I wonder whether anybody else has examined the contrast between the two electoral systems used to produce Speakers, in the two Houses of Parliament. In the Lords, in 2007, we used an Alternative Vote (AV) system to elect our excellent Lord Speaker, Helene Hayman. In the Commons last night, they employed the “exhaustive” (and exhausting) ballot.
Although both ensure that the winner has at least 50% support – and thereby each avoids some of the crass distortion of first-past-the-post – the two systems have a different effect on the voter.
AV encourages a careful choice, in preferential terms, so that the voter adopts a positive approach, marking 1, 2, 3, and so on down the ballot paper. The least popular candidates are progressively eliminated, so you never end up with someone that most people object to. The system maximises positive support for the successful candidate.
I would argue that the Lords’ system is preferable. The procedure used by MPs over several hours yesterday means that at each stage voters are encouraged to reassess the chances of remaining candidates, and to switch their votes to block those they least like. It is quite evident from the anecdotal comments we’ve already heard that the final round turned into a contest between those who wished to avoid one candidate and those who couldn’t stand the other. In other words, the system maximised the negative.
However, voters in the country may consider that both these preferential systems are a great deal better than the choice they will be offered sometime in the next twelve months. When voters elect MPs they are offered a series of party lists, each with only one name on it, and in some 500 safe seats it is difficult to affect the outcome. AV would at least mean that the winner in each constituency had a broad base of support across their area, and the voter would have greater ownership over both the local and national result.
Incidentally when it comes to considering what influence constituents have over those representatives who have been proved to have behaved dishonourably, the system is also suspect. Under the present first-past-the-post system, not one single MP in the House of Commons enjoys the support of more than half of those entitled to vote in his or her constituency. So much for the “local link” – in most cases, errant MPs need only their party’s support to survive.
There’s already a sense that there’s one rule for MPs, and another for everyone else. Here again, a better electoral system is being used in Westminster but its advantages are denied to the country at large. If preferential voting is good enough for elections in Parliament, why not for elections to Parliament?
Oh course both elections saw party bloc voting and the largest party get the candidate it wanted so perhaps they are not so very far apart.
The two jobs are rather different so the desire for the MPs/peers to have a strong preference is not the same – the Lord Speaker is a figurehead bereft of almost any powers. MPs by contrast do have a legitimate concern at being ‘called’ to speak or of the extent to which the speaker will use their powers against the executive or in defence of members.
The MPs system allows people to make a clear choice at each stage – the lords is a blind punt in advance where had you realised who the final choice would have been between you might have voted differently. It presumes that many peoples 3rd, 4th or 5th choice amounts to the same value as their 1st. So I don’t think the advantages are so clear cut.
I hereby expect all MPs to announce whom they voted for at each stage of the ballot. I did not elect my MP so he could vote for things for which I cannot hold him accountable.
The problem here Kyle is that the party whips would also be able to see those votes and hold those MPs accountable as well.
The idea of the system was to allow MPs to vote for the candidate that they wanted as Speaker rather than playing too much with the party politics.
As an internal decision – the MPs are simply deciding who they wish to preside over their meetings – I am happy to allow them to have a secret ballot on this matter. Where their opinions affect me (legislation etc) their votes are open to me (and the whips) as published in Hansard.
No Thanks. The straight forward, simple, vote for the person you think will best represent you in Parliament, should be retained for the country. I might struggle to decide between second and third best, as some candidates do not present themselves well, but I’ve never had a problem deciding which candidate gets my single vote.
Sometimes the simple solution is best. You are immersed in politics all year around – most of the country is not.
Now if you were to suggest shortening the MP’s term to 4 years, I’d support that. 5 years without a say seems far too long to me.
Firstly I’m shocked that not a single MP has a majority of those eligible to vote. I guess the safe seats had a lower turnout than average and at 59% average turnout in the safe seats that would hav dipped below 50%.
Alfred, Even in an AV system no-one will force you to mark a 2nd and 3rd choice. If you can’t decide on an alternative then you’ll just have to forgoe that opportunity.
AV works particularly well with PR – , number 1 person who most closely represents your views, number 2 the person you like most who has a good chance of getting elected.
In our local mayoral/parish elections one can cross people off the proposed list of names and add a name you fancy, so theoretically it is possible for someone to be elected to office without having stood as a candidate
j