Let the voters express themselves

Isn't it time our voting system allowed us to pix 'n' mix?

WIDESPREAD cynicism greeted Gordon Brown’s suggestion that electoral reform for Westminster may be on the cards again. To some, Brown’s renewed interest in all things constitutional is a measure of overall weakness. The Tories meanwhile proceeded directly to the most damaging allegation of all: the Prime Minister had concluded he could not win under the existing system, and hence was attempting to gerrymander a new one.

Notwithstanding the Tories’ refreshingly Tory-like opposition to change, it now seems as if electoral reform is on the agenda in the most serious way that anyone can remember. The battle lines are also clear.

Supporters of electoral reform complain that majoritarian systems result in “wasted votes”, or votes cast for candidates who are defeated. They argue that parties can and do enjoy clear Parliamentary majorities on only mere pluralities of the popular vote (the current government, with 55% of the seats from only 35% of the vote is a case in point). Perhaps most seriously for those whose focus remains on repairing public faith in politics, they point out that the logic of first-past-the-post obliges parties to ignore the great bulk of seats and voters, and target their efforts on the same tiny sliver of swing seats. The result, it is argued, puts damaging distance between most politicians and their electors.

The arguments against proportional systems are equally well rehearsed. We are told they weaken the relationship between electors and elected by breaking the link between constituency and representative (multi-member seats are a common feature of most such systems). The other common objection is that they lead to weak government and unstable coalitions.

Both critiques essentially focus on the same point, namely the issue of proportionality. To reformers a greater correlation between votes cast and seats allocated is axiomatically good because it is fair, and reflectively good because it supposedly gives more people a meaningful say in who governs them. To opponents, proportionality is the problem precisely because of an electorate unwilling to give majority support to a given candidate or party.

Both analyses demonstrate a dispiriting lack of faith in the voters, who are assumed incapable of adjusting their behaviour in the light of deficient outcomes, whether that is neglect or instability. And both concentrate on the wrong thing.

Proportional or partly proportional systems rarely maintain that quality all the way through from vote to formation of government. In this month’s Euro elections, the only real contest was for the symbolic topping of the popular vote, and for the fourth seat. Barring disaster, Derek Vaughan, Jill Evans and Kay Swinburne knew they were off to Brussels as soon as they placed first on their respective party lists. It is hard to see how that fact induces fierce competition. And a proportional distribution of seats rarely seems to lead to a proportional distribution of power. In fact the second largest party is often excluded from government in favour of one or more minor or “hinge” parties who wield power far beyond their popular mandate and can often choose the government. Germany’s Freie Demokratische Partei is the most celebrated example, having been a party of government (including Hans-Dietrich Genscher’s unbroken 18 year stint as Foreign Secretary) for 41 of its 57 years, despite never gaining more than 13% of the vote in any Federal election.

So if a properly proportionate distribution of power cannot be attained, should we stick with what we’ve got?

Not necessarily; for reform could deliver an important new quality and give people the ability to be more descriptive about their preferences. The Single Transferable Vote (STV) asks electors to rank candidates by preference, and so does the Alternative Vote.  Just the move from a single vote to a ranked one would change the way people think about the way they vote, and allow them to be far more expressive. Couple that to compulsory ballot paper completion – a requirement to either vote or declare an abstention – and attitudes to voting will begin to change from a waste of time to a duty requiring some deliberation. A further change would include the addition of a R.O.N, or Re-Open Nominations box, something that would give voters yet another option to express their view. Other ways to give maximum expression while remaining strictly quantitative should be sought.

A debate that focuses only on matching input (votes) with outputs (seats) misses the point. People feel disenfranchised because they can only express a blunt preference in a world where they are used to communicating their choices in far greater depth. Our system of voting should change, but this principle rather than proportionality should be its lodestar.