Review of Electoral Systems
From Democracywiki
Central Lobby
 Our View The Review merely seeks to provide a broad overview of the electoral systems currently being used in the UK. There is little in this review to find fault with; it is certainly the case that the decision to change the voting system is inherently political in nature and cannot be left for civil servants to arbitrate over. The reverse is also true: not changing the present electoral system is inherently political as well. We strongly welcome the fact that the Review not only declines to critique proportional voting systems but defends them against many of the criticisms leveled at them by first past the post. In that regard, we consider this review as a promising first step along the road to a fairer and more pluralistic voting system. The key question remains: who is in the best position to decide which electoral system should be used in the UK, and particularly the House of Commons? Both government and Parliament have a clear vested interest in the status quo. As far as possible, in our view, the decision should be left to the wider public. The Citizens' Assembly and referendum model for deliberative decision making developed in Canada provides us with a way forward. The publishing of this Review at long last fulfills Labour's 2001 manifesto commitment, but their 1997 manifesto commitment for a referendum on proportional representation is still outstanding. It is high time Gordon Brown fulfilled that pledge. Finally, the Review is correct to suggest that decisions over the House of Commons electoral system cannot be made until we know what system will be used in the democratically reformed House of Lords. Our answer to the Ministry of Justice on that is simply this: get on with it then. |
Contents |
March 2008
On 27th March Theresa May MP asked
Harriet Harman MP Leader of the House replied
February 2008
On 7 February 2008 Simon Hughes MP asked Peter Viggers MP, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission
whether the Electoral Commission plans to consider the findings of the Review of Voting Systems
Peter Viggers MP replied
Report published
On 24 January 2008 the Government published its review of the experience of the new voting systems introduced since 1997 for the devolved administrations, the European Parliament, the London Assembly and London Mayor.
Key recommendations
The review does not see its role as coming to a conclusion on which electoral system would should be used for Westminster, rather it seeks to
contribute to the knowledge base and debate on whether or not changes should be made to the voting system for the House of Commons. We have set out to provide, as much as possible, objective information to contribute to this debate but not to make judgements or recommendations that are inherently political in nature.
The report found that:
- All the newly introduced voting systems have achieved a greater degree of proportionality than FPTP, although only STV in Northern Ireland has achieved what academic observers consider to be close to genuine proportionality.While the FPTP system for Westminster currently favours the Labour Party, it allows large swings in seats to be won by the two major parties although this is less predictable with the emergence of a stronger third party, the Liberal Democrats.
- International evidence suggests that proportional systems have around five percent higher turn-out but this has not been the experience of the new systems introduced in the UK.
- Both PR and FPTP are associated with examples of stable governments in the UK. FPTP in the UK has tended to produce a clear majority winner with governments serving full terms. However, coalition government is the most common form of government under proportional systems in the UK and most coalitions stay in power for long periods.
- Voters can exercise more choices under more proportional systems. This is because voters can vote preferentially, ‘splitting their ticket’ between constituency and list parties and voting for small parties who are more likely to win seats.
- We do not find, on balance, that any voting system is inherently more confusing than another for the voter, in terms of casting their votes correctly. While FPTP is simpler in theory for voters and has lower invalid voting rates, ease of voting has not been an overwhelming problem in the new systems when elections are not combined, and taking into account a period for adjustment. Ballot paper design is an important factor in voter understanding and in casting votes correctly, as evidenced by the London Assembly and London Mayoral elections in 2004 and the Scottish Parliamentary in 2007 elections.
- Whilst internationally, PR countries tend to do better on female representation, in the UK, positive action policies has also played a key role. A much higher proportion of women has been elected to the Scottish,Welsh and London Assemblies than is the case for the House of Commons (or in Europe and Northern Ireland)
- There has been relatively little change in the focus of campaigns under the new voting systems. Although some small parties have been able to take advantage of strategic campaigning for the list seats under AMS, wider national issues and traditional constituency-based tactics tend to predominate.
- Another point of consideration is how any voting system for the House of Commons would interact with a reformed and substantially or fully elected House of Lords. Further research and analysis would be needed to consider complementary systems and appropriate models for Westminster. It is clear that the voting system for the House of Commons should not be considered in isolation from proposals for a substantially reformed House of Lords.
Government response
In a written Ministerial Statement Michael Wills said:
This Report delivers the Labour 2005 manifesto commitment to review the experience of the newly introduced voting systems for the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland and Welsh Assemblies, the European Parliament, and the London Mayor and Assembly, to inform the ongoing debate about the voting system in the House of Commons.
Since 1997 the Government has embarked upon a major programme of constitutional change: devolving power away from Westminster, enshrining fundamental rights in the Human Rights Act, introducing Freedom of Information and completing the first stages of reform to the House of Lords. New voting systems were introduced when the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly were established in 1998. In addition, a new voting system was introduced for elections to the European Parliament in 1999, and for elections to the Greater London Assembly and the London Mayoralty established that year.
Our constitutional arrangements have never been fixed, nor should they be. A strength of the British Constitution is that it evolves to ensure that it continues to meet the needs of our democracy.
To that end the Government established the Jenkins Commission to report on a suitable voting system for the House of Commons. In 1998 Jenkins proposed a completely new voting system for Westminster called the Alternative Vote Plus. At the time my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Jack Straw, stated (as Home Secretary): 'we need to see how the new elections systems settle down in Scotland, Wales, London and the European Parliament& a great deal of constitutional change is under way, and the British people would not thank us for moving too quickly without thinking carefully about how changes fit into the whole' (Official Report, 5 November 1998, col. 1038). This view was widely supported across the House of Commons.
The Government therefore decided to review and assess how the new voting systems would perform, and then consider the implications for Westminster.
The new voting systems introduced since 1997 have now been in place for some time and provide experience of up to three elections in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, and two elections for the European Parliament, London Mayor and London Assembly. We therefore have a wealth of practical experience from within the United Kingdom upon which to draw.
This Review provides a summary of the experiences of the new voting systems introduced over the past decade and on that basis sets out the advantages and disadvantages associated with each. It uses a range of commonly accepted criteria for assessing the experience of the new voting systems. These include the degree of proportionality under different systems, the impact on voters in terms of the choices available, voter turnout rates, the impact on political campaigning, social representation, government formation and administration of elections under different systems.
The experiences of some other countries, including New Zealand, the Republic of Ireland, Germany and the Netherlands, which have similar systems to those introduced within the United Kingdom, is also examined. In addition the Review refers to the findings of other studies into voting systems within the United Kingdom.
The Review is intended to inform the ongoing debate about the voting system in Westminster but does not make any recommendations.
It remains the Government's strong view that since the voting system for Westminster Commons elections could fundamentally change the way parliamentary democracy operates, any proposed changes would need to be endorsed by a referendum.
At this point, it would be premature to seek to reform the electoral system for the Commons while the voting system for a reformed and substantially or fully elected House of Lords is still to be determined. Reform of the electoral system for the Lords to a wholly or 80 per cent elected chamber was supported by the House of Commons free vote in March 2007 and the Government is committed to formulating a comprehensive package of Lords reform, including developing detailed proposals for a wholly or mainly elected second chamber. Good progress is being made on the cross-party talks on Lords reform and the Government intends to publish a White Paper in the first part of 2008 reflecting the outcome of these discussions.
Background to the review
Nearly ten years from the publication of the Jenkins report and a manifesto commitment to a referendum on electoral reform the Government’s Review of Electoral Systems has now been published.
There are numerous other reports and analyses that have sought to assess our electoral systems. It will have been informed by them, and it will warrant being compared and contrasted to them.
Then there is also wider context to consider, including the opportunities provided by the Governance of Britain Green Paper and the parallel debate on reform of the House of Lords. Out of the ten reports under the current Labour Government which looked at the merits of various electoral systems in the UK, seven recommended the use in some way of the Single Transferable Vote (STV), nine recommended some form of proportional electoral system and none were able to recommend First Past the Post as the most desirable system.
In chronological order those reports were:
1997 - The Independent Commission on the Voting System (the Jenkins Commission): Devised and recommended the PR electoral system Alternative Vote “top-up” (AV+) for elections to the House of Commons.
1999 - The Commission on Local Government and the Scottish Parliament (McIntosh Commission):
Recommended PR for Scottish local government elections as ‘an essential step towards the goal of enhancing local democracy.’
2000 - The Renewing Local Democracy Working Group (The Kerley Group):
Recommended that STV be the PR system used for Scottish local government elections.
2002 - Commission on Local Government Electoral Arrangements in Wales, (The Sunderland Commission):
Recommended that STV be used for local government elections in Wales.
2004 - The Independent Commission on Proportional Representation:
Concluded that there was “no ideal voting system” – that the debate on proportional representation was open, with the final decision being a political decision.
2004 - The Commission on the Powers and Electoral Arrangements of the National Assembly for Wales (The Richard Commission):
Recommended that STV be used to elect the Welsh Assembly
2006 - The Commission on Boundary Differences and Electoral Systems (The Arbuthnott Commission):
Recommended that STV be used for European elections in Scotland, and that the MMP system for the Scottish be revised and reviewed in two years time to consider adopting STV.
