Electoral Reform Society must address own failings

The Electoral Reform Society (ERS), of which I am a member and supporter, published a widely distributed report post-election suggesting that once again the “First Past the Post” (FPTP) system is a “system in crisis”.

The report is well presented, superbly researched and factually sound. It is also absolutely hopeless.

It is in fact a classic example of all that is wrong with progressive political thinking. It takes a set of progressive priorities and justifies them. Of course, if it matters to you that the system is “disproportionate”, delivers “wasted votes” or promotes “tactical voting”, then self-evidently the system is “in crisis”. But what if it doesn’t matter to you?

In other words, the report addressed all of the arguments made by those in favour of electoral reform, but none at all of those by those made against. What if, instead of the above, your main aims in an electoral system are to have a simple system designed to “stop extremism”, to deliver “direct representation”, and to promote “stable government”? If those are your aims, then the system has worked brilliantly – keeping extremists like UKIP out of government while delivering a majority centre-right government on a majority right-leaning vote without the need for weeks of uncertainty and fudged coalition. If that is your aim, there is simply no crisis at all – quite the contrary! Not once is that case – as self-evident to many as the need for proportionality is to ERS members – addressed in the report.

(This is, for reference, only one example. I read one Guardian article which accused the Conservatives of “doing away with human rights” – a self-evident outrage to the left. Yet actually what some of them are trying to do is repatriate responsibility for human rights to British courts – a self-evident priority of the right. So we have another example of the left failing to address even the basic case. By the way, I think Michael Gove is mad and any tampering with the Human Rights Act is misguided, but let us at least understand where the support for this is coming from and seek to address it maturely.)

The ERS may be better to stop writing reports about other things, and address the elephant in its own room. In 2011 there was a referendum on replacing FPTP, and it was lost heavily (32-68). Has the ERS yet put out a report on why this happened? “Electoral Reform – a Cause in Crisis” would have been a perfectly apt title.

This crisis remains. It needs to start with this inconvenient truth: for every one person who thinks the 2015 election was disproportionate and it is outrageous that smaller parties were left with just two seats for 5 million votes, there are two (based on the referendum result) who are thanking it for not giving UKIP 80 seats. (After all, the Conservatives will now move to postpone any attempts to do away with the Human Rights Act; but they would proceeding quickly if they were in coalition with UKIP!)

The ERS does in fact need to start with its own assumptions. Let us take just one: it says “STV” (the Single Transferable Vote system used for Assembly Elections here and for local elections here and in Scotland) works “perfectly well” in Northern Ireland. Does it? Do we not have an extraordinarily localised form of politics where our legislators think only of their own area and even their own tribe and never of Northern Ireland as a whole? Is it not a bit peculiar that no country outside the English-speaking world has adopted the system, if it is so obviously brilliant?

It also needs to be accurate. In 2011, for example, it consistently stated, clearly (and now demonstrably) erroneously, that AV (Alternate Vote, the proposed alternative to FPTP) was “more proportionate”. What it does is maintain all the advantages of FPTP while giving more people a say – but, having dismissed FPTP and all the arguments for it out of hand as not even worthy of consideration, this obvious case was never made.

It then needs to tackle the priorities of its opponents, not its supporters. Germany’s PR system has in fact countered extremism perfectly well; delivers direct representation (albeit through constituencies twice the size); and typically produces more stable governments than Britain’s FPTP (just eight post-War Chancellors versus twelve Prime Ministers; no snap elections versus three snap elections in 1951/1966/1974). That is to leave aside the argument that the potential for extremism drives others towards a stronger centre (this is apparent in Scandinavia), that direct representation is overrated (it can result in crazy localism and MPs elected on their ability to run an advice centre rather than legislate), and “stable government” can also mean “unaccountable government”, by no means necessarily a good thing (after all, Northern Ireland has had a devolved “stable government” since 2007…)

The biggest challenge of all is that the ERS is unlikely to succeed without context or, more fundamentally, allies. I joined not because I was convinced of the case for Electoral Reform specifically, but because I wanted political (institutional) reform more generally. Indeed, with the Union itself in danger, that is an increasingly compelling argument. The idea that STV will save the Union is self-evidently ridiculous; but the idea that a new federal set-up with a House of Lords appointed proportionately and wide-ranging devolution of powers to countries and cities (including tax-raising) may bring democracy closer to the people and thus create greater accountability, stability and purpose for the UK as a whole sounds like good sense (and has at least some support across all the main political parties and ideologies).

I want the ERS to succeed. However, it cannot escape the fact it has not. Perhaps the first reform should be internal.


3 thoughts on “Electoral Reform Society must address own failings

  1. korhomme says:

    I’d certainly question a few assumptions. STV at the Westminster election would have given a different result to FPTP only if the same proportions voted for their parties of choice. What evidence is there for this? Do people revert to form when their vote might actually count?

    Is a majority for a single party the recipe for stability? It might be if the majority is large, so that tiresome independent backbenchers can be ignored; but look at Major’s experience. And do we prefer ‘strong’ government over stability? If there is an alternation between ‘strong’ parties, how much effort is wasted in undoing the previous government’s works?

    But a coalition can work, if the parties are grown-up about it—clearly not the case in N Ireland.

    There are seven types of electoral systems used in UK elections; is it really necessary to have so many? Scotland has a sort of STV + extras—and this was designed so that no party there would have an overall majority; is that really ‘democratic’?

    • I was already at almost 1000 words but you are absolutely spot on.

      It is ludicrous to assume that people would have voted the same way.

      On the assumption that people would have voted the same way, for example, I myself would have voted Liberal Democrat in Watford but Conservative in South Thanet – a tactical decision.

      On the “majority”, the precise reason Germany has actually been more stable is that its coalitions tend to have larger majority’s than Britain’s single-party governments. After all, Britain’s 2010-15 coalition was stable; its 2015-20 single-party government will likely be less so. (Germany’s also, as you imply, creates a greater degree of consensus of approach to avoid having to un-do the “other lot’s” work.)

      Scotland’s Parliamentary system, to be clear, is known as “Multi-Member Proportional” (MMP), similar to Germany’s but designed in Scotland’s case to have a bias towards constituency representation (I have no idea why).

  2. korhomme says:

    Re Scotland; the UK seems to like MPs who have a direct association with the constituency they ‘represent’, and the problem with list systems is said to be that this link is weak. OTOH, such MPs (such as TDs) complain that it means that they must care and nurture their constituency. Even ‘represent’ is a little difficult; is the MP there to put forward the constituents interests, or to put forward their own? (They aren’t delegates.)

    After GE2015 and the calls for reform, I did a little digging, and found 7 types of voting systems in use in UK. As I understood it, Scotland’s own parliamentary (‘local’ assembly) candidates are elected by AMS (Additional Member System):


    And there are lots more on the Electoral Reform Society’s website (and yes, I’m also a member).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: