From the Guardian:
Gordon Brown is drawing up plans for a radical overhaul of his frontbench that could see Peter Mandelson promoted to foreign secretary, it emerged today, as the prime minister came under pressure to call a constitutional convention to reform parliament and reconnect politics with the people. [...]
What the modernisers inside the cabinet want on the agenda is:
• A referendum on electoral reform for the House of Commons.
• An elected upper house.
• Spending caps on donations to political parties.
• A widening of the base from which candidates are drawn.
Propagation: Seeds & scions (21)
RSS feed for comments on this post.
TrackBacks
To graft a scion to this planting, please use the following URL:
http://fruitsandvotes.com/blog/wp-trackback.php?p=2944
(Non-MT bloggers click here to send pings.)
Grafted scions that are not compatible with this planting's stock will die or be pruned out by the Orchardist.
About the comment form
Please note that the name you enter below and the first several words of your comment will appear on the right sidebar of the blog's front page, under "Propagation." New propagators might want to look at the comment policy.
Please do not enter long URLs into the seedbed. Either mark them up using html hyperlinks or convert them to a "tiny URL." Thank you!
The soil is ready for planting:
`
Good stuff. I wonder if GoBro is more receptive to bottom-up reforms now the rorts/ perks scandal means Labour is looking at losing 140 or more Commons seats… y’know, the way the French Socialists remembered their 1981 pledge to introduce PR just in time for the 1986 Assembly election, which gave them a third of the seats instead of the wipeout that single-member runoff would likely have produced.
Seed planted by Tom Round — 23 May 2009 @ 03:54
Labor introduced STV for the Australian senate in 1949 for similar reasons. Until then senators were elected by a block preferential system that ensured that a single party almost always won all the seats in each state. Almost all eats changed hands ate each election. A labor government facing electoral defeat introduced proportional representation for the senate to ensure that it was not eliminated from the senate at one election, Nasty self-interested politics, but it was the making of the senate.
Seed planted by Alan — 23 May 2009 @ 04:31
I like the revival of the tradition of the foreign secretary being in the Lords. We haven’t seen that since the Falklands War.
Seed planted by Ed — 23 May 2009 @ 11:40
“Almost all eats changed hands ate each election.”
You must have been hungry when you typed that. Please do take a break now and then for a meal.
Seed planted by MSS — 24 May 2009 @ 14:33
Well, yeah, PR does help extremist parties win seats… if (a) they have a lot of supporters and if (b) the supporters of the moderate parties can’t be bothered turning up on polling day. However, most electoral systems tend to do this (David Duke and Jean-Marie Le Pen, phone your office) and PR does ensure, unlike FPP, that extremists can’t win elections for reason (c) – because the moderates split their votes.
The example of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party in Australia is instructive. Albeit less explicitly racial than the BNP (ie, no formal “whites only” membership policy, and even had a couple of Aboriginal and Asian members), it was nonetheless very right-wing (on most non-economic issues) and xenophobic. ONP won 11 seats out of 89 in Queensland in 1998 under the Australian electoral system least unlike Westminster’s FPP (single-member optional-preferential). And David Oldfield, one of its founders also got up as a NSW MLC in 1999 (1 of 21 PR seats). The QLD ONP promptly imploded – a bunch of very angry, paranoid people proved unable to work with each other: who’d'a thunk? It lost seats at the next election (the last of the Class of ’98 was defeated in 2009) and many of its MLAs defected to sit as Independents. Meanwhile, Oldfield served out his 8 years and was not re-elected. As one of 42 MLCs, he did not succeed in having all foreigners in NSW rounded up in detention camps.
I am intrigued by the underlying logic of the “PR gives seats to extremist parties” argument, as if having PR created extremist views out of thin air. What do angry populist voters do under FPP, then? Keep wasting their votes on the BNP or National Front? Oddly, it seems not. The anti-PR argument that “votes for the far Right jumped when PR was introduced” raises the interesting question… who were these voters supporting in FPP elections? Unless turnout was dramatically lower then (not the case with the MEP poll), it seems they were supporting … hmm… the major parties (and probably Labour at least as often as Tory). So… all along, the Big Two were accepting “second-preference” votes from people whose real first preferences shouldn’t – it seems – be touched with a bargepole?
When Labor in Victoria started moves to introduce PR for the State’s upper house, one Liberal MP, Mark Birrell, argued against PR on the basis that it helped extremist minor parties win seats. All re-heated Hermens, but what interrupted my yawn was that Mr Birrell cited the 11 Qld One Nation MLAs as evidence of what awaited Victoria if PR came in. The most charitable explanation is that Mr Birrell was sincerely unaware that Qld MLAs are chosen from his beloved single-member electorates. No wonder the Victorian State Liberals are such a hopeless outfit.
Seed planted by Tom Round — 12 June 2009 @ 18:56
Sweden uses PR, and doesn’t have a far-right party represented in it’s parliament presently.
It did have a far right or maybe populist party called New Democracy that got elected in 1991 and denied the Center Right Government a majority by 4 seats, so it was a minority-coalition government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_general_election,_1991
Seed planted by Suaprazzodi — 13 June 2009 @ 03:30
The UK House of Commons has just elected a new Speaker. Naturally, they used majority system – this time, a transferable vote system with Droop quota (runoff elimination ballots with absolute majority required), replacing (I believe) election by resolution with candidates voted on seriatim.
What, not first past the post? Don’t be ridiculous! What sort of moron, in the 21st century, would use a 13th-century system where a candidate could be elected even though more than 50% of voters favoured a rival c-… Oh.
Seed planted by Tom Round — 23 June 2009 @ 05:43
I wouldn’t really call it a “transferable vote system”, the votes don’t transfer. They just have a whole new vote, without the bottom candidate (or any others who withdrew.) It’s perfectly possible to change your vote even if the candidate you voted for previously wasn’t eliminated. Also, candidates can withdraw even if candidates with fewer votes don’t.
Seed planted by Vasi — 23 June 2009 @ 22:46
If the UK used STV, the BNP would less likely win seats in that system of PR compared to a MMP or an open party list system partly because extremist parties need the support of a wide variety of preferences to get elected in STV.
A BNP candidate is likely to get elected in STV, but they need to win seats outright with first preferences only. It is doubtful that they would get 2nd or later preferences from other voters.
The Alternative Vote in the 1998 Australian Federal election of the division of Blair prevented the One Nation Party from winning the seat by plurality of 36%, by all the other parties transferring of preferences against it by ranking them last. It is hard to know what the outcome would have been with an optional preferential voting system.
Surely the BNP would be representative in the House of Commons, but most likely they would be a testimonial party and not likely to hold the balance of power unless the Tories were disparate.
Sinn Fein in Ireland didn’t do that well with STV compared toward the national popular vote in the Irish election of 2007.
Seed planted by Suaprazzodi — 24 June 2009 @ 01:07
The weirdness about the way they elected the Speaker is that the House of Lords quite sensibly used STV to elect the first Lord Speaker. The previous presiding officer, the Lord Chancellor had an electorate of one, first the king, then the prime minister. If the House of Commons insists on making its elections into historical re-enactments, they could at least lock everyone in and arrange for black and white smoke.
Seed planted by Alan — 24 June 2009 @ 02:27
@8, Vasi:
I see your point, but in a broader sense, one can speak sensibly of voters in a runoff system “transferring” their votes from an eliminated (or doomed) candidate to a viable survivor.
I’m sure I’ve seen the term used in relation to both the British Labour Leadership elections, and the International Olympic Committee selecting a host city…
Perhaps we can say that the voter’s vote is transferable overall, even though individual ballot-papers carrying that vote, on a particular round of balloting, are not.
Seed planted by Tom Round — 24 June 2009 @ 08:20
@11, Tom,
I would’ve thought exhaustive ballot was the most common and accepted term. There are regrettable precedents where standard terms like AV and STV are abandoned for sillier choices and ranked choices without even an instant runoff or any attempt at full representation. Let us not repeat their error.
Seed planted by Alan — 24 June 2009 @ 08:26
Alll right, let’s reserve “transferable vote” to mean “preferential sequential ballot” but can we then have an umbrella term for all systems (“preferential”, stricto sensu, and runoffs) that try to ensure the result is not grossly distorted by inadvertant vote-splitting?
Seed planted by Tom Round — 24 June 2009 @ 18:41
@13, I would propose the term ‘fair’ but people would think me an STV fundamentalist.
Seed planted by Alan — 24 June 2009 @ 20:52
Tom,
I would like to add some details re PR for the Victorian Legislative Council to illustrate how silly the Liberals are. They had three opportunities to influence the system finally adopted and never failed to fail to take an opportunity.
In 1973, the then Liberal premier, Dick Hamer, promised to reform the Upper House in return for DLP preferences. Once elected, he reneged on his promise.
In 1985, the Cain Labor Government gained a temporary majority in the Upper House and attempted to introduce PR, but it was opposed by the Liberals.
After the 1999 election, the Bracks Labor Government attempted to introduce PR but was defeated by the Liberals and Nationals in the Legislative Council.
Finally, in 2002, Labor gained an ongoing absolute majority in the Upper House for the first time in history. It was thus able to introduce not only PR, but also the PR scheme it wanted (STV with 8 regions with 5 seats each), and did not need to take account of any Liberal input. Given the Liberals opposed it outright on totally spurious grounds, there was no Liberal input anyway.
Had the Liberals any sense, they would have kept their 1973 promise or made some attempt to find a compromise in 1985 or even after 1999. That way, they would have had a chance to determine the nature of the PR system. Now, it is constitutionally entrenched and cannot be changed except by referendum, they have little hope of changing anything, even when in the distant future they become elected to government again.
The reform has been excellent for Victoria because it is almost impossible for any party to have a majority in the Legislative Council, so no government can push legislation thorough and no Opposition can make government unworkable.
Seed planted by Chris Curtis — 27 June 2009 @ 03:07
Thanks, Chris. It’s ironic that the Australian Labor Party – which traditionally has been the most ideologically opposed to Upper Houses – has done the most to strengthen them, not only legally (NSW, Victoria) but politically by introducing PR. If we still had appointed Legislative Councils (NSW, Qld), or highly malapportioned Councils elected by restricted franchise (Vic, SA) into the 21st century – and if unicameralism were seen as the only alternative – I wager that abolition would have become irresistible.
Australia’s conservative coalition likes the idea of Upper Houses, but has consistently resisted the very reforms that ensure their survival by making them democratically defensible vis-a-vis “the popularly-elected Lower House”.
(Following from that… I am intrigued how many British and Canadian commenters seem to believe “We can’t possibly elect the Lords/ Senate, because then it would simply replicate the House of Commons!” I mean… Hello? Australia? Or even Washington DC, for that matter?)
Seed planted by Tom Round — 28 June 2009 @ 23:46
Is using different electoral systems for the lower chamber and upper chamber a good idea?
Does using different electoral systems in Australia for different chambers produce higher quality legislation or lead to more gridlock?
Albeit I think perhaps less gridlock than what one sees in California with both chambers of the legislature using the same electoral system which is completely redundant, but no one questions it.
In fact, don’t all states in the U.S elect all state legislatures using Single Members districts, I heard that their were some exceptions though and some states use 2 and/or 3 member districts.
Seed planted by Suaprazzodi — 30 June 2009 @ 19:41
Gridlock is not really common in Australia because almost all our parliaments have machinery to resolve deadlocks. The federal parliament has double dissolution. NSW allows a referendum on bills rejected by the upper house etc.
I do not think anyone would contest that the upper houses make a very positive contribution to legislation and act as a significant check on the executive, precisely because they are elected on a different basis from the lower houses. That is important because Westminster means the executive can do and pass almost anything in the lower house.
Seed planted by Alan — 30 June 2009 @ 21:01
49 of the 50 states in the U.S. have bicameral legislatures, but the upper and lower houses are elected by the same voting method. Unless one house or the other has some multi-seat districts, the two houses are identical except for the number of seats. So our upper houses do not perform the function Alan describes with reference to Australia.
Prior to the one-person-one-vote decisions of the 1960s, in at least some states the lower house was apportioned in a manner closer to equal population per district than the upper house, and the existence of the upper house was defended in terms similar to the defense of the federal Senate. So there was some differentiation, at least in principle. But no longer.
Seed planted by Bob Richard — 01 July 2009 @ 00:35
In all truth, the upper houses are not only elected on a different basis but they have a different function. If the government loses a vote in the house that means a change of government. Losing a vote in the upper house has no effect on the continuance of the government (with certain exceptions) so that traditionally even government senators and MLCs are more likely to reject government bills.
Seed planted by Alan — 01 July 2009 @ 00:53
US states, except Nebraska, have two state legislators almost all elected by single member districts. There might be one or two states where the same district elects one State Senate and two State Assembly members, both using pluraility.
Despite being elected by the same method, there is quite a bit of gridlock with US state legislatures. The lack of any resolution methods except conferences is what makes the difference.
Really, the US has the worst of both worlds, the upper houses don’t bring any new constituencies to the table but still produce gridlock. Such is the extent of status quo bias that people still find ways to defend this system.
New York state is a special case where the Democrats hold the Assembly and the Republicans hold the Senate, apparently by agreement of both parties. In 1964 and again in 2008 the voters put the Democrats in charge of the Senate, and just enough Democratic State Senators “defected” to keep Republican control. Of course both chambers are outrageously gerrymandered in favor of the majority political party, plus there are plenty of Assembly districts the Republicans don’t contest and Senate districts the Democrats don’t contest. Its very difficult to discuss New York state politics because its hard to exagerrate the degree to which elections are simply irrelevant there.
Seed planted by Ed — 01 July 2009 @ 12:18