This research on the change in relationship between Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and their constituency since the adoption of PR for European elections in 1999 has been getting some attention recently (I found it via Iain Murray who, as you'd expect, sees PR as 'an affront to democracy as the British understand it')
Because I'm a Liberal Democrat, you probably expect that I'm going to take a contrary view, but I'm not a big fan of the party list system either. While it does rectify the disproportionality of First Past The Post (FPTP) elections it does introduce a whole new set of other problems that the report identifies. (If you're not sure about the differences between different electoral systems then this page on the Electoral Reform Society's website gives a good introduction to the main electoral systems) At the time the party list system was introduced for the European elections, I felt that it was a weak system because voters only got the choice between parties, not candidates. There are ways to amend the system to allow this, giving voters the chance to state a preference for candidates within the party list, but these weren't adopted, giving us a system that's just as flawed.
My preference for elections has always been for the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system, where voters rank candidates in order of preference and constituencies return multiple representatives. Part of this is because it's a system I'm very familiar with from my time in Student Union and NUS both as a candidate and as someone running elections, but it's also because it is a system already used within the UK - it's used for local and European elections in Northern Ireland and is likely to be introduced for local elections in Scotland in the near future. Using STV for elections is one of the few things Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have in common.
My belief is that STV actually strengthens the individual candidate and weakens the power of the party. Because constituencies are electing multiple representatives, parties have to select multiple candidates but (unlike with the party list system) they cannot enforce a preferred candidate from their selection on the electorate - they're free to choose between the different candidates of a party. Yes, the parties can use their publicity to promote one particular candidate above the others, but the voters are free to ignore that advice and vote for their own choice. This means the individual candidates have to stand as themselves to get elected, not just as their party's choice.
I also think that having multiple representatives for a constituency (albeit a larger constituency size than we have a present) is a good thing in that constituents have a choice of which of their representatives they wish to approach if they have a problem and find a representative they think will be the most effective on that issue. This already happens in local government where most wards return multiple councillors and people are free to approach any of their ward's councillors for assistance. Which reminds me that I've never heard of anyone who complains about PR arguing for reducing the size of council wards so they elect just one councillor.
One last point before I bore everyone to death - one of the complaints made about PR is that 'it doesn't produce strong government' which, to me, is a slightly disingenuous argument. There's nothing in any PR system that prevents any party from having a huge majority - if that's what the voters choose. It's not the fault of the electoral system for delivering supposedly 'weak' governments - the voters have made their decision, knowing how the electoral system works, and that's reflected in the results. If the people of Germany don't want a coalition government, they're free to just vote for the SPD or CDU, but they seem to keep voting for the Greens and Free Democrats. Conversely, in Italy, people wanted 'strong' governments and movements like Forza Italia and the Olive Tree alliance arose to give people the opportunity to vote for that. The recent Welsh election showed that the voters were willing to give Labour a (bare) majority, as well. Don't blame the voters if a majority of them won't agree to your ideas. Or, as I once heard someone say after an election went the wrong way: 'The people have spoken - the bastards.'
Because I'm a Liberal Democrat, you probably expect that I'm going to take a contrary view, but I'm not a big fan of the party list system either. While it does rectify the disproportionality of First Past The Post (FPTP) elections it does introduce a whole new set of other problems that the report identifies. (If you're not sure about the differences between different electoral systems then this page on the Electoral Reform Society's website gives a good introduction to the main electoral systems) At the time the party list system was introduced for the European elections, I felt that it was a weak system because voters only got the choice between parties, not candidates. There are ways to amend the system to allow this, giving voters the chance to state a preference for candidates within the party list, but these weren't adopted, giving us a system that's just as flawed.
My preference for elections has always been for the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system, where voters rank candidates in order of preference and constituencies return multiple representatives. Part of this is because it's a system I'm very familiar with from my time in Student Union and NUS both as a candidate and as someone running elections, but it's also because it is a system already used within the UK - it's used for local and European elections in Northern Ireland and is likely to be introduced for local elections in Scotland in the near future. Using STV for elections is one of the few things Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have in common.
My belief is that STV actually strengthens the individual candidate and weakens the power of the party. Because constituencies are electing multiple representatives, parties have to select multiple candidates but (unlike with the party list system) they cannot enforce a preferred candidate from their selection on the electorate - they're free to choose between the different candidates of a party. Yes, the parties can use their publicity to promote one particular candidate above the others, but the voters are free to ignore that advice and vote for their own choice. This means the individual candidates have to stand as themselves to get elected, not just as their party's choice.
I also think that having multiple representatives for a constituency (albeit a larger constituency size than we have a present) is a good thing in that constituents have a choice of which of their representatives they wish to approach if they have a problem and find a representative they think will be the most effective on that issue. This already happens in local government where most wards return multiple councillors and people are free to approach any of their ward's councillors for assistance. Which reminds me that I've never heard of anyone who complains about PR arguing for reducing the size of council wards so they elect just one councillor.
One last point before I bore everyone to death - one of the complaints made about PR is that 'it doesn't produce strong government' which, to me, is a slightly disingenuous argument. There's nothing in any PR system that prevents any party from having a huge majority - if that's what the voters choose. It's not the fault of the electoral system for delivering supposedly 'weak' governments - the voters have made their decision, knowing how the electoral system works, and that's reflected in the results. If the people of Germany don't want a coalition government, they're free to just vote for the SPD or CDU, but they seem to keep voting for the Greens and Free Democrats. Conversely, in Italy, people wanted 'strong' governments and movements like Forza Italia and the Olive Tree alliance arose to give people the opportunity to vote for that. The recent Welsh election showed that the voters were willing to give Labour a (bare) majority, as well. Don't blame the voters if a majority of them won't agree to your ideas. Or, as I once heard someone say after an election went the wrong way: 'The people have spoken - the bastards.'
Nick got away with this at 5:24 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home