Via the BBC:
Justice Minister Michael Wills backed the current “first-past-the-post” system after the publication last week of a review of various alternatives.
But he told MPs he hoped it would stimulate debate on the issue.
Critics say the minister is keeping the door open for a deal with the Lib Dems in the event of a hung parliament.
(I am not sure why that is a “criticism,” but whatever.)
More from the BBC piece:
Speaking earlier on Tuesday in the Commons, Labour MP Richard Burden questioned what form the electoral reform “debate” would take – and called for it to be thrown open to the public.
“Is there not now a case for asking voters themselves about what kind of electoral systems can best contribute to different forms of politics and what they want to see from our political system in this country?” asked Mr Burden.
What a crazy idea: Engage the voters in a democracy. Clearly Mr Burden is a dangerous radical.1
Back to BBC:
The government’s review of voting systems found that although PR had increased the number of parties represented in devolved assemblies it had confused some voters.2
It also had a tendency to produce coalition governments3 and there was no guarantee it would increase turnouts,4 the report said.
The idea of a debate on the electoral system has been broached. Wherever it goes from here, even that much is good news.5
______
Thanks to Tom L. for notifying me via e-mail.
- I thought the whole point of plurality voting was to keep such wackos out of our legislatures, so they could not be a burden on the efficiency of government. [↩]
- Any system can confuse voters if not well designed and if voter education is not made a priority. The clearest case of “confusion” with PR in the UK that I know of was the recent election in Scotland where, probably for the first time anywhere, voters were at once asked to give a categoric candidate vote and a party-list vote for regional assembly, and a ranked-choice vote for local offices. That indeed could be confusing, but is very fixable. [↩]
- That is an asset, not a flaw. [↩]
- No guarantees, indeed, but I believe the weight of the evidence is that PR does increase turnout, other things equal. [↩]
- Of course, Blair promised a referendum during the 1997 campaign. We are still waiting… [↩]
On your point number 3 the Report notes “government tends to be by coalition (or through a minority government supported in Parliament by an agreement with other parties). This means that a wider range of interests are represented in government and that parliaments tend to have a stronger hold over the executive.” Considering the report is somewhat slanted against PR, it’s remarkable that the researchers managed to slip this point in.
On your point number 4 BBC is being selective when it says “there was no guarantee it would increase turnouts, the report said.” The report says “International evidence suggests that proportional systems have around five percent higher turn-out . . . The causes of turn-out are multiple and complex and it is difficult to assess the impact of the voting systems in isolation.”
Again, it’s remarkable that the researchers managed to slip in the “five percent higher turn-out” reference, attributed to “research carried out by Pippa Norris in 2003. . . The figure that is generally quoted from these findings is that PR systems generally have turn-out about 10 percentage points higher than majoritarian systems.”
The report notes “Countries in Europe with relatively high turn-out operate closed list systems, which make the least connection between individual candidates and constituents, a feature valued highly in the context of the UK.” Can we infer that open lists or flexible lists would raise turnout even more? The Report notes “This differential is sometimes presented as being as high as 10 percentage points, but Chapter 7 explains why this may be an exaggeration.” Isn’t five percent worth having?
No one can guarantee voter behaviour, and nothing can ensure a good turnout for a powerless Assembly like Wales’ or the European Parliament. However, ensuring that everyone’s vote counts in some way, and giving voters more choice as more parties have the chance of being elected, is calculated to increase turnout; and on average it does so. How hard is that to grasp?
“In the 2005 UK General election, the battle was fought not in 646 constituencies, but in about 100 key target seats. The electorate responded to this targeting … Electors, it seemed, felt unmotivated to vote for safely incumbent Government MPs. They were more motivated to vote in those seats in which the opportunity to influence the result was most marked – which were also the seats in which the parties conducted their most active campaigning.†Indeed.
Seed planted by Wilfred Day — 31 January 2008 @ 03:49
You can find the official review on the UK Ministry of Justice site
For such a report, it’s a shame they can’t even give a correct example of how a STV count is done on page 175… No wonder with an explanation like that, people think wrongly “STV is difficult to understand”!
Seed planted by Bancki — 31 January 2008 @ 06:51
Which are the countries in Europe with high turnout and “closed-list systems,” that the report refers to? Not counting the mixed-member systems, only Portugal and Spain (and the current Italian non-PR system) are closed-list systems. Norway’s is essentially so. All the rest that come to mind (I may be missing a case or two, but no big one) are flexible lists. Not very flexible in practice, so perhaps this is a trivial point. But most European list systems actually do allow candidate-preference votes, with varying rules for how they are taken into account. That is not a closed list.
(The mixed-member systems used at the national level, other than Lithuania, indeed have closed lists.)
Seed planted by MSS — 31 January 2008 @ 21:07
Which are the countries in Europe with high turnout and “closed-list systems,†that the report refers to?
At page 165 it lists the countries, although the selection listed is not calculated to show the correlation between PR and turnout. And what shoddy work: it shows Russia as AMS (MMP).
It shows the “closed list systems” as Spain, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Latvia, Slovenia, and Estonia.
It shows Sweden as “closed/pref” presumably because the stats include the period before it recently changed to the flexible list system.
But it lists a number as simply “PR” without stating if they are open or closed, including Czech Republic, Denmark, and Cyprus (all flexible).
And it lists Greece as PR, when their “reinforced” PR system is no more proportional than Italy’s, but doesn’t show it as open (I don’t recall exactly how open).
Seed planted by Wilfred Day — 03 February 2008 @ 01:38
It pays never to over-estimate how much PR opponents (especially STV opponents) actually know about PR systems.
I read one late-1980s/ early-1990s British booklet – it was either “Proportional Misrepresentation?” by Peter Hain and Godfrey Hodgson (nutshell: PR is a capitalist plot against socialism), or else “The Liberal Democrats: Labour’s Country Cousins?”, by the Conservative Research Dept (nutshell: PR is a socialist plot against capitalism) – that explained solemnly how “Single Transferable Vote gives each elector as many votes as there are seats in his constituency”. Uh, chaps… “Single”? Hello?
Another book, by one Leslie Sykes, attacked STV on one page for only giving you one vote to fill, say, 5 seats – you would “naturally expect” in such a case to get a whole FIVE votes – and then, a page or two later, attacked it for being less proportional than the Bundestag MMP system, which by the same logic only gives you 1/496 (then), much less than 1/5, of the voting power you’re entitled to.
When the Plant Commission report was released in 1998, the media were full of quotes like one unnamed British MP who said that the Plant semi-MMP proposal confused him unless he’d had a few gin and tonics first. Oh, for heaven’s sake… Brits elect people like Mr Hain and this fellow to write their tax laws and science policy?!!
Seed planted by Tom Round — 03 February 2008 @ 16:36
Well, they got two of them right: Portugal and Spain.
Poland has open lists. I thought Latia did. Estonia’s lists are mostly open, but some seats are allocated via national closed lists. Slovakia’s lists would be ‘flexible’ in that voters may cast a preference vote, although the list order is rarely changed. (In fact, in the two elections I have studied, no one was elected on pref votes who would not otherwise have been elected, based on pre-election list rank.)
Slovenia is kind of a sui generis case. Hard to classify.
I have been under the impression that Denmark used, in practice, open lists. Parties have the option of various types of preference votes, but I though most chose what works out to be open. I am unsure, however.
I think Greek lists are currently completely open at the district level, though some number of seats is allocated nationally via closed lists.
Czech Republic is definitely flexible (but not very; see Slovakia, above).
I have no idea about Cyprus.
Seed planted by MSS — 03 February 2008 @ 16:40