Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Ministers back radical plan for voting reform

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Places » United Kingdom Donate to DU
 
Morris Onions Donating Member (243 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-26-08 04:51 AM
Original message
Ministers back radical plan for voting reform
A significant overhaul of electoral legislation to give voters a second vote, open polling stations at weekends and make it compulsory to participate is being proposed by the government to increase turnout and improve the legitimacy of the Commons.

Ministers will begin a consultation effort on the plan after local elections in May, and hope the measures will increase the authority of MPs and reduce voter disengagement. In the 2005 general election, only 61% of those eligible participated. Under the alternative voting system, ballot papers would allow for a second preference vote which would be redistributed from the lowest-scoring candidate's share until one candidate has more than 50% of the vote.

News of the proposals came as Jack Straw, the justice secretary, prepares to publish a draft constitutional reform bill tomorrow, before a separate green paper on a British bill of rights and responsibilities and the opening of discussions on a statement of British values.

A white paper on party funding, which proposes capping donations and campaign spending, is also expected shortly together amounting to a substantial programme of constitutional reform.

When Gordon Brown came to power he promised radical reforms to restore trust in politics, but there has been little progress so far.

The decision to examine Commons voting systems has been prompted by proposed reforms in the House of Lords, which will almost certainly be elected by a proportional voting system. Cross-party consensus has been reached on most elements of a smaller second chamber.

Ministers fear that the Commons will have difficulty retaining its status as the pre-eminent legislative chamber if peers, elected by proportional voting, can claim greater authority than MPs, who are sometimes put in office by less than a third of the electorate. Straw has warmed towards the alternative voting system in the past two years, seeing it as an improvement on the first-past-the-post system.

Michael Wills, the constitutional affairs minister, praised the alternative voting system at a meeting on electoral reform last month. "The alternative vote has many attractions, including the fact that you have to get 50% plus one in that constituency, therefore you have a greater legitimacy," he said.

Private research on the impact of the second vote commissioned by the campaign group Make Votes Count found that it tends to result in the number of seats gained being more proportional to the number of votes cast. This could possibly damage the Conservatives.

But the research also suggested that the Tories could gain an overall Commons majority with a smaller share of the vote than under first past the post.

Wills said the decision would not be based on whether Labour would benefit. "It should not be about parties choosing a system that will most advantage themselves, it's about a voting system that delivers democracy for all of us," he said.

The government's consultation paper is also expected to look at compulsory voting and weekend voting as other ways of increasing turnout. Britain is rare in holding its general election on a weekday, but it is difficult to demonstrate that weekend voting leads to a higher turnout.

Compulsory voting has been supported by Geoff Hoon, the government chief whip, because of his concern at recent low turnouts.

Senior Liberal Democrats have been informed of Labour's proposals, and might be able to accept alternative voting as long as it was presented as a staging post to a bigger reform.

Labour advocates of reform argue it will be easier to institute it this side of an election since any change after a election in which Labour lost seats, but stayed in power, possibly in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, would be seen as an effort to stop the Tories.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/mar/24/localgovernment.voterapathy.



As long as it keeps the Tories out.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
non sociopath skin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-26-08 05:08 AM
Response to Original message
1. Opportunism rather than conviction, sadly.
But there you go ....

The Skin
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-26-08 07:17 AM
Response to Original message
2. Most groups think that this Alternative Vote system ends up with a less proportional result
Edited on Wed Mar-26-08 07:17 AM by muriel_volestrangler
eg

Whilst it does ensure than the successful candidate is supported by a majority of his or her constituents, it does not give proportionality to parties or other bodies of opinion, in parliament. Research by Democratic Audit in 1997 showed that the results could actually be even more distorting than under First-Past-The-Post.

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/votingsystems/systems2.htm#AV


The Commission's conclusions from these and other pieces of evidence about the operation of AV are threefold. First, it does not address one of our most important terms of reference. So far from doing much to relieve disproportionality, it is capable of substantially adding to it. Second, its effects (on its own without any corrective mechanism) are disturbingly unpredictable. Third, it would in the circumstances of the last election, which even if untypical is necessarily the one most vivid in the recollection of the public, and very likely in the circumstances of the next one too, be unacceptably unfair to the Conservatives. Fairness in representation is a complex concept, as we have seen in paragraph 6, and one to which the upholders of FPTP do not appear to attach great importance. But it is one which, apart from anything else, inhibits a Commission appointed by a Labour government and presided over by a Liberal Democrat from recommending a solution which at the last election might have left the Conservatives with less than half of their proportional entitlement. We therefore reject the AV as on its own a solution despite what many see as its very considerable advantage of ensuring that every constituency member gains majority acquiescence.

http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm40/4090/chap-5.htm


So I'm surprised by "Private research on the impact of the second vote commissioned by the campaign group Make Votes Count found that it tends to result in the number of seats gained being more proportional to the number of votes cast." Maybe Labour has just decided they stand a better chance under this, for the next election (note, for instance, the estimate that the Tories would have had a majority of 27 under AV in 1992, rather than the 21 they acheived - perhaps Labour sees itself in that situation now).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
T_i_B Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-26-08 07:28 AM
Response to Original message
3. "As long as it keeps the Tories out."
How about better policies and less spin from Labour instead of phaffing about with the voting system? Surely if voters feel that they have a choice rather then identikit empty suits to vote for then they will be more likely to choose someone at the polling booth?

If the European elections are anything to go by changing the voting system certainly does not help "keep the tories out", rather it lets UKIP in as well as the Tories. And don't get me started on postal voting!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-26-08 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. It's a completely different system to the Euro elections
It's used for the London mayoral elections. It tends to find an 'acceptable to most' representative. It does mean that people can vote for their favourite candidate first, and not be so concerned about 'throwing their vote away' - because their second vote can go to the 'electable, but not quite so good' (in their opinion) candidate. I think it'd further encourage the move to the centre - as well as appealing to your core voters, you'd want to look acceptable to those likely to vote for a third (or even fourth) party in the constituency.

It means that when a majority of the country switches to an "anyone but ..." mood, as in 1997, that party will lose enormously. With the current "identikit empty suits" situation, I think it would be just as unproportional as FPTP, and, as you say, 'faffing' (heh, my spell checker accepts that, but not 'phaff'). But I don't think it would benefit UKIP - maybe they'd get more first choice votes than they do at the moment, but I suspect they wouldn't get over the hurdle of 50% of 1st or 2nd choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
T_i_B Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-26-08 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. I think there are quite a few right wingers who would relish the opportunity....
...to select both the Tories and UKIP in that system, it might even result in UKIP making gains outside of Euro elections.

If you ask me lefties would be better off trying to be more relevent and being better able to justify their policies then farting around trying rig the voting system in their favour.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-26-08 07:06 PM
Response to Original message
6. I know that I've been accused of being a fascist ...
... but I think that this single item will make a world of difference
to our elections:

> The government's consultation paper is also expected to look at
> compulsory voting

As long as they provide a "None of the above" option then I'm fully in
favour of this. It works in Australia (amongst others) and I'm sure it
will help focus the minds of the apathetic majority in this country too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Morris Onions Donating Member (243 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-27-08 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Fascist!
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enlightenment Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-27-08 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. I'd like to see it in the US.
Of course, I'd also like to see compulsory IQ testing before voting . . . *ducks*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 04:08 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Well that would be one way to speed up the vote counting!
If you set the limit appropriately, you wouldn't need touch-screen
systems, you could just use pieces of paper and an abacus!

:hide:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enlightenment Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Truer words seldom written, Nihil.
Man, am I cranky this morning. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tjwmason Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-01-08 05:02 AM
Response to Original message
11. People vote if they're given a choice and feel that it will make a difference
As long as they're presented with the option of 3 essentially identical sets of policies, from 3 sleaze- and spin-ridden parties why should they bother to vote?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
non sociopath skin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-01-08 07:28 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Amen to that, tjw.
The Skin
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Places » United Kingdom Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC