Open up the debate on voting reform

Thanks to the processes set in train by Labour since coming to power in 1997 we now have PR elections to devolved Asseblies in Scotland, Wales, Greater London and Northern Ireland; for local elections in Scotland, and also for the European Parliament.  And yet for all these undoubted advances, eleven years since voters were promised a referendum on reforming the way that MPs elected to the Commons, and no sign that this is being actively taken forward. Readers of the government's Review of new voting systems, which finally emerged from its long gestation with little public fanfare last week, were expecting  both a fair-minded evaluation of how the different kind systems are operating in practice but also, crucially, a sense of how the debate can be taken forward and finally allow voters a meaningful say on the issue. 

So did they deliver?  Well, apart from the limitations of any "desk-bound" review, the content of the Review can be broadly welcomed as far it goes.    The evidence complied by civil servants in the MoJ suggests that the PR systems all give fairer outcomes and have a greater tendency to allow all votes to count (as opposed to the millions of wasted/tactical votes under the First-Past-the-Post system).  Some allow voters significantly greater choice. The new systems are encouraging greater representation of women and voters are "warming" to the experience of coalition. It also explodes some common myths put about by advocates of the status quo.  It finds that there is no evidence to suggest that PR systems lead to weak government and alternative systems are no more inherently confusing to the voters.  Plus, whilst as it correctly observes it cannot be automatically assumed that there is a direct causal relationship between moving to a PR system and increased turnout, nevertheless international comparisons suggest that turnout that it is on average at least 5% higher in countries with fairer methods of electing their representatives.

So far, so good.  Unfortunately, whilst claiming that the Review is part of an "ongoing debate", the government appears to be doing nothing to actively widen the scope of the debate to canvass the views of ordinary voters, still less to bring forward proposals which would empower voters to determine what changes might be necessary.  Despite being covered in the "Governance of Britain" branding, there are clearly no plans to use the review as the basis for engaging with citizens about how we are to achieve the "new type of politics" that Gordon Brown has spoken of.  The failure to give any government time over to the Parliamentary debate to the Reviews findings shows how little they are keen to open the electoral system to any kind of public scrutiny this side of a General Election.

More bizarrely, still, the accompanying press release quoted minister Michael Wills saying that the government was contributing to the debate "in the firm belief" that the current system of electing the Commons is "working well".  Whilst this might seem true someone who owes his job to a government elected on just 35% of the vote, and with the support of only 1 in 5 of those eligible to cast their ballots, to the rest of us it is much less clear.   SInce the elections to Parliament and to local elections in England and Wales fall outside of the remit of the Review (which only looks at recently introduced systems), he cannot sustain this claim on the back of its findings.  Indeed, the recent report of the Councillors Commission itself presumably saw the limitations of FPTP, in recommending a shift to the Single Transferable Vote. 

It is high time that the government recognised that MPs ought not to be the sole arbiter of whether there was a case to put before the electorate.  Clearly, on the basis of the Review findings there is a case for giving electors a meaningful say over the issue.  They should show real leadership by positively opening up the debate and making sure that the voices of voters do not continue to be ignored. 

Comments

[Graeme Kemp]

We need Proportional Representation - and we need it in the form of the Single Transferable Vote.

Ideally, we should have only one type of PR at every level, throughout the whole UK.

STV is arguably best - and we need a public debate on PR. Soon.