You have three choices; to vote for an amendement, against it or to abstain. Most party political peers tend to vote along the lines set out by their parties – although not always. Independent crossbenchers however haven’t got a ‘party line’ so each vote requires knowledge on the amendment itself. In a sense this means that the Independents vote according to conscience or, if they are genuinely neutral about an issue or feel they don’t have enough information to make an informed decision, they abstain.
Many feel that abstaining is as much a political choice as voting yes or no, and that abstentions should be recorded in some way. Apart from the administrative difficulties in doing this, an abstention record would still not distingush betwen neutrality, lack of information or simply being unable to vote due to illness, holidays etc.
I think this brings up the question as to whether voting abstentions, for example on a parlicularly difficult moral or technical issue, is an easy way out and to be used only very rarely? The upcoming Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is of such importance, medically and morally, that perhaps abstention should not be an option? If you are privileged to have a vote then surely you must take the personal responsibility to understand and decide on the issues that come up for voting.
Morally, people should usually vote. It would be useful if as well as “Yes” and “No” people could vote “Don’t care”, “Don’t know” or “Badly phrased question”, but even “Yes”, “No” and “Other” should be recorded. If nothing else, the difference between “Spoiled ballot” and “Didn’t turn up” should be recorded, with the option of replacing “Spoiled ballot” with “Voted maybe” to separate those who spoil ballots by accident. However, I haven’t yet seen or heard of an example when being able to turn up and not doing so is morally justifiable. And if everyone did turn up, it would be more obvious how many couldn’t for reasons beyond their control.
What are the administrative difficulties with recording abstentions? It seems simple to me: you already record how many vote “Yes” and how many “No”, just record how many sit there and don’t vote, and deduce the number who sat at home and did nothing/were ill/on holiday.
I should add that the moral imperative to vote does not imply that it should be illegal not to vote.
Do I spy a Guardian reader? <a “href=http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/mar/24/localgovernment.voterapathy
I hope html is enabled here! In any case, a pertinent extract:
“The decision to examine Commons voting systems has been prompted by proposed reforms in the House of Lords, which will almost certainly be elected by a proportional voting system…
Ministers fear that the Commons will have difficulty retaining its status as the pre-eminent legislative chamber if peers, elected by proportional voting, can claim greater authority than MPs, who are sometimes put in office by less than a third of the electorate.
.
.
.
Compulsory voting has been supported by Geoff Hoon, the government chief whip, because of his concern at recent low turnouts.”
You make a good point. Whilst the electorate is being berated for voter apathy, the elected aren’t voting in the Chambers for various reasons. I believe a fair few voters would like to see ‘None of the above’ as an option thus it would be reasonable to allow their representatives to be allowed the same right.
Surely this type of ‘abstention’ has as much validity, in terms of personal responsibility? The public vote is very confused since some will vote for either the party, or its leader, a single issue, or for the PPC. Why not add the missing component?
Either that, or introduce compulsory testing for aptitude. I understand this gvt likes that sort of thing.
————–
Will you, or one of your colleagues, explain the likely system for selection to the HoL? Will I be voting on a list of names, or will the names for allocated a ‘constituency’, aux les MEPs?
Thanks, Tiz.
No reform! Appointed is best! Appointed or nothing, no stealing legitimacy from the primary chamber! Or will we be back to the days where ‘Lord _______, Prime Minister’ is commonplace??? Nay, let us stick with what we’ve got, give or take a few minor tweaks!
I can see the argument for being able to vote to abstain, as it were, in the Commons, as it’s helpful to an MP to be able to prove to his/her constituents that they were present in Parliament, but just not moved to vote either way on a particular question. In the absence of a vote to abstain, an MP could have been in the House or s/he could have been asleep at home, and it’s presumably helpful to the MP to be able to prove that they were ‘at work’ in the House.
In the Lords however, where there are no constituents to worry about, what would be the point of a vote to abstain? Who is the audience to whom this recorded vote would be addressed?
That makes me think, actually, what are the point of parliamentary records? One point is so that individuals can be held to account – an MP votes a certain way on an issue and it is a matter of public record on which s/he can be judged. This does not apply to members of the House of Lords. Do we actually need to record who votes for what in the Lords? Obviously I am being flippant, but just as an academic exercise… why record how individual peers voted if they are not accountable for their votes?
Tiz, and what, pray tell, is wrong with reading the Guardian ?
Jenny S-T makes a pretty unassailable point: there should be an obligation to vote, whichever way. On the administrative difficulties – well this brings up a whole lot of other issues.
Consider this one: the Independent Crossbenchers (as is the case with many party peers) are not full-time politicians, they have outside jobs often at very senior levels – for example, leaders of industry, heads of universities, scientists, doctors, lawyers. These outside careers add immeasurably to the informed debates that take place in the Lords.
Sometimes there is a conflict of duty and it is impossible for even the most conscientious peers to attend all votes. So to be fair these people who would BOTHER to turn up if they could should have some other mechanism to record their votes. This would separate out those who take their legislative role seriously from those who make a habit of not voting.
However this would be seen as a major upheaval in House of Lords procedure and would not in any case be popular with the political parties who may not wish abstentions to be so publicised.
ladytizzy, I am going to leave it to others far better qualified to explain the possible voting system for elected peers. All I will say is that the expected Government White Paper on House of Lords Reform, due soon, will undoubtedly put forward alternative systems.
Stuart,I suggest one reason is that it is important to convey to the government of the day the degree of support or the lack of it for a given policy?
Of course you are right that peers have no constituents but the strength of feeling about amendments can and does have an effect on the way in which a Bill is shaped in its journey between the two chambers of Parliament.
Finally, to state the obvious, the House of Lords does have a considerable power not only in revising legislation but in delaying enactment; this necessarily requires votes to be recorded, wouldn’t you agree?
Thanks for the reply. I wasn’t suggesting that we don’t record the outcome of the vote (‘x’ peers voted in favour and ‘y’ peers voted against), which does reflect the strength of feeling, as you suggest, but why record the names of which peers voted which way?
I accept that this is a silly, flippant suggestion. I guess what I am really asking is: for whose attention is an individual peer’s voting record recorded? To whom do peers feel themselves to be accountable?
Bedd, The Guardian is the printed paper of choice at Chez Tiz, though I also browse through several other titles online. It was no more than a remark on finding other comrades 🙂
Thanks to all for their replies and thoughts. In particular, Stuart, I guess if it doesn’t sound too corny that some peers feel accountable to their consciences. This includes for many a long history of pursuing a particular cause or viewpoint. For example, there are amongst the Indpendent Crossbench peers many who are, and have been for many years, entirely committed to the plight of young children in care or in custody. Others have a lifelong concern with the issues surrounding immigration, or scientific research, or human rights, or care of the elderly, or particular countries. It is this commitment that drives them to challenge draft legislation and to vote.
Thank you for that answer, and I don’t think it’s corny at all. I rather respect that, and it’s probably why the Lords seems to work, despite its anomalous makeup.
Crikey, ladytizzy, I would have had you down as a Telegraph babe.
I must admit I am losing patience with the Guardian, which is becoming more magazine like by the day, and not really newsy enough. But this is a feature of the Times and Telegraph as well.
Berliner is a nice size, important to us ladies, plus the Telegraph crossword is too easy.