Referendums are very much in the news again. I have a principled objection to them and have previously developed my objection, not least during debate on the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. One of the arguments advanced in favour of their use is that a referendum helps isolate an issue. However, let me develop the reason why that is also a very good argument against employing one.
Let us assume that there is a referendum on a clear and specific question: ‘Do you believe that the second chamber of Parliament should be elected?’ We know from survey data that a majority are likely to vote ‘yes’.
Let us now assume that the referendum is instead on a different question: ‘Do you believe that the second chamber should have members who are expert and independent?’ We know, again from survey data, that the outcome is likely to be a ‘yes’ vote.
Let us now assume that the question is: ‘Would you give priority to having a second chamber that is expert and able to engage in detailed legislative scrutiny over having one to which elected members were added?’ Again, we know from survey data that the answer is likely to be ‘yes’.
If the referendum was confined to the first question, we would end up with an elected second chamber. If it was confined to the third question, it is likely that we would not. What is normally missing with a single-point referendum is the opportunity to consider alternatives and priorities. By isolating an issue and giving people an opportunity to vote only on that issue may result in something that they regard as less desirable than the outcome they are voting for.
This is just one particular problem with referendums – there are several others – but I thought it worth raising in order to get people thinking about the fact that the case for referendums is far from straightforward.
Not to mention the oversimplification and misleading nature of media commentary and politicians (as seen in some of the shameless fear mongering and downright lies seen in Ireland, from the ‘No’ campaign) and the undermining of representative democracy.
James: ensuring that there is an even playing field for those taking part in a referendum campaign is one of the additional problems. It is estimated that in the 1975 EC referendum campaign one side outspent the other by a factor of about ten-to-one. The problem of unequal resources was also apparent in the devolution referendum in Wales. Had the ‘no’ campaign been resourced on a scale comparable to the ‘yes’ campaign, the outcome may have been different. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act sought to address this, but the provisions still do not ensure equality between the two sides. Much depends on how the parties divide on the issue. Even if there is equality in spending, there is – as you touch upon – the issue of how the media divide on the issue.
I quite agree, my Lord; referenda are also erroneous constitutionally as they allow Parliamentarians to abdicate their own authority because they don’t have the courage to make the decision themselves. We elect (and appoint) our Parliamentarians to deal with these issues and consider every option, and make a reasoned assessment of the costs and benefits. That’s their job.
Considering the Bill proposed the other day to dock MPs’ pay every time powers move to Brussels, maybe a clause should be added to stop entirely their pay for the period of each referendum which they call.
There are issues around the nature of referenda, that is clear; Lord Norton has exposed one – possibly the simplist – flaw.
But do these issues mean that referenda should never be used?
Or should the question(s) be framed more carefully – and consideration be given to structured answers on an “if x = yes and y = no then answers = z” basis, rather than a simple question with a yes/no response.
I have issues with questions that ask for yes/no responses – they often simply reflect a lack of understanding on the question-framer’s part.
Brennig: I agree on the last point. If one has a referendum on a simple yes/no vote then it encounters the sort of problems I have mentioned. However, the more you try to factor in alternatives (if x, would you then prefer y or z, etc) the more you are likely to generate (a)a high (or higher) level of mistaken voting (that is, people thinking they have voted for something that is actually the opposite of what they think they are voting for); and (b) low levels of voting. A low turnout may be produced not least because of the problems of campaigning. How do you campaign on a complex series of questions? ‘Vote yes to x, vote no to y, but if you vote yes to z then vote yes to y’. When I have made the point that, to ensure fairness, a referendum should have clear statements, with voters voting for the statement they agree with (in a yes/no vote, there is slight bias in favour of a yes vote – people prefer to vote in a positive way) the response of the chairman of the Electoral Commission has been that a yes/no option is preferable in order to facilitate a clear campaign, campaigners arguing for a yes or a no vote.
When it comes to referendums people should look at Germany’s experience in the 1930’s
Brown has recently said that he would not allow a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty as it does not change the constitution enough significantly to warrant one. I agree that it isn’t as sweeping as opponents claim, but it begs the question of if we’d therefore get a referendum on other constitutional amendments like Lords reform, PR, and so on. His logic is flawed.
Adrian: I agree. I have a principled objection to referendums. The problem for the Government is that it doesn’t. Hence the difficulties it finds itself in on the issue.
Lord Norton – I am annoyed now – it is all very well you pointing out the problems with referenda but the fact remains a referendum was used to take us into Europe in the first place !! So now pleading about the problems with a referendum, without doing anything to try to resolve those problems, and merely deciding that we shouldn’t have a choice is not good enough !!
If Ted Heath hadn’t used a referendum back than, and we had stayed out of Europe, fine. But now that we ARE in Europe, we should at least have a choice, however problematical a referendum might be, on whether we want to give up even more sovereignty to an organisation that doesn’t even recognise ‘nations’ but thinks of us as states, and offers very little democratic decision making over issues which affect each and every one of us.
The Liberal Democrat peers should be especially ashamed of themselves. We are being ratcheted into an ‘ever-closer union’ against the wishes of the people and there isn’t a damn thing we can do about it. Absolutely disgraceful.
Bedd Gelert: Two points. First, a referendum was not used to take us into Europe in the first place. The Treaty of Accession was signed in 1972, legal effect in domestic law was given by the European Communities Act 1972, and the UK became a member of the EC on 1 January 1973. There was no referendum. In 1975, the Labour Government decided to hold a referendum on continued membership on the basis of the terms renegotiated. Second, a principled objection is a principled objection. I was opposed to referendums then and I remain opposed. I refer to my preceding response to Adrian Kidney.
Bedd, I completely sympathise with people’s opposition to the EU; I myself am not enthusiastic about it, but I find most criticism of the Lisbon Treaty to be hysterical.
As such, a referendum would leave people like myself with no voice; a Yes vote would suggest wholesale endorsement of everything European; some would use a No vote as a precursor to clamouring for our withdrawal, when I believe the vast majority of people do not want a step that drastic.
Referenda disenfranchises the middle ground.
A comment from America, where some of our states (especially California) hold referenda on a regular basis, while my state of Pennsylvania restricts referenda to constitutional amendments. I agree with Brennig that the decision is more complicated than yes or no. But that sort of complicated decision-making (or is it decision-taking?) is what legislative bodies are designed to do. So that is, as I see it, an argument against referenda entirely.
Lord Norton,
I heartily agree with your views on refererendums…but I notice you didn’t vote on Wednesday night in the debate on the referendum amendment. Would you like to say why?
Another US visitor here. Thanks for a very clear discussion of the problems related to referendums; I’ll be pointing friends to this. The idea about having an option between two yes votes (rather than yes/no) to reduce bias is another good suggestion. Whoever gets to phrase the question in yes/no votes gets to frame the whole discussion, often in prejudicial or even misleading ways.
Baroness Murphy: well spotted. I abstained, something I hate doing, but my opposition to referendums meant that I could not vote for the motion. However, the debate itself showed the problems with trying to isolate an issue: the debate was just as much about the Lisbon Treaty (and European integration generally) as it was about the use of referendums. The eight Conservatives who voted against the motion were leading proponents of European integration. As a vote against was likely to be misinterpreted, I decided to abstain.
Lord Norton, I’m fascinated to hear this debate on the usefulness of referendums – I have heard them many a time described as good for opposition parties, but not what a responsible government wants. I think, however, that the Irish referendum has showcased both the best and the worst of what they can achieve – the electorate sent a resounding message in the face of a strong ‘Yes’ campaign from both the major parties. At the same time, a ‘No’ vote has immediately been seen as synonymous with an ‘out of Europe’ vote, with some even suggesting a case of Ireland ‘biting the hand’. The No campaign, of course, were very careful to state their support for the EU.
My question is this: since the situation on the Lisbon Treaty appears to have changed after the referendum result in Ireland, will the Lords be treating the reading of the bill next week differently to how they did last week? It seems to me that there is now a stronger case to be made for a referendum now, since the only country that has had one has returned a vote against the treaty. If anything, it would allow a more accurate picture of the views of the European people to be built before moving on with what will be a painful reconstructive process within the EU.
I agree that the referendum process itself is ugly and flawed, and it might be better to have some kind of third option, but I would be interested to know whether you think the changing circumstances require a fresh approach.
Your argument boils down to “people are dumb and easily misled, so they shouldn’t be allowed to vote directly on the issues”.
All your example shows is that when you give people a binary choice between two misleading alternatives, you get garbage out. What a surprise. Specifically the two alternatives you present as contradictory, aren’t at all. Being elected doesn’t suddenly take away somebodies expertise, or even independence, so it’s not surprising that people would vote yes to both.
In turn you say “if it was confined to the third question, it is likely that we would not [have an elected second chamber ]”. But your argument doesn’t support that conclusion at all. There’s no correlation between “members of the second chamber must be expert” and “members of the second chamber should not be elected”.
Now as it happens, I don’t have a problem with an unelected
House of Lords. As long as the Parliament Act lets their will be ultimately overridden (with a lot of effort) then I see no problem with extra checks and balances.
But if you’re going to present the Lords as an elite club of expert debaters you need to stop concluding that 2 + 2 = 5.
Stu: I will probably do a separate post on what has happened in Ireland. Mike: You appear to accuse me of engaging in the very thing that you exhibit in your opening sentence. If people are presented with a binary alternative, it doesn’t matter whether they are the most intellegent people on earth: they can only vote for one of the two options. My objection to referendums has nothing to do with the intellectual capacity of the population. There is nothing in what I have written to suggest it does. It is correct that it is not axiomatic that electing a second chamber and producing a second chamber comprising experts are necessarily mutually exclusve options. However, we have empirical evidence to suggest that election is unlikely to produce such an outcome. The basic point I am making as to a binary choice is one that you concede. And that point comprises just one of several against the use of referendums.
It is refreshing to hear someone make a clear principled case against referendums. I think people don’t think about the issues but rather assume that referendums are a good thing.
Bryan Appleyard has linked the results of the Irish referendum and Davis resigning his seat over 42 day detention as reflective of the general democratic malaise. The solution is more high-quality thinking about what we are doing and less reactive lunges at populism. Personally I think this blog is indicative of a vastly more healthy democratic institution than almost any other, yet because the Lords doesn’t come wrapped in a particular package people lazily accuse it of being undemocratic.
I don’t mean to cheapen democratic mechanisms. Voting is important, but it is important to get the right mix of institutions so that the whole is democratic and effective. Just larding on more ‘democracy’ isn’t necessarily going to fix failing democratic institutions.
I forgot to say in the above I have written a bit more on this (with links) at Appleyard, the Lords, Crooked Timber and the Irish Referendum.
I agree with the article’s argument, but it is an argument against the way a referendum is done, and not against referendums per se.
Given computers and networks, there is no need anymore for binary voting. Use public key cryptography for establishing atomicity. Make the vote last eg a week (to avoid temporal emotional overreactions, and foster discussion). Give many choices. Give the capability to people to add new choices. Give them forums dedicated to the vote, so that good points can persist, discussed and be seen by everyone. Let people change their vote in the course of the week that the vote is active…
The above is just a sample of ideas, not necessarily good, just to illustrate my initial point. There are a lot of possibilities.
Chris Dornan: Thanks for your comments. I very much agree with you and that what we need is more reflective debate. Deciding how to achieve this is the difficult question. Too often, advocating structural change or a particular process is the easy (and unthinking) response to disengagement. People come up ‘solutions’ without even bothering to check whether the changes they are advocating have been tried elsewhere.
George: You are quite right that what I was illustrating was a problem with the way in which referendums are done. I wanted to identify a practical problem that is rarely discussed. As my own example shows, it is possible to address the problem by offering alternative choices. However, the problem in offering multiple choices is reflected in what you write. What you are proposing is something that moves us away from a referendum to the equivalent of legislative deliberation. That is not necessarily a bad thing – arguably quite the reverse: the problem is one of how to achieve it in practice, not just in terms of the actual process but engagement with that process.
One allied problem with referendums is not just limited choice but the absence of knowing why a particular choice is exercised. The fact that a majority have voted yes (or no as the case may be) may leave one none the wiser as to why they voted that way.
Dear Lord Norton,
“Referendum” is just a specific instantiation of the basic idea “let’s talk about an issue” under specific technological constraints. (No feedback, distorted and simplified messages, not expressive enough, you can’t pause a country too often for voting, etc.) The good news is that technology is coming to our help.
I think that “engagement” will be the easier part. A lot of polls show that people are not interested in politics, but I think that those polls are just cases of faulty “referendums”, as described above. People crave to be heard and discuss, if for no other reason, for the simplest one: They love the idea that they will show that they are “correct”. 🙂
Of course they will often be disappointed, and we will get flame wars of epic proportions, etc. So some kind of technological measures and moderation are needed, but it is doable. Also seeing that the “simple and obvious” solution is often not simple, or not a solution, will make the people more open minded and appreciative.
Politicians seem to think that the press (which is dangerously consolidated and agenda bearing) has the upper hand, and they act accordingly. IMHO, that is not the case anymore, as they can reach the people directly, bypassing any distorting “lenses”. That is actually why lordsoftheblog is great!
Your argument about the “why” of a choice, is very important. I would also add that laws (ie the outcome of discussions/referendums/voting) should also have attached to them the historical context and necessity, what they replace, the prerequisites, the for and against arguments, the intended outcome, and the predicted consequences.
Then we can all watch the news, agree reluctantly that no one is perfect and reiterate.
George: I very much agree. New technology offers means of direct engagement without having to rely on the press to act as a mediator or gatekeeper. I think the impact of the mass media has been overstated, at least in terms of the impact it has on readers. However, the media have been powerful because politicians believe that the media does have such an impact and it therefore influences their behaviour: hence, for example, the rush to gain the support of Rupert Murdoch.
As you indicate, it also facilitates dialogue that enables one to understand why people opt for A rather than B. It is also important because it enables politicians to explain and seek to persuade. As parliamentarians, we are in a privileged position in making decisions, but it is important that we are willing to engage before we decide and to explain our reasoning once we have decided. That is especially the case where we take a decision that we believe to be right but which may not enjoy public support. Technology increasingly provides the oppportunity for a discourse in which one can provide context and explore the different dimensions of an argument. My view is that, as parliamentarians, we will gain enormously from such engagement.
@george You do realize that you skyrocketed straight into some geeky utopian world there, right?
Also I think that (under the presumption that people who actually read political blogs or even the whole proposed treaty are not the majority, but rather an educated minority) many of the people who are pro-referendum often forget to consider that only because they read up about treaty changes, or would actually consider all the choices, there is no evidence I know of to suggest that this applies to the majority of a population. I mean, too many people already don’t bother voting at the normal elections, where there are no complex questions, and they could just vote (like many do “mmh, his face looks nicer then his, or this one said some stuff I didn’t like on tv … or mmmh, tha press wrote that he did something I didn’t like or whatever)
Surely every question does, in the end, come down to an unqualified ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘abstain’ in the end, though. Referendum or not. After a parliamentary debate on a bill, the vote is still either ‘aye’ or ‘no’. There’s nothing wrong with a yes or no answer, you see. Generally, the stark choice between two options helps to focus the mind and lend the debate clarity and focus.
I just thought I’d interject with that point.
Stu: The point about parliamentary debate on a Bill is that there is not a single vote, but the opportunity for a great many, each preceded by debate on the particular amendment. It is not a case of ‘here’s a Bill, vote yes or no on it and that’s the only choice you get’.
I am surprised to hear the apparent simplicity of the question stand, by itself, as an argument against a referendum. As I see it what it being proposed is whether a treaty should be ratified by amending the constitution of a country. In all cases this is the exact same question any given law maker will also have to confront. Unless you believe that the law maker is somehow better able to articulate the collective desire for or against the proposed changes than the actual collective, I can see no principled argument against referendums by simply pointing to the simplicity of the proposal.
A previous commenter mentioned that the people have legislative bodies in order to make such complex decisions. That may be true but it should always be remembered that the consent to be governed always lies with the people and they are both entitled to and should demand a voice whenever the fundamental structure of their government is facing a change.
Liam: You can have the same question but the context differs – no two constitutions are identical. The problem with simplicity is what is avoided, as my post illustrates. The advantage of the ‘law maker’ is not one related to the person who is the law maker but rather to the process that they engage in prior to giving assent to a measure of public policy.
@flo:
I think that “too many people already don’t bother voting at the normal elections” is overvalued. There are too many issues, and we just get to vote every few years a handful of parties.
It is something like this: Imagine that every time someone asks you a question in the course of a week, you write down the question, but you don’t answer. Then at the end of the week, you are given the chance to answer all the questions, with a simple “yes” or “no”. There is not much meaning into that.
Voting for parties (and not parties themselves) is obsolete. We should vote on issues (and relations of issues).
George: The only problem with that is that comparative research (not least of the 800+ national referendums held in the history of the world) shows that the turnout in referendums is normally lower than the turnout in elections to select candidates for public office.
@Lord Norton:
I didn’t know that. It is interesting. How much lower is in average the turnaround in referendums? Also has the research taken into account that voting is often mandatory? Voting for no one and invalid votes could also be counted as “not voting”.