, the Westminster-based media remain both sceptical and cynical about the Coalition, but the public in the real world seem to be delighted with the way in which politicians are having to work together in this way.
The elections for the Deputy Speaker involved a bit more than just STV though, didn’t it? For instance, a candidate coming stone-dead last would still have ‘won’ for simply being female. Not a fault of STV in that particular case, but hardly a shining beacon of “fairness” is it?
Personally, during the post-election mess, I got the feeling that the Liberal Democracts would have leapt aboard of any party offering them pure PR, particularly if there was *not* to be a referendum on it.
Perhaps I am being unfair, but given the LibDems’ recent record of denying the public a referendum, I think it’s understandable!
I’ve never heard someone ask ‘why something that’s good enough for elections in Parliament would be so terrible for elections to Parliament’ but I have heard many people ask exactly what the point of Parliament is given that EU law trumps British law, and that most of our laws now originate from the EU.
I suspect we probably mix in different circles.
It’s still just another way of rearranging the deck chairs.
Far from the issue of which trougher gets their go at the trough, the real issue is issues.
How does the public get their say on an issue?
For those that want to abdicate, they can always nominate a proxy who will vote as they see fit.
Until that changes, you are just part of the problem.
For example, the true debt of the UK government when you add in pensions is around the 5 trillion mark. What have you done to prevent this debt being racked up, and with the consequences?
We are getting some of that now. For example, by raising the state retirement age by 1 year, people are having 5,000 pounds stolen from them. That’s one consequence of the failure.
Lord Blagger.
Ponzi schemes always screw people over.
“The public in the real world seem to be delighted with the way in which politicians are having to work together in this way.”
The public are delighted that thus far NOTHING has happened, indeed the BBC politics section headline for three weeks was “The coalition get to work”..and nothing happened except Vince Cable standing down. I have to admit I`m rather fond of this nothing too.
😉
Sometimes my children bleat on and on about something in the hope I`ll give in to their wishes…I don`t. Since you assume the position of a powerful authority and desperately want PR, STV etc., and you are obviously completely convinced everyone else is with you on it….Do something about it, put your money where your mouth is. I know it`s a bad idea and the fact that many are not with you on this, so we`ll have to differ in opinion.
Wow! Lord Tyler:
Yours is a really democratically responsible and response-able communication.
Thank you; and let’s hope it’s not too late to catch up with such absolutely essential little ‘snippets’ of mandatory citizenship knowledge (and duty).
Dammit ‘though, we few must now beg to seriously wonder why during the TV-screened election-campaigning the Shadow Foreign Minister (and others both inside and outside of politics) drummed into us The People much malfeasant rubbish, such as
(‘) PM GB was not an elected PM; whereas DC will be (‘) ?
When I emailed The Telegraph that (‘)Britain has never had an elected PM nor other Minister nor Backbencher nor Scrutiny-Committee chair or member(‘) I got not even a whisper of acknowledgement.
So; there are many viable democracy-supports still to be revealed to us ?
Wow!
“but the public in the real world seem to be delighted with the way in which politicians are having to work together in this way.”
Absolutely true. Vast numbers of people remarking on its wisdom at last and NONE at all on shortcomings.
I am not a Cameron supporter at all, but it could run for the five years.
It’s all about how to allocate the deck chairs. Namely which snouts get to trough at which jobs.
No say at all for the poor blighers who have to pay for all this largess.
That’s the problem. What you are basically saying is that democracy is good for how we organises ourselves, but we won’t give a say in the issues to the plebs who pay for it.
Aristocracy at work.
Lord Blagger
Is it an EU requirement that we elect MEPs with that abominable party list system? Of all the options, that must be about the worst, where the electorate don’t get to choose their representatives because the ordering on the list is decided by the party hierarchy. Even FPTP ranks above that, in my opinion. I’ve yet to see a way of picking the best (or even deciding on the best) form of PR by referendum. Anything but a straight choice between two options makes it a bit recursive, given that we then have to pick a method from those on which we’re voting to decide the answer. Or we could combine them, so the vote gets scored by every method on the ballot and whichever gets the most wins is declared the overall winner.
Perhaps we can have five years of minimal new laws and much repealing of existing useless and damaging ones? I’m sure the public would love to see that happen.
Almost. Soon after we abandoned FPTP and single-member constituencies for the EU “Parliament” “elections” the EU banned any member state from using FPTP for those elections.
I think New Zealand, when it was changing the voting system, had 4 options on the initial referendum ballot and then had a second ballot to choose between the top two.
And not one of them gives the electorate a say in any issues.
The only issue you are allowed a say on is which person gets to eat at the trough.
Lord Blagger