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.

An exciting year for reform buffs

As the dark days of January plunge us all into post Christmas doldrums do not despair! The year ahead promises a packed constitutional reform agenda and a fair few popular votes for those of us needing a democracy fix in between General Elections.

2012 will see voters in 131 English local authorities and all Scottish and Welsh councils head to the polls. Eleven English cities will decide whether or not to introduce elected mayors and in London the always entertaining mayoral elections will see Boris and Ken battle it out once again over bendy buses and congestion charging. If that’s missed any of you out – don’t forget that this year will also be the first time we will be asked to elect our Police Commissioners under the Supplementary Vote.

In the English local elections we can look forward to all the usual quirks – uncontested seats and unwon majorities, in Wales we’ll see whether the fickle First Past the Post system again locks Labour out of power in many local authorities, or grants the party a return to the disproportionate power it once wielded in its heartlands. In Scotland voters will elect their councillors under the Single Transferable Vote and we’ll have a chance to see if the SNP will further strengthen their hand as the debate on independence rumbles on.  We’ll be paying close attention to Scotland’s experience of fair votes and what implications this might have for local democracy for the rest of us.

But crucially our constitution itself will be in the spotlight again this year with a number of bills due to go through parliament that could change the shape and nature of our democracy for good.

The Joint Committee are due to report on the Draft House of Lords Reform Bill in March and there’s still all to play for. Doom mongers have long warned that the bill is destined to fail but the fact remains that all parties have committed to reforming the second chamber and there have been clear indications from the government that they are willing to invoke the Parliament Act to force the bill through if necessary. The Electoral Reform Society gave evidence to the committee in November and we have been lobbying hard to make sure that the bill, when it lands, fulfils the hopes of reformers who have spent the last 100 years trying to see this through. Click here to find out more about our work to reform the House of Lords.

The biggest change to the way we do elections since the Universal Franchise: Individual Electoral Registration (IER), will also be agreed this year. We welcome the move away from Household Registration but a recent report from the Electoral Commission showed that 6 million voters are already missing from the register and we’re concerned that the government’s proposals risk disenfranchising millions more. We’re demanding that the government a) drop the Opt-Out so that individuals cannot simply ‘opt out’ of their civic duty, b) Transfer over the threat of penalty as this is a vital tool that Electoral Registration Officers say acts as a drive for registration and c) Re-instate the 2014 Annual Canvas to guard against the 1% p/m deterioration in the completeness of the register so that it is as full as possible when the switch to IER takes place.

The year’s political hot potato; party funding, has been back in the news recently after the New Years Honours list once again brought to light how open the current system is open to misuse. In November, The Committee on Standards in Public Life produced a Review of Party Funding calling for a cap on political party donations and an increase in state funding. The recommendations were roundly rejected by all three major political parties but cross-party talks on capping donations will now start early this year.

And last but not least the huge beast of the boundary review will continue on its passage this year. The coalition government has pledged to reduce the number of MPs in Westminster from 650 to 600 and equalise the size of the constituencies. The rationale is that reducing the number of MPs will save the taxpayer money and equalising the size of the constituencies will ‘level the playing field’. The problem is that the boundaries will have been drawn up based on the government’s rigid rules that are bending our communities, our cities and our counties out of shape. The process has been based on the current electoral register (which as we’ve already noted is massively incomplete) so unregistered voters have not been considered in assessments of constituency size. As being unregistered does not disqualify you from receiving support from your MP, urban and socially deprived areas where registration is low are likely to be under-represented while affluent areas where registration is high will receive disproportionate representation. This is completely undemocratic and calls the validity of the entire exercise into question.

As if that all wasn’t enough to keep you on your toes we have presidential contests coming up to decide the new tenants of the Élysée Palace, the White House and the Kremlin, a continuing crisis throughout many European democracies, most recently Hungary, and the rise of new democracies across North Africa and the Middle East.
So if nothing else, 2012 certainly won’t be dull!

If you’re passionate about democracy and would like to help us shape ourwork on these and other important issues this year please take advantage of our free membership offer and join us in our fight to build a better democracy.

Find out more by liking us on facebook or following us on twitter

The battle to save the missing millions

The Electoral Commission’s latest report into voter registration shows that 6 million voters are currently missing from the register and with the government set to introduce Individual Electoral Registration (IER) in 2012, there is a danger that millions more could disappear before the next election.

IER represents the biggest change to the way we do elections since the Universal Franchise and while it is the right move in terms of tackling the accuracy of the register it is vital that the government take on board widespread concerns about its impact on completeness.

The completeness of our electoral registers is a marker of the health of our democracy and the Commission’s report demonstrates that the current gaps are not simply the ‘usual suspects’.

Of those of us who moved house since the 2010 canvuss, only 14% were still on the registers in April 2011. Only 56% of people living in private rented homes are currently registered, a massive 26% below the national average.

Young people and those from black and minority ethnic (BME) communities are also at risk under the current system with only 77% of people from BME communities registered (compared with 86% of white people) and almost half (46%) of 19-24 year olds not registered, compared with only 6% of 65+ unregistered.

Most worrying of all 44% of those not on the registers in April 2011 incorrectly believed that they were. This is due to some worrying misconceptions: 43% of the public believe that you are automatically registered to vote if you are 18 or over and 31% think that you are automatically registered to vote if you pay council tax. These aren’t people who don’t want to engage with their civic duty, these are people who through a lack of correct information are being cut off from having a voice in their democracy.

IER is the right move but the report throws a light on how vital it is that measures are taken to protect and grow the current lists. To avoid IER causing a further depletion in the numbers of registered voters the Government’s proposals must change. We’re asking that the government…

• Drops the Opt-Out: An ‘opt out’ is incompatible with civic duty. By enabling individuals to ‘opt out’, the UK Government’s existing plans risk a reduction in the number of individuals registered to vote.  Being on the register is about rights and responsibilities – determining how public services are delivered, underpinning the right to trial by jury of your peers, and even setting how political boundaries are drawn for your community. The Electoral Commission estimates that a new register could be as low as 65% complete.  Certain parts of the UK Government’s plans are compulsory, whilst other parts are voluntary: this contradiction risks confusion amongst voters and potentially, Electoral Registration Officers

• Transfers over the threat of penalty: Many Electoral Registration Officers report that the threat of £1,000 penalty acts as a drive for ensuring people register to vote.  Again, the UK Government’s plans to drop the threat of penalty will further suppress registration levels

• Re-instates 2014 Annual Canvas: Without a full household canvass in 2014, the 2015 register (the first register operating under the new system) risks being significantly incomplete. This will further disenfranchise voters. The year before a General Election is no time for shortcuts. Reinstating the canvass will guard against the 1% per/month drop in completeness in the register outlined by the Commission

It is obviously time to replace a Victorian ‘head of household’ with individual responsibility for registration. The issue is implementation, and in an era of uncertainty and increasing civil disengagement, it is imperative that we get it right.

You can download a full copy of the Electoral Commission report on Great Britain’s electoral registers 2011 here.

Getting to ‘No’ – A final look at the AV referendum

At the weekend we held an event for members and supporters to have a last look at the Yes campaign defeat and the lessons we as reformers can learn for the future.

As well as finding out more about the Society’s role in the Yes to fairer votes campaign, attendees had the chance to hear the perspective of Professor John Curtice, a leading expert in electoral systems and electoral behaviour, and to question a panel of those involved in the campaign’s leadership. A full report from the event will be available soon along with footage from the day.

While helping to provide some closure on the AV referendum the event also helped us to start setting the tone for the future.

One of our members, Helen Parke, asked the panel: “what positive lessons can we take forward. What things do we most need to change to ensure that electoral reform stays high on the agenda and no further opportunities are missed?”

This question has been at the heart of the evaluative work we have undertaken since the referendum and our findings will be encapsulated in a practical handbook for reformers which we will publish next year.

We must now turn the page on the AV referendum and look to the future by asking ourselves what kind of a democracy we want to see in the UK and what role the Society can play to achieve it.

We know that a 21st democracy can’t work if the rules were designed for 19^th and that democracy cannot function if people are cut off from institutions that should serve them. Now is the time to hone our arguments, build the relationships, forge the alliances and create the conditions for reform, ready to leap into action when the political moment is right – which as John Curtice noted at the event, may be sooner than we think.

The next election is only round the corner and if we are serious about change we need a route map that we have sketched together. We will be publishing our new strategic plan in May, one year on from the referendum, and at the event we begun this process by inviting attendees to help inform our strategy over the next decade. We will be continuing this process with members and supporters over the coming months but make sure you’ve had your say by giving us your thoughts on where the Society should be by 2020 in our online survey.

At the Electoral Reform Society we plan to be a key agent in any future reform so it is vital that we take a hard look at ourselves and reform the way that we work with you – our members and supporters. This event was the first of a programme of activity we will be launching to further engagement and consultation and we hope that you can see us learning from our past mistakes and those of the Yes campaign, and starting as we mean to go on.

This is an exciting time for reformers and as governments fail and new democracies spring up this isn’t a time for retreat – it is our time to get the issues of democratic reform on the national agenda.

Look out for our full report on the event and footage from the day, coming soon…

A question of duty?

By Willie Sullivan, Director of the Electoral Reform Society Scotland.

The BBC’s article on Individual Electoral Registration the other day asked the question ‘Is there such thing as a Civic Duty?’, but avoided considering the wider implications of the nature of a ‘Social Contract’ and what it means for our society.

From Socrates to Hobbes and onto Rousseau (who interestingly died from his injuries after colliding with a Great Dane on the street of Paris, that’s a dog not Kierkegaard) political philosophers of left and right have explained that we come together in society to receive common goods and that in return we have certain duties to that society – that every citizen takes on an implied ‘Social Contract’.

I would be surprised if in UK mainstream politics today there is anybody who does not agree that we have duties to each other and through the state as part of that collective responsibility. We might argue about the levels of taxation and what should be provided by the state but few would disagree that individuals should pay some taxes so that collectively – ‘civilly’ – we can provide common goods; law and order, health, roads etc. As citizens we have a civic duty to pay taxes, true some may try to avoid it, but if we are to avoid social breakdown the state, as guardian of the common good, must offer sanctions so that we are compelled to pay them.

The BBC article picked up on the recent argument over proposed changes to the way people register to vote and particularly the removal of a fine if people refuse to give information to Electoral Registration Officers (ERO).  It is currently an offence for electors not to respond to an ERO request for information or to give false information. The offence is a failure to respond to an enquiry it is not an offence to fail to register. Anyone refusing to supply information is liable for a maximum fine of £1,000. Prosecutions are exceptionally rare but EROs have stressed the importance of the presence of the fine as a key tool in securing a complete register. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg says he doesn’t believe a fine is necessary, insisting “everyone recognises” that registering to vote is “a civic duty”, and given that sense of obligation, the threat of sanction is not necessary.

This is an interesting view, especially as it appears from the article that a general feeling of being duty bound to register to vote is in sharp decline. It would be telling to see how this duty correlates to how duty bound people felt to pay their taxes. Maybe we should just leave paying tax up to that sense of obligation? By imposing sanctions on certain civic duties, the state signals how important it believes these duties to be. Removal of the threat of fine says registering to vote doesn’t matter.

You could of course argue that registering to vote is not a civic duty; it’s a matter of choice, not part of any social contract. But the electoral register is used to select people for jury service and will be used as the basis for future boundary reviews. It also has a role to play in the provision of public service funding. The Government’s argument that failing to register will only affect the individual is erroneous given the register’s direct impact on the justice system and political representation within our communities.

The Government have sent out mixed messages on civic duty. They need to be clear. If as citizens of a democracy we don’t have any duty to ourselves and to each other, then perhaps the doomsayers are right and we deserve to return to Hobbes’ ‘state of nature’.

Find out more about what the Electoral Reform Society is doing around Individual Electoral Registration.

Interests aside – what’s right for Wales?

By Dr. Owain Llyr ap Gareth, Campaigns and Research Officer at the Electoral Reform Society Wales

The Electoral Reform Society Wales launched our new report today analysing the results of the Welsh Assembly Elections in May 2011. The report shows what the results could have looked like had they been conducted under different voting systems, taking into account the impact of Westminster’s potential boundary changes.

This analysis is particularly relevant as the Secretary of State for Wales has recently indicated she may change how AMs are elected.  Welsh Labour has responded by arguing that the UK Government has no mandate for change, but that if changes were proposed they would call for Assembly elections to be conducted solely under First Past the Post.

The report, written by Professor Roger Scully from Aberystwyth’s Institute of Welsh Politics and myself, has stirred up considerable controversy as it shows the extent to which Welsh Labour could disproportionately benefit if First Past the Post was exclusively adopted.

The report finds that 30 constituencies with two Assembly Members elected in each under First Past the Post could have resulted in Labour electing 41 AMs, or winning 68.3% of the vote on 39.6% of the vote. The three other main parties would have gained only 19 seats between them despite gaining 55% of the vote.

2-Member First Past the Post

The report shows that the results for an Additional Member System (AMS), similar to the current one used for Assembly elections but with 30 constituency AMs and 30 regional AMs, could have been a more proportional result than the current system, with the number of seats a party wins a better reflection of their share of the vote:

AMS with 30 Constituency Seats and 30 Regional Seats

The issue of the Assembly’s voting system has been raised again due to the Westminster Coalition’s policy of cutting the number of Welsh MPs to 30. The report recommends that “any proposed change to the voting system would also need to take into account whether it is necessary or desirable to link the National Assembly for Wales’s constituencies to Westminster constituencies”.

Any change must also take into account the impact on the core issues of democracy such as proportionality; types of Assembly Members (AM) elected and their role; the reflection of communities and identities; and accountability of AMs to voters.

The advantages and disadvantages of linking the Assembly and Westminster’s boundaries would be:

If the Assembly constituencies were to be coupled with those of Westminster, the report would recommend a change to 30/30 AMS. If it were decided to keep the Assembly boundaries separate, the Electoral Reform Society Wales follows the Richard Commission in recommending an 80 seat Assembly elected by the Single Transferable Vote. By pairing the current seats into 20 constituencies and electing four AMs from each via STV, the projected result in 2011 could have been:

80 Member STV

Given that this was recommended by an independent commission, and that these results are broadly similar to the partisan complexion at present, this option cannot be accused of bias or being endorsed for partisan gain.

It is vital now, at this important juncture for Welsh devolution, that the discussions about how the Assembly is elected are not marred by partisan interests. How we choose our politicians is fundamental to how our democracy works. Any change to the voting system should be carefully considered, above day-to-day party politics.

There needs to be a genuine cross-party dialogue with the people of Wales and any change should be made in line with the devolved body’s commitment to inclusion, equality and plurality. We believe that a move to First Past the Post would fatally undermine this commitment.

Download full report or find out more about the work of the Electoral Reform Society Wales.

* Votes used are an amalgamation of Constituency and List Votes

Is Scottish Democracy failing to realise dream of devolution?

By Juliet Swann, Campaigns and Research Officer for Electoral Reform Society Scotland.

The Electoral Reform Society Scotland recently held an event to launch our report examining the “remarkable” results of the May 2011 Scottish Parliamentary election.

Under the heading ‘A health check’, report co-author; Professor Curtice, examined the potential problems revealed by close analysis of the 2011 election and answered questions from MSPs and journalists who came along to join the discussion.

Firstly, Prof. Curtice considered turnout. Turnout is still only around 50% in Scottish Parliamentary Elections down from a high of 58% in the first election in 1999. More worryingly, although Scots identify with and value the Scottish Parliament, fewer of us vote in the Scottish Parliament elections than in Westminster elections, and the gap is widening. Joan McAlpine MSP (SNP, South Scotland) asked if this was perhaps because there was a lower level of media coverage for Scottish Parliament elections, to which Professor Curtice responded that it would be hard to say whether low media coverage led to low turnout or whether the level of media coverage reflected voter apathy. He conceded that newspaper readership was in decline and fewer people are passionate about any one party, but argued there is no reduction in the general interest in politics.

Secondly, Curtice went on to consider the fact that smaller parties appear to be concentrating their resources on the list vote. This means that whilst AMS may well have ensured that voters were presented with a wide choice on the party list vote, it has reduced the amount of choice they have on the constituency vote. In many constituencies, voters could only vote for one of the four largest parties and across Scotland as a whole only 30 candidates from other parties stood on the constituency ballot. This lack of choice throws up some interesting behaviour on the part of voters. If the choice they wish to express only appears on the list ballot paper, they are often only interested in completing that ballot, leading to a much higher level of spoilt or blank constituency ballots. This was notably the case in areas with a high Green vote (including Edinburgh Central, Edinburgh Southern and Glasgow Kelvin).

The third issue Curtice raised is there is a discrepancy in how the parties treat the system. Not only is the fate of an individual candidate decided by their party rather than the voters, but in the instance of the Labour party the list is viewed as a second place for “winning losers”, depriving the party and the Parliament of some of their most senior talent.

Regardless of the implications for the Labour party, it should be asked if this loss of experience from any party is in the best interests of the Parliament and the country. This loss of experience from the opposition benches is in contrast to the Government benches where many of the constituency winners were previously regional list MSPs.

And finally, analysis shows that the system is not as proportional as it is thought to be. Professor Curtice illustrated the number of seats which would have been secured under National Proportional Representation (PR) and also using the Sainte-Laguë method (which is similar to but delivers more proportional results than, the d’Hondt method). This showed that under PR the SNP would still have had a large majority, and Labour would still have been the largest opposition party, but the Greens and ‘Others’ would have seen a fairer share of seats. Essentially, compared to the 2011 results, the Sainte-Laguë system would have delivered 5 fewer seats for the SNP, 3 fewer for Labour, kept the Conservatives as they are, and given 2 more seats to the Liberal Democrats, 5 more to the Greens and 1 more to ‘others’ (which would probably have been George Galloway in this instance).

Professor Curtice also touched on the gender composition of the Parliament and noted that it is the constituency vote that is impeding the gender balance, in contrast to earlier sessions when women were standing and winning in constituencies. It is disappointing that the 51% high of women MSPs in 2003 has not been repeated, and it will be an important issue for ERS Scotland as we continue our work with the Counting Women In campaign.

Some interesting questions were posed from the floor. Marco Biagi (SNP, Edinburgh Central) asked what difference landslide victories made when comparing AMS to FPTP and Professor Curtice noted that proportional representation doesn’t exaggerate swings, but landslides do. He pointed out that whilst inexperienced landslide Governments are common, it is unusual to have an inexperienced opposition. Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothians) remarked that even successful incumbents do not always encourage party loyalty in the list vote in their constituency.

The event also saw a lively debate about the question of mandate given low turnout and majority Governments having less than 50% of the vote. Professor Curtice warned that domination in the parliamentary chamber does not necessarily equate to voter participation or widespread support for the party in question in the non-voting public.

It was suggested that we were only having this discussion now because of the SNP majority win being so unexpected. Professor Curtice admitted this particular discussion was stimulated by the surprising win, but that academics have been discussing the results of elections for some time.

There was also a discussion about representation, with Derek MacKay (SNP, Renfrewshire North and West) pointing out that Holyrood is in general a lot more representative than Westminster and suggesting that it isn’t just smaller parties that lend diversity to the Parliament.

There has been a strong level of interest in the report both from MSPs and in the media; the findings were front page news in the Scotsman the day following the event and ERS Scotland’s Director; Willie Sullivan, was interviewed on the afternoon news show Politics Scotland. This is dramatic contrast to the complacency of Westminster where the out-dated First Past the Post system continues to ostracise and disenfranchise voters UK-wide. What matters now is that we capitalise on this interest in the health of Scottish democracy and work to iron out the remaining wrinkles in the system.

Download Scottish Election Report or find out more about the work of the Electoral Reform Society Scotland.

Voter Registration: We’re winning

Some good news for a change as the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee’s new report shows we’re making progress on getting Individual Electoral Registration (IER) right.

The Society has been working closely with the UK Government, all political parties, electoral registration officers and civil society to suggest changes to the Bill to help prevent as many as 10 million voters falling off the register.

It seems the alarm bells have been headed. The report acknowledges that IER is the right move but urges caution as to how the change is implemented.

We are delighted to see so many of our recommendations included in the report, particularly the need to scrap the opt-out, retain the threat of legal fines for non-registration and preserve the household canvas. The Committee is absolutely right to back the need to retain the annual canvass and the threat of penalty as the government’s proposals would mean councils would have no carrot, no stick and no opportunity to target hard to reach citizens. Quite simply if we want a complete and accurate register, then officials need the tools to get the job done.

The Committee was also right to rein in the government on its plans to make it possible for citizens to essentially ‘opt out’ from democracy. Being on the register is not just about rights, it’s about responsibilities. It determines how public services are delivered, underpins the right to trial by jury of your peers, and sets how political boundaries are drawn.

To coincide with the release of the Committee’s report we are publishing our own report feeding back the findings from our roundtable on Individual Electoral Registration in October. Attendees at the roundtable included the Electoral Commission, Equality & Human Rights Commission, local Electoral Registration Officers, black and minority ethnic, disability and young people’s organisations, politicians and researchers from the three main political parties as well as a Cabinet Office civil servant. A number of considerations and recommendations were tabled, see full report here.

Some of the issues flagged up at the event remain unaddressed in the Committee’s report including the question of whether the electoral register should be the basis for the Boundary Review or whether it would be better to scrap this entirely and use population figures instead. The problem with a patchy and incomplete list is that the new boundaries will not accurately represent the real shape and size of constituencies so citizens who are not registered but who still deserve fair representation in parliament, will be disadvantaged.

There has also not been enough consideration of how the move will be practically implemented against a back drop of local government cuts. Roundtable attendee Michael Summerville, Electoral Registration Officer for London Borough of Hackney said:

“We have spent years building up the register. We’re concerned that all that work with be undone. We could be looking at a 20-30,000 drop from a register of 165,000.”

“I don’t see how we’ll have the time to prepare for IER on the back of the 2014 Elections. We’re already losing resources.” 

There still needs to be more consideration key groups who will be disproportionately impacted by the shift. The Committee report make the rather weak recommendation that more public information on IER is needed but this will not be enough to safeguard the communities likely to be most severely affected by the change.

As Chris Ruane, MP for Vale of Clwyd told us:

“The people who are going to be left off are poor, black and ethnic, and living in privately rented and social housing. We’re going to return to electoral registration rates like Alabama in the 1950s.”

We could be looking at a doomsday scenario. The problem needs to be tackled head on – waiting for the drop is not an option.

It’s vital that this Wednesday’s Opposition Day Debate brings this debate back to the forefront. It can’t be reduced to another round of partisan point scoring, or coalition infighting.

We are sleepwalking into change which threatens the very legitimacy of British politics. The Committee’s recommendations must be heeded.

You can download a full copy of the Committee’s report on Individual Electoral Registration here and a full report on the Electoral Reform Society’s roundtable on IER is here.

Time for an equal say

The level of women’s representation in politics is an important signifier of a healthy democracy. Yet in the UK only 22 per cent – or 1 in 5 - members of the Westminster Parliament are women. This means we lag behind more than 40 other countries worldwide including Rwanda, Mexico and Iraq.

In light of this the Electoral Reform Society is launching a new campaign called Counting Women In. It’s a coalition bringing together women’s rights organisations, academics and those that campaign for a better politics.

The campaign demands an equal say for women in how our country is run and aims to finally put an end to the deadlock around the lack of women at the top table.

Counting Women In launches with a call for David Cameron to keep his promise to have 1/3 of his ministers be women by the end of his first term as Prime Minister. Currently of the 119 most senior members of the government, just 20 – or 17 per cent – are women, meaning decisions of national importance – everything from whether to go to war to what to teach in our schools – are being made without women round the table. The different experiences and perspectives of one half of the country are not being heard and the talent and expertise they would bring are being wasted.

Westminster, as it stands, has simply not entered the 21^st Century. The House of Commons routinely sits until 10 pm at night, there is no consistent agreed parental leave policy for MPs and little in the way of childcare support for Members. All too often women considering standing as candidates come up against old fashioned attitudes about the role of women in public life. The old assumption that women are less likely to be successful with voters prevents them from being put forward in winnable seats and the archaic horrors of a voting system which rewards the status quo and creates huge blockages of safe seats across the country means the odds are stacked against them.

In local government women fare slightly better but in the local elections this year only 30.4% of candidates fielded by all parties were women; 33.3% of Liberal Democrat candidates, 31.7% of Labour and 29.1% of Conservative. This is better than the National average but would still leave us languishing at around 22 in the world tables behind most of Northern Europe, Germany and Spain. Even closer to home the comparisons are uncomfortable as in the 2011 elections 35% of Scottish MSPs and 40% of Welsh AMs elected were women (Although it’s important to note that these figures are also slipping from their impressive beginnings in 1999).

Yet still Westminster drags its feet. The rate of change on this issue has been truly glacial with the number of female MPs having increased by only 4 per cent since 1997. At the current rate of change a child born today will be drawing her pension before she has an equal voice in the government of her country. The UK deserves better than this.

For the Society this is about going back to basics. As our founder Sir John Lubbock wrote in 1884

“I trust that Great Britain, the mother of Parliaments, may once more take the lead among the great nations of the world by securing for herself a House of Commons which shall really represent the nation.”

The mother of all parliaments is clearly lagging behind. As long as Westminster is seemingly off-limits to over half the population we won’t have a parliament that really represents the UK. There will be no meaningful shift in the culture of our politics and Westminster will remain a 19^th Century Gentleman’s Club.

All parties need to take a long hard look at themselves to break down some of the unnecessary barriers that women face to getting involved in political life. A proportional voting system would certainly help and will form part of a package of campaign asks but the onus is on Party Leaders to pursue the measures most suited to their particular party – find out more here.

Nothing changes until there is a sizeable momentum behind it and that’s where we, and you, come in. The time has come for women to demand an equal presence and voice in British politics. Join the call for 50/50 by visiting www.countingwomenin.org