Membership | Media Centre | ERS Scotland and Wales | Contact Us | About us
In This Section
News Blog
6th May 2012

Asking a different question on the anniversary of AV



A year ago the Yes campaign was soundly defeated in the AV referendum. Bad timing, an imperfect alternative and an opposition willing to fight dirty all worked in favour of First Past the Post, and 67.9% of voters opted for the status quo.

 

However, the vote against the AV was not a vote of confidence in FPTP.

 

Referendums, by their very nature, tend towards oversimplification in order to achieve clear outcomes. On May 5th 2011 voters were not asked “are you in favour of a more representative voting system?” they were asked “should the Alternative Vote system be used?” – a very different question.

 

So this year we decided to ask the real question. And, as expected, the results were very different.


“The UK should use a different voting system that would give parties a share of seats in Parliament that more closely reflects their share of votes”

 

 

 

Polling by Populus for the Electoral Reform Society [1]

 

A year on from AV only 1 in 5 people support the current system. The majority of British voters agree that parliament needs fair votes.

 

The Society’s goal of a truly representative democracy therefore remains unchanged. We are still campaigning for reform but now we are able to use the lessons from the referendum to inform our approach. The Yes campaign highlighted that it is difficult to persuade people to vote for change if they don’t recognise the problem in the first place, so we are working harder to highlight the problems before we offer solutions.

 

So how does our post-referendum approach play out in practical terms?

 

Firstly, we are continuing to push for reform in local government by showing that First Past the Post is unfit for purpose and that there is a tried-and-tested and genuinely democratic alternative.

 

This week Scottish voters went to the polls, in the second set of local elections since they moved from First past the Post to STV. And once again it meant voters got what they asked for.  No more safe seats, no more uncontested seats, just fair votes for all and a fair share for parties and independents. We won the fight for PR in Scottish local government, and it’s already making a big difference. Voters in England and Wales should settle for nothing less.

 

Secondly, we’re lobbying the government to make changes that will create fairer politics. Political reform remains high on the government’s agenda, presenting us with multiple opportunities.

 

For example, Lords’ reform is being debated as we speak. The coalition pledged to reform the Upper House, so we’re holding them to account and pushing for a fairly elected Lords. We’ve exposed the attempt to bring in a self serving system that would have packed the upper house with party Yes men and women. And we’ll keep piling on the pressure.

 

We’ve also been winning the argument on sweeping reforms of Electoral Registration – some of the biggest changes to the way we vote since the Universal Franchise. Last year we heeded the warnings from the Electoral Commission that changes could mean 10 million disappearing from our democracy. Not only was the government planning to let voters ‘opt out’ from their democracy, millions of people would simply slip through the cracks and off the electoral register.

 

We’ve taken the lead on this, and scored some big wins. But the government are still ignoring warnings from registration officers and charities who are all saying the same thing: that crossing their fingers and hoping for the best is not good enough. We need a safety net to ensure that millions of us do not lose our say at the next election. The government must rule out the opt out once and for all; otherwise it risks undermining the act of voting as a civic duty. Electoral registers are not mailing lists; they are the nuts and bolts of British democracy. Ending the opt out is a battle we intend to win.

 

And thirdly, we’re campaigning to bring about change on big issues which are seeing the parties talk and yet fail to take action.

 

For the first time in a generation the number of women in positions of power is heading south. From cabinet to local government, it’s impacting on every level of our government.  So together with partners Fawcett Society, Hansard Society, the Centre for Women and Democracy and Unlock Democracy we launched the Counting Women In campaign. At this rate even our daughters will be claiming their pensions before they get an equal voice in the government of our country. We don’t think that’s good enough, so we’re putting pressure on the government to change the political culture and on political parties to do more to encourage women. David Cameron promised that one third of his minsters would be women by the end of his first term as Prime Minster – so we are petitioning him to make sure he keeps that promise.

 

The referendum propelled the electoral reform debate into the public arena for the first time since the early 1930s. 6 million supported change, putting electoral reform back on the political agenda and giving organisations like us a much stronger platform from which to lobby and campaign.

 

Polling shows we have reasons to be cheerful, but now is not the time for complacency.

 

We’ve regrouped and we’re establishing ourselves as the voice of the voters on democratic reform. From what’s been described as ‘gerrymandering’ of constituency boundaries to party funding, we are leading the debate and holding the politicians to account. Our goal is a level playing field in our elections – and it must be achieved, whether politicians like it or not.

 

[1]  Weighted sample 2053 British adults.  NET: agree 1058   (52%)  Strongly agree  458   (22%)  Slightly agree 600 (29%)  Neither agree nor disagree 666  (27%)  Slightly Disagree 190 (9%)  Strongly disagree 250 (12%)  NET: disagree 400 (21%).

 

 
Comments
  • Amleyland

    II am not convinced that establishing the House of Lords as a House of Commons with longer tenure per member is the way forward. Most of the working (life) peers have been recognised for their contribution to public life in our country. Distinguished local councillors, doctors, engineers, and other professions are there as well as lawyers and ex lower house MP’s. And the life time tenure makes them all unafraid to speak out. And the system of the whole Upper House electing in those from the hereditary line means that those who have important interests and work in the House get in and they too represent an important part of our culture. I also like the French system that mayors of large towns are the Senators cooed into the American system where each State is the basis of a dear. We could add regional representation for the UK preferably biased against London and the SE for a change. But tenure is the thing. I recommend until aged 75, or unfit. And keep religious leaflets but spread the net to non Christian and other Christian leaders and not too many.

    • Patrick Herring

      The problem isn’t the expertise or the tenure it’s who chooses them: the PM or us. Many people can be recognised for their contribution to public life in our country, but only some of them get in to the HoL. Geddit? Only /some/…

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Alexander-Scott/100001444524681 Alexander Scott

        The problem with the current debate is that, as usual in politics, it suffers from over-simplification. Instead of a real debate over whether and how the House of Lords should be reformed, we are forced to choose between the current system and a specific package of reforms.

        By having Lords chosen solely by the Prime Minister (effectively), we get a House that’s overly susceptible to packing with political yes-men who can be relied upon to support ‘their’ government’s policies. Life tenure allows genuine experts to keep contributing, but also means that ever more yes-men are required to outweigh those left over from previous governments.

        By having the Lords chosen by public election, we again allow the Parties undue influence through their massive campaign bases, as well as making it less likely that genuine experts will be able or willing to spare the time and effort to campaign. The use of elections also means that the vast majority of seats may be expected to go to experts in presentation and soundbites, over ‘real’ experts in more valuable fields. Limited terms without re-eligibility ensures a turn-over of ‘political’ Lords, but means that anyone elected specifically as an expert is barred after only a fraction of their potential  useful consultative lifetime.

        In contrast, the replacement of the current politicised nominations system with one administered by a non-political committee (or more realistically, a politically balanced committee) would in my opinion retain the advantages of both systems. While term limits would allow for turn-over, allowing for re-selection would mean that experts could be retained for as long as their contributions are valuable.

        Personally, I would recommend a committee comprising delegates from the Commons and the Lords, chosen by (STV) election within each chamber, and chaired by a representative of the Crown. This allows for the reflection of the country’s political views, the input of expert opinion, and a role for the Head of State by whose authority the Lords are actually invested.

  • Guest

    The question is as oversimplified, and thus imbalanced, as the referendum. “The UK should use…a voting system…that more closely reflects thie share of the votes” is a simplification of the debate. A balanced question would mention that in FPTP everyone getting to pick only one candidate, etc. Without a debate, referendums on this complex issue are irrelevant.

  • Peter

    Unfortunately you cannot properly use such a vague question as the basis of a referendum upon which you intend to act by introducing a specific voting system. We need to know precisely what system we are voting for.

    • electoralreform

      Peter. Point taken. But take New Zealand. In 1992 voters were first asked if they wanted to keep the current system or change it. That forced a debate on FPTP’s specific merits (or lack thereof). The argument was won, by a landslide – over 80%. A follow up question allowed voters to have their say on what system was best for NZ.

      • Steven2011

        Indeed. This is the right way to go about resolving  this issue. It is a shame that the Lib Dems  allowed themselves to fall for the Tory contrick of FPTP V AV which we are all now suffering  from.

  • Holmeshome

    Sorry, but your monologue is more “jam tomorrow”. The real force of argument should show the %’s of any election result by electorate to show how corrupt the FPTP results are. e.g.my local district councillor got 40% of the actual vote, and 15% of the actual total electorate (that is how poor turnout was).

  • http://www.facebook.com/peter.hirst3 Peter Hirst

    Should the people decide what sort of electoral system they want?

    • Patrick Herring

      Yes of course. But first we have to do something about the bizarrely self-defeating thought-forms that hold sway in the population, from “I don’t vote, politicians annoy me” through “But how can they win without getting a majority?” to “The newspapers have more power than the government anyway”.

  • Alan Rayner

    STV for English and Welsh local government – excellent.
    Distraction on HoL reform – highly wasteful.

    Nick Clegg repeats the mantra that “those who make
    the laws” should be democratically elected. Yes BUT
    the HoL do NOT “make the laws”. They scrutinise them
    and sometimes put forward suggestions for new laws
    or amendment of proposals. That is not the same.

    Until this aspect is properly accepted, we will have a
    false debate on the HoL issue. It is the House of Commons
    that “makes the laws” (as HM Queen effectively always goes
    along with their decision).

    Let us have ERS concentrating on the real issue – getting
    STV for Local Government – and stopping meddling with
    with support for an elected HoL.

    Alan Rayner
    EX39 2BA

Search our News
TAGS
ARCHIVES
AUTHORS