Asking the important questions Juliet Swann, Campaigns and Research Officer, Electoral Reform Society Scotland   The likelihood of Scotland voting in a referendum on independence was something most Scots had accepted would occur at some stage before the next Scottish Parliament election in 2016. We talked about it in passing, but we didn’t really know how or when it would happen.

 

Suddenly then, in January this year, the debate became all about details. Could a referendum be legally binding? Could an advisory referendum even be called by the Scottish Parliament? Who would supervise the poll? When would it be? Who would be eligible to vote? And of course, what would the question be? Or could there be two?   At the Electoral Reform Society Scotland we’ve spent time poring over legislation, talking to experts, taking on board opinions and mulling over the options that would best respect democracy. To that end, we are recommending that the Scottish Parliament be provided with a no strings attached legal mandate to call a referendum at a time, and with a question (or questions) of their choosing. We also believe that the Scottish Electoral Commission is best placed to monitor the referendum, but they should be accountable not to the Westminster Government but to all members of the Scottish Parliament.   The Society supports votes for 16 and 17 year olds, and given the importance of this vote, we see no reason why this opportunity shouldn’t be taken to extend the franchise. That said, this should be as a beginning not as a one off. We think the franchise should be the same as for elections to the Scottish Parliament. We appreciate that Scots in England, Wales and elsewhere will be interested in the referendum and keen to participate, but the residency requirement is the one that best reflects democracy. As a comparison we would suggest that decisions made by the London mayor affect those who work but do not live in London, visitors to London, and have an impact on the UK more widely, but only residents of London are eligible to vote in the mayoral elections.   Having thought through these technical details, ERS Scotland is planning to hold a series of roundtables and public debates to open up the discussion. If we are thinking about amending our constitution, we should surely be thinking about what route will best deliver a good Scottish democracy. We have an opportunity to think about where power lies in Scotland, how it is used (and abused), and what further changes might benefit democracy. We believe that if our future democracy is the best it can be,  then all the other decisions faced by Scottish society will be thought about more fairly.   We hope to engage major thinkers and opinion formers, from think tanks to journalists, academics to campaigners, and to have a thoughtful conversation about how we can work together towards Scotland’s Good Democracy. For information about how you can get involved in the Electoral Reform Society Scotland’s good democracy project- watch this space! Futher details will be coming soon.   Find out more about Electoral Reform Society Scotland.

Challenges and opportunities for democracy in the year ahead Campbell Robb, Chief Executive, Shelter   Democracy, in the UK and across the world, faces so many challenges today that it is hard to know where to begin when thinking about the year ahead. From the perspective of Shelter, and the people we work with day in and day out, the most pressing challenge is how their voices are heard in the democratic system during this time of unprecedented change. In some ways it is not the electoral system itself that will have the biggest impact on this but this government’s pursuit of a more localised agenda and the emergence of an era of direct action and people power. Unprecedented public spending cuts and mass redundancies, an angry and challenging student movement, burning resentment about bankers’ pay and company tax avoidance may all collide with this new agenda of localism to challenge both the established political parties but also the systems that elect them.   Localism could be the ideology that defines the coalition. The theme of devolving and empowering is the common thread running through all major policy shifts, from healthcare to education to the flagship Localism Act, which promises to "lift the burden of bureaucracy, empower communities to do things their own way… open up government to public scrutiny and strengthen accountability to local people".  Even the welfare bill aims to empower the unemployed to take control of their lives.  How does this sit with the current democratic processes?   It is clear that the leaders of both coalition parties believe that their system of Government will sanction people to make better decisions about things that directly affect them. Local councils and grassroots organisations will have more freedom to do what they believe is right for their local area. People will be able to vote on local housing developments, GPs will control their own budgets; parents will be able to run their child’s school. This is people power, allowing both locally elected decision makers and local people to make important decisions, free from the trappings of centralised government and its elected representatives.   However legislating to allow people to get involved in local decision-making or more involved in politics or the political system is not the same as facilitating it. People need to be informed and encouraged, which takes time and resources.   To genuinely create long term community engagement and to avoid engagement fatigue, public institutions, politicians and campaigners need to be highly resourceful and have time and patience. At the moment this is just not in place. The current plans to reform the voter registration process are just one example of how the marginalised and those with the quietest voices risk getting left behind or left out.   Localism must work, not against the democratic systems that we are so proud of in this country, but with them. Both must adapt and reform to ensure that everyone in this country can feel empowered and engaged, and everyone, even the most disadvantaged and dispossessed can have a real say in how decisions are made.   The current systems and structures place great power in the hands of a relatively small number of people. If they genuinely wish to share it out, they must accept the great responsibility for this. A failure to do so properly risks great anger and further disengagement with politics. Success could mean a healthier more vibrant democracy which truly engages and inspires everyone.     Campbell Robb, Chief Executive of Shelter, recently spoke at the Electoral Reform Society’s New Year Reception.  

The AV Referendum: What went wrong? By Professor John Curtice, University of Strathclyde   There are three possible explanations for why the Yes campaign for the AV referendum was unsuccessful:  

• The ‘Yes’ campaign was “outgunned” by the ‘No’ campaign who were able to reach more voters;
• Partisanship – in a referendum people do not just vote on an issue, but on what the political parties have to say on the matter, and this worked to the Yes campaign’s disadvantage; and finally
• The messages used by both sides during the campaign, with the ‘Yes’ campaign’s messages proving ineffective, and the ‘No’ campaign’s messages resonating more strongly with voters.

  With regards to the first argument there is contradictory evidence on how effective both campaigns were in reaching voters. Many voters reported some contact with the ‘Yes’ campaign and the ‘No’ campaign and most polls show them about level. It may be the case that the ‘No’ camp did reach more people during the campaign – or did so more effectively – but of this we cannot be sure.   Partisanship is potentially a key influence in a referendum, especially one where people do not fully understand the issue itself. By April 2011 support for the Liberal Democrats was far lower than it had been at the time of the May 2010 election. This factor was damaging for the ‘Yes’ campaign because the Liberal Democrats were the only major political party to be united in support of a ‘Yes’ vote.  Meanwhile, Labour’s standings had improved – so gaining the support of the Labour party had become even more important.   During the course of the campaign, the Conservative party successfully got their supporters on side but polls show that in contrast, the Liberal Democrats failed to do so, while, despite the position adopted by the Labor leader, Ed Miliband, Labour supporters shifted from being marginally in favour to being clearly against.   That leaves us with messaging. The initial research conducted for the Yes side in November 2010 showed that the public were not particularly concerned about how hard their MP worked – so the message that AV would “make MPs work harder” could not necessarily be relied upon to resonate strongly. The research also showed that those who were concerned about how hard their MP worked were actually no more likely to be in favour of AV than those who did not.   The surveys also found that not trusting politicians, or not feeling that elections make a difference, was not linked in people’s minds to AV or the impact it might have. Similarly, concerns regarding MPs expenses - concerns that in any event seemed to have dissipated compared with 2009 - did not appear to translate into support for AV.  These results should have acted as a warning that the Yes campaign’s messages would not be successful in persuading people to vote ‘yes’.   To make matters worse, according to research at Exeter University, the ‘No’ campaign’s messages against AV became more popular during the course of the campaign, whilst the ‘Yes’ campaign’s arguments did not. For example, the research showed that the ‘No’ campaign’s message that AV would be an expensive waste of money proved particularly popular and correlated strongly to how people voted on the day.   Conversely the Yes argument that AV would mean no more wasted votes became less popular and the argument that AV would restore trust in politicians also failed to resonate.   At the same time, research from the British Election Study, showed that, although far more people agreed than disagreed that AV would make MPs work harder, this did not translate into ‘Yes’ votes on 5 May. In this study, the strongest correlation between agreeing with a message and turning that agreement into a vote was the ‘No’ campaign’s message that First Past the Post is part of British tradition.   Findings from focus groups conducted for the Yes campaign after the referendum indicated that the ‘No’ campaign’s messages were far more effective – a view which was also put forward by ‘Yes’ supporters taking part in the groups.   The ‘Yes’ campaign was always facing an uphill battle in a political context over which it had no control and put simply, the Conservatives were highly effective, but Liberal Democrats and Labour were not. This was a reality that was out of the hands of the ‘Yes’ campaign.   The criticisms of AV put forward by the ‘No’ campaign were far more popular and proved more effective in shaping how people eventually voted on 5 May. The ‘Yes’ campaign’s key arguments were either lost or did not resonate with people in terms of why they should vote ‘yes’.   With the benefit of hindsight, research should have been carried out at the very beginning of the campaign to pre-empt the arguments the ‘No’ campaign would use. This would have left the ‘Yes’ campaign better prepared for the criticisms of AV that the ‘No’ campaign utilised so successfully.   Finally, although the research has shown that the ‘Yes’ campaign’s own messages were unsuccessful, it is unclear whether there were any messages in favour of AV that would have fared better. The fact was that AV was a difficult product to sell and none of the perhaps stronger arguments that could have been made about a proportional system could be employed to make a more powerful case for change.