A plan to overhaul the way that Britain votes during general elections looks
set to be shelved, according to a confidential government document obtained
by The Times.
Moves to reengage voters by introducing proportional representation for
Westminster elections have been dismissed by officials, who fear that it
could lead to political instability and confusion.
Changing the voting system would increase the likelihood of minority
governments and coalitions, which can be a “drag on effective government”,
officials investigating voting systems found.
It is uncertain whether the move would increase turnout or ensure that MPs
more closely reflected the ethnic or gender make-up of Britain, the report
says. It highlights the problems that were created by the Blair Government’s
innovations to the voting system for nonWestminster elections, such as the
high levels of rejected votes resulting from complex ballot papers. It
reveals the “friction” in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly between
Members who were selected to represent constituencies and those from lists
drawn up by party managers.
The Review of Voting Systems in the United Kingdom was completed in draft form
last November but will not be released to the public until December. The
Conservatives said last night that they feared that Gordon Brown would
attempt to water down the tough language that cautioned against proportional
representation to smooth relations with the Liberal Democrats in the event
of a hung Parliament.
The draft report, marked “restricted”, questions the viability of the only
option that Mr Brown is thought to have considered as a serious alternative
to the present system. It says that the Alternative Vote system – where
voters rank candidates in order of preference – is “capable of
producing even more disproportionate outcomes nationally than first past the
post”.
Although the report does not oppose the introduction of a more proportional
voting system, it uses tough language to dismiss many of the arguments in
favour of PR and could easily be used by Mr Brown if he decides to rule out
such a change. It says: “One of the main arguments advanced in favour of
some form of PR is that it will make everyone’s vote count in some way, and
therefore give more people an incentive to vote. The cause and effect is not
proven.”
The report highlights the example of New Zealand, which abandoned
first-past-the-post voting in 1996, bringing an end to a series of majority
governments and coalitions amid falling turnout.
The 110-page report also found: The current voting system favours Labour,
particularly when it is the party of government. Most of the alternatives to
first past the post are not “genuinely proportional”. Only in Northern
Ireland, where the Single Transferable Vote is used, has the system achieved
something close to genuine proportionality. Proportional systems do not
increase turnout. In all elections in the UK that have used proportional
systems, turnout has been considerably lower than in general elections.
Existing proportional schemes have done relatively little to increase ethnic
minority representation.
The report concluded: “Overall, it is difficult to draw a clear causal
relationship between a particular voting system and particular outcomes, be
they turnout, connectedness to the citizen, social representativeness or any
other criteria explored in this review.
“Coalition or minority government is prevalent where proportional systems are
used and this can be viewed as either representing a greater diversity of
input to policy-making, or a drag on effective government.”
The report calculates that had the last election been run under a more
proportional system, the main beneficiary would have been the Liberal
Democrats and the biggest loser Labour. The Conservatives would be affected
only marginally by most systems.
The Ministry of Justice, which replaced the Department for Constitutional
Affairs, which oversaw the report, refused to comment because the report was
“work in progress”.
Nick Herbert, the Conservative constitutional affairs spokesman, said: “This
leaked copy of the review blows out of the water the case for changing
Britain’s tried and tested electoral system. The Government’s own report
admits that proportional representation has caused voter confusion and not
increased turnout. And it says that Alternative Vote would produce even more
disproportionate results than any other system. I fear the real reason for
the delay in publishing this review is Labour trying to fiddle the dossier.
This Government has repeatedly meddled with the electoral system for
partisan advantage, undermining public confidence in the integrity of the
ballot.”
Voting systems
First past the post (FPTP) Used in: General elections How it works: Put
an “X” next to the candidate you support. The one with the most votes wins
Supplementary Vote London Mayoral Ballot paper has two columns. Voters
mark an “X” in the first column for their first choice and another in the
second column. If no candidate gets 50 per cent the two highest scoring
candidates are retained; the rest are eliminated and their votes reallocated
Alternative Vote (AV) Not used in UK Each voter ranks candidates in
order of preference. If no candidate gets more than 50 per cent the one with
the least votes is eliminated and his votes allocated according to second
choices until someone gets 50 per cent
Single Transferable Vote (STV) Northern Ireland Assembly Each
constituency elects between three and five MPs depending on size. Voters
rank the candidates 1, 2, 3 etc. The candidates with the least votes are
eliminated and their votes redistributed. This is repeated until there are
only the required number of candidates left
Additional Member System Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, London
Assembly Each voter has two votes: one for a single MP via FPTP and one for
a regional or national party list. In Scotland, 73 of the 129 seats are
allocated according to constituencies; the rest are chosen proportionately
using party lists
Alternative Vote Plus Proposed by Jenkins commission Voters would have
two votes - one for a constituency MP and the other from a regional list.
The constituency MPs are elected by AV (see above). The “top-up” MPs are
elected using lists prepared by party managers
No governing party is likely to advocate changes to the voting system which adversely affect its prospects of retaining power. New Labour's election manifesto in 1997 contained a promise to hold a referendum on alternative voting systems to FPTP but this promise was not kept when Blair realised that the current system could deliver large majorities for Labour with well short of 50% of the vote. The last three elections have been as fair as a 400 metres race with no staggered start and Labour running in the inside lane. The Boundary Commission has failed to adjust the constituency map of the Uk sufficiently radically to reflect changes in distribution of the population. All constituencies should have roughly the same number of electors but at the last election the largest English constituency (excluding the IOW) Northampton South had 39,000 more voters than the smallest, Birmingham Yardley. The smallest constituencies are conveniently situated where Labour's support is strongest.
Martin Litchfield, Wimborne, England
Does not widespread tactical voting represent a desire by the electorate for proportional representation.
Ray Frowd, Cambridge,
As, I believe, one of the authors of the research on electoral bias, I am concerned about the first of the bullet points in this article -'The current voting system favours Labour, particularly when it is the party of government'. This is a massive mis-representation of our findings.
Perhaps Mr Coates can confirm that is indeed waht the report says, so that ti can be contested.
Ron Johnston, Bristol,
A more representative voting system hasn't restricted effective government in many countries of the world, and a new voting system, provided people are warned about it, isn't going to confuse the electorate.
In addition, some people believe that the Labour party is opposed to proportional representation because the current system works in their favour, provided there are a large number of people in the South East. Changing the voting system would not just affect politics, but it would also reduce the benefits in the politicians' eyes of moving everyone to the South East of England.
What we must be careful of, however, is reducing the link between representative and constituency by too much - it is extremely important to have a particular person associated with a particular area.
Rich, Calais/Canterbury, France/UK
Why would anyone expect proportional systems to elect more ethnic minorities? Criticising the fact that they won't is like complaining that eating cornflakes doesn't cure 'flu. Yes, it would be nice if PR *did* lead to elected officials that 'look like' their constituents, but the fact they don't isn't a reason to reject PR.
The big issue is that PR wouldn't help Labour or the Tories. Why would they vote for something that will deny them the chance of single party government in the future?
Beth, London,
Here in Aotearoa (New Zealand) the MMP proportional representation system has delivered stable and functional coalition governments based on a far more diverse and representative Parliament. Political parties are under better popular control because they can't take their voters for granted, unlike under the corrupt old two-party state where the only alternative choice for dissatisfied government supporters was to vote for an opposition party they usually disliked even more.
Democracy: try it, you'll like it.
Richard Cheeseman, Wellington, New Zealand
STV is certainly the best system I don't want strong Government if "strong" means unaccountable to the people they are supposed to represent.
John Cross, Worthing,
You neglect to point out that STV was also used for the first time in the recent local government elections in Scotland and, judging by the comparison of spoilt ballot papers between those elections and the Scottish Parliament ones held on the same day under the Additional Member System, was far easier to understand by the electorate. The other benefit of STV is that it keeps the link between MP and constituency and, as is shown in Ireland, involves a much keener interest in the constituency than any other system. It gives the voter power of choice rather than the political party under our present system which presents only one candidate to the electorate. Many associations and trades unions already use STV for fair elections - why should Westmintser remain the unfair and odd one out? We now have proportional representation for all major assemblies in the UK except for Westminster. STV was a British invention which has been adopted widely by other European - are they all wrong?
Keith Best, London,
I think its disgrace that now Labour keep the present system if you a labour voter in a safe Conservative seat your vote is wasted!
I think Alternative Vote Plus is more appealing to labour which has a bit of P.R and Alternative Vote to Secure over 50% of vote to get in!
Alternative Vote creates more tactical voting than First Past The Post and Liberals would have got 74 MPS instead of 62 MPS in 2005.
Labour would have got 366 MPs instead of 356 MPS. The Conservatives would have struggled on this though.
Its more likely that labour will have Alternative Vote and if want to keep the Proportional Representation people then Alternative Vote Plus is your Best bet for Liberals and Greens to get seats.
If a Party gets a landslide then the Party wins on Alternative Vote Plus.
A say if there was Conservative Landslide in 2012 then Conservative Party would win on Alternative Vote Plus for this instance.
Kevin R, Bedford, England
So it should be shelved. Can you imagine the ensuing chaos if reform were left with this Government? It would be five years too late and cost at least three times the initial budget. I'd advise this Government to do nothing until they're voted out, it would save the taxpayer, in some estimates, £82 Billion a year in waste
Judy , Liverpool, england
The problem with voting reform is that it is only appealing to the Opposition. When Labour came to power all those moons ago, they promised radical electoral change. But they grew comfortable with their large majority the existing system had given them, and realised that PR would give the Tories a stronger position. That, plus a few niggles in the Middle East, the general collapse of the NHS and many other problems helped push reform off the agenda.
If, as is predicted by some, the Conservatives trample on Labour in the next election, Brown may look back on this rejection of electoral reform as his biggest mistake
Jb, Chaldon, UK
I would have thought that any sysytem that accurately reflects the proportion of MPs to votes will be a true democratic sysytem despite any perceived drawbacks..
So dismissing any of these systems just confirms what I believe about politicians.
They work for themselves not for us.
Andrew Evans, Llanelli , UK
The problem with selection from Part Lists, is that no matter how dire or innefectual a party candidate is, as long as they have the favour of the perty machine, they get elected to the government. If they are high enough in the list, you have to defeat the entire party to get rid of them.
Whatever system is used, we should continue to elect 'people' not 'organisations'.
Jonathan Mills, Brighton,
I am not an expert on electoral reform but one thing is certain we must have a change to how we vote. We were promised PR by the successive governments years ago. And the current FPTP system is clearly not working
Jim Purvis, derby, derbyshire
A system has - consciously, deliberately? - been omitted. Optional Negative Voting allows an elector to cast his same single vote either for a candidate, to augment his/her total, or against, to decrease it. Allow us to vote as we desire and we'll do it!
Noel Falconer, COUIZA, France
As a Briton living in New Zealand I can only say one of the most sorely missed aspects of UK life has been 'first past the post'.
Here in New Zealand, Kiwis recently had a serious wake-up call thanks to a Green Party "list" MP - so basically unelected - who went ahead with an anti-smacking bill which gave the police the right to act on reports of any physical punishment towards children by parents, regardless of context or severity.
Despite about 80 percent of the population vehemently being against it for fear of how such a sweeping law could be abused, the Labour-led goverment (which famously gave the foreign minister post to a right-wing conservative from a fringe party just to secure a government in the first place) pushed ahead with it anyway because they also had a support agreement with the Greens.
Proof, if needed, that proportional representation in practice is about as democratic as Robert Mugabe.
KiwiBrit, Christchurch, New Zealand
Given "effective government" typically means more government, especially in a report drafted by those associated with central government, is it really a good thing? Inefficient, and smaller, government, would be a much better idea!
JS, Cambridge,