As the First Minister and the Scottish Secretary have met to discuss how the referendum vote should be run, ERS Scotland appeals to both sides to consider what is the most democratic route forwards and to ensure all voices are heard.

 

Juliet Swann, Campaigns and Research Officer with the Electoral Reform Society in Scotland commented:

 

It’s great that Salmond and Moore have met and begun to iron out the technicalities of the referendum. The debate ahead requires respect and recognition of the Scottish Parliament’s mandate over Scotland’s affairs.

 

“Once the details are agreed, it is vital that an independent non-partisan body tests and verifies the question, and that the poll is organised and managed in a similarly independent manner. We are pleased the Scottish Government has accepted the role of the Electoral Commission and we have every confidence in them to do this job.

 

“We must bear in mind that the Holyrood system was not set up to manage majority Government, which makes the role of the Commission available to the Parliament as a whole as an independent monitor all the more important. Part and parcel of discussions around a good Scottish democracy must include an evaluation on how to make our devolved institution as democratic and accountable as possible. This crucial debate must be had in a thoughtful and open fashion.”

The Government response on Individual Electoral Registration

Today the Government has issued its response to the pre-legislative scrutiny and public consultation on Individual Electoral Registration (IER). The government’s full response here.

IER is due to be rolled out in 2014, the year before the next General Election. It will mean shifting from household registration where a ‘head of the household’ registers everyone at their address, to individuals taking responsibility for registering themselves. It is widely accepted as the right move for guarding against fraud but there remain concerns about the way the change is going to be implemented.

Katie Ghose, Chief Executive of the Electoral Reform Society says:

We’re pleased to see that the Government has moved on some of our key concerns: Retaining the 2014 canvass is fundamental, without it the move to IER would disenfranchise millions of us who might simply move house in the eight months before the change is introduced.

‘It is concerning that the Government remains confused about its position on the ‘opt-out’. During the consultation process Registration Officers were clear that this bizarre new addition would seriously undermine the importance of registering to vote and would harm the completeness of the register. The Government needs to be clear about this. There is no excuse for the opt-out sneaking into the new legislation.

This is a huge change and needs to be done right. The year before a General Election is no time for shortcuts and it is vital that the legislation is not rushed through without proper consideration of the impact it will have on ordinary voters.’

Ends


For more information or to speak to a spokesperson call Sophie Langridge in the media office on 07757 743354.


Notes to Editors

The proposed changes to the draft legislation on Individual Electoral Registration and what they mean.

• The Annual Canvass

The Government has moved on their initial plans to introduce IER with a write-out to everyone on the register as it stands at December 2013 (plus any rolling updates).

Government response: “We have listened to concerns that there is no full household canvass in 2014.To ensure that a more accurate and up to date register is used as the basis of the new register we are also planning to delay the annual canvass in 2013 to the early part of 2014.”

This is the right move as it is vital that the electoral roll is as up to date as possible before the introduction of IER and the next General Election. While we welcome this development we will be watching carefully to ensure that Electoral Registration Officers are given adequate resources to complete an accurate 2014 canvass to repair the damage done by scrapping the canvass in 2013.

• The Opt-Out

The Government’s proposals take a significant step from requiring registration to making it a matter of choice. The Government report says it ‘unequivocally believes’ voting is a civic duty but an ‘opt out’ is at odds with the principle of civic duty.

Government response: “As we made clear last year, we are minded to amend this provision and intend either to retain the ‘opt out’ but require a person wishing to do so to complete a separate application, or to entirely remove this option altogether.”

Under the current draft legislation, registering will not be compulsory, it will be a personal choice as to whether to respond to Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) request to complete an application form. Citizens will be entitled to ‘opt out’ of registration by indicating that they do not wish to receive further information or invitations to register. If they choose to ‘opt out’ EROs will not contact them again during that canvass period.

It is important to ensure that the incentives not to register do not outweigh the incentives to do so. Research on public attitudes to voting has highlighted a number of reasons people fail to register including a reluctance to give out personal details, fear of filling in forms or simply not wishing to be bothered with it. Creating an opt out is likely to see a number of people not registering for reasons not associated with voting - either because of the process itself or for more specific deterrents such as avoiding jury service, council tax, credit agencies.

Removing disincentives to opt out coupled with the relative ease at which it will be possible to opt out, is highly likely to have serious repercussions for registration levels.

• Data Matching

The Government plans to use data matching to fill in some of the holes in the register. Data matching means checking the data on the register up against other national databases that the government has (i.e. Drivers licence, NHS records etc.). This data matching will be particularly targeted on home movers, who are one of the groups most likely to fall off the register.

Concerns were raised in the consultation about the quality of some of this data and problems which may arise as a result. There were also concerns raised by Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) about the appropriateness of some of this data.

There are currently data matching pilots being conducted twenty two different areas of the country. A report by the Electoral Commission is due on data matching in March but the Government appears to have pre-judged the results, claiming that “we are confident that the pilots suggest that this can add real value and intend to carry out further pilots to refine the approach further, and to develop an efficient and effective system ready in time to support the implementation of IER.”

Some early results of the data matching pilots show that it is more difficult in areas which already have low levels of registration and where there are the largest fears of a fall in the numbers of people on the electoral register (Tower Hamlets and Newham). This suggests that the government’s plans would not actually help to target the groups already missing from the registers.

Further Background

In October 2011 the Electoral Reform Society organised a cross-party roundtable which included local and national officials working on registration, and key organisations representing groups facing exclusion from the register. The report Missing Millions is available to download.

For further information see www.electoral-reform.org.uk/IER/

The Electoral Reform Society Scotland welcomes the Scottish Government’s consultation on the proposed Independence referendum, and the acknowledgement from the First Minister that the choices we now face are fundamentally matters of democracy.

In that spirit, we would caution that the debate should rise above party politics and vested interests.

ERS Scotland’s Director Willie Sullivan said:

“All polling suggests that the Scottish people are clustering around three main options: status quo, so called Devo Max, and Independence.

“If there is only to be one question then the structure is straightforward; a simple Yes or No for Independence.

“If the consultation responses indicate that the Scottish people want the opportunity to vote on all three options, then the best way to do this would be to ask two questions on the same ballot paper: The first asking yes or no to any change and the second to determine what level of change. This approach was recently road-tested in New Zealand.

“This is by far the simplest and fairest way to ensure that everyone gets a real say but we are concerned that instead of ensuring that it’s the Scottish people who have a chance to determine Scotland’s future, the debate among politicians is becoming polarised and disingenuous.”

The debate on the ‘Claim of Right’ tomorrow (26 January) represents an historic opportunity to address wider questions of Scotland’s constitution and democracy.

Willie Sullivan added:

“Thursday’s debate is an important opportunity to consider what the idea of sovereignty lying with the people actually means and how we can make this a reality.

“We challenge all parties to set out how they will ensure that power in Scotland is awarded and exercised fairly and that representatives can be held to account in a manner that supports a good society.”

The Electoral Reform Society Scotland is currently developing a programme of work called ‘Demo Max’, launching in the spring, to investigate the attributes of a ‘good Scottish democracy’ in this changing constitutional climate.

ENDS

For comment contact Willie Sullivan, Director of ERS Scotland on 07940523842


Notes to Editors

[1] The New Zealand voting system referendum of 26 November 2011 followed this model. Sample ballot papers are available online:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/NZ_voting_referendum_ballot.jpg

[2] Demo Max will be a programme of investigation over 18 months into what makes a good Scottish Democracy. The discussions will be based around three main themes
1) Sovereignty of the People – how is the ideal made real?
2) Protecting People Power – How to ensure the state is not unduly influenced by vested interests ( i,e Media proprietors, Lobbyists , Financial Industry )
3) Institutions of State – How is a good Scottish Democracy described, codified and embedded in the institutions and processes of the State.
The programme will consist of high level seminars, public discussions, virtual and real, reports and publications at relevant points. We hope to involve a wide range of individuals and agencies.

The Electoral Reform Society Wales has commented on the publication of new Welsh parliamentary boundaries. [1]

The Society has attacked the thankless task handed to the Boundary Commission for Wales. It is now calling on the UK Government to reassess the extremely tight variance of 5% between constituency sizes – which has meant many Westminster seats will cross and break up traditional communities in favour of large new artificial constituencies such as “North Powys”, and the “Heads of the Valleys”.

Unlike changes to Scotland’s political map, no Welsh seats have been protected under these proposals.

Stephen Brooks, Director of the Electoral Reform Society Wales said:

If Wales’ new boundaries seem to fly in the face of common sense then responsibility rests with the UK government.

The Boundary Commission for Wales was dealt a bad hand. The UK Government’s 'One Size Fits All' approach was never going to work for Wales. The UK Government chose to ignore the existence of our mountains and valleys in order to fit a bureaucratic formula. It’s a vision of equality where the maths matters but our communities don’t.

Key Points

• The Boundary Commission for Wales has published detailed proposals reducing the number of Welsh MPs from 40 to 30.
• No Welsh seats have been protected under the proposals. Exceptions have been made for two of Scotland’s seats - Na h-Eileanan an Iar (the Western Isles) and Orkney and Shetland.
• The constituencies must now have a number of electors set at between 72,810 and 80,473 – the maximum ‘5% variance’. A wider variance would have allowed the Commission to be more sympathetic to geography and traditional communities. Conservative cabinet minister Baroness Warsi has already dubbed the revised constituency map of England both "mad and insane".
• It is likely that the cut in the number of seats will disproportionately effect the proportion of women elected to parliament from Wales in the next UK general election.

ENDS

Notes to Editors
The Electoral Reform Society Wales aims to build a better democracy by ensuring that the electoral processes of Westminster & Wales are fair and accountable. ERS Wales’ report on the Conservatives’ “Reduce and Equalise” policy, including our own boundary proposals in the appendix, can be found here

Map Gwleidyddol Newydd Cymru: “Maths sy’n Bwysig, nid Cymunedau”

Mae Cymdeithas Newid Etholiadol Cymru wedi ymateb i gyhoeddi ffiniau seneddol newydd Cymru.

Mae’r Gymdeithas wedi datgan gwrthwynebiad i’r “dasg diddiolch” a osodwyd ar Gomisiwn Ffiniau i Gymru. Mae’r Gymdeithas nawr yn galw ar y llywodraeth i ail-asesu ei pholisi o adael gwahaniaeth o dim ond 5% yn maint gwahanol etholaethau – fformiwla hynod dynn sy’n golygu fod nifer o seddi San Steffan yn croesi ar draws neu’n torri drwy cymunedau i ffafrio etholaethau mawr artiffisial fel “Gogledd Powys”, a “Pen y Cymoedd”.
Yn wahanol i newidiadau ym map wleidyddol yr Alban, nid oes unryw un o seddi Cymru wedi’i amddiffyn rhag y argymhellion yma.

Dywedodd Stephen Brooks, Cyfarwyddwr Cymdeithas Newid Etholiadol Cymru:

Os yw ffiniau gwleidyddol newydd Cymru i weld yn mynd yn erbyn synnwyr cyffredin mae’r cyfrifoldeb ar Lywodraeth San Steffan.

Cafodd y Comisiwn Ffiniau i Gymru dasg diddiolch i’w gyflawni. Doedd agwedd “un maint i bawb” y Llywodraeth byth am weithio i Gymru. Dewisodd Llywodraeth San Steffan anwybyddu bodolaeth ein mynyddoedd a chymoedd i ffitio fformiwla biwrocrataidd. Mae’n weledigaeth o gydraddoldeb ble mae maths yn hollbwysig, ond nid ein cymunedau.”

Pwyntiau Allweddol

• Mae Comisiwn Ffiniau i Gymru newydd gyhoeddi argymhellion manwl yn torri nifer ASau Cymru o 40 i 30.
• Nid oes yr un sedd yng Nghymru wedi’i amddiffyn rhag y argymhellion rhain. Cafodd eithriadau eu gwneud i ddau sedd yn yr Alban – Na h-Eileanan an Iar ac Orkney a Shetland.
• Mae’n rhaid i’r etholaethau nawr gael nifer o etholwyr rhwn 72,810 a 80,473 – y gwahaniaeth fwyaf bosib o 5% o’r maint cyfartal. Mi fuasai gwahaniaeth o ganran uwch wedi galluogi y Comisiwn i fod yn fwy ymatebol i ddaearyddiaeth a chymunedau. Mae’r gweinidog cabinet Ceidwadol, Barwnes Warsi, esisoes wedi galw’r map newydd yn Lloegr yn “mad and insane”.
• Mae’n debygol y bydd y toriad yn nifer y seddi yn cael effaith anghyfrannol ar y nifer o ferched fydd yn cael eu ethol i Dy’r Cyffredin o Gymru yn yr etholiad nesaf.

Nodiadau i Olygyddion
Mae Cymdeithas Newid Etholiadol Cymru yn ymgyrchu i adeiladu gwell ddemocratiaeth drwy sicrhau fod prosesau San Steffan a Chymru yn deg ac yn atebol. Mae adroddiad CNE Cymru ar bolisi “Torri a Chysoni” y Ceidwadwyr, gan gynnwys ein argymellion ffiniau ni yn yr appendics, i’w weld yma.

New figures released by the Electoral Reform Society Wales (ERS) show the extent to which Welsh Labour would disproportionately benefit if First Past The Post was exclusively adopted for future Assembly elections.

The figures are contained in a report² produced by the Society in conjunction with the Aberystwyth Institute of Welsh Politics and Prof. Roger Scully. The report details what the results in the 2011 Assembly election could have looked like under different voting systems.

The issue of electoral reform for the National Assembly is back on the agenda after the Secretary of State for Wales indicated she may change how AMs are elected.

The UK Government is likely to propose a reduction in the number of constituency AMs from 40 to 30, in line with the reduction in numbers of Welsh MPs³. To compensate, more AMs would be elected using the regional list system – 30, instead of the current 20.

Responding to this proposal, Welsh Labour has stated that it would prefer all AMs be elected by First Past The Post – two from each of the 30 constituencies with a system known as Two Member First Past The Post.

However, as ERS research reveals, Two Member First Past The Post would deny thousands of Welsh voters a voice in the National Assembly and disproportionately benefit Labour.

Steve Brooks, Wales Director of the Electoral Reform Society said:

Our research shows that Labour would have won nearly 70% of the seats in the National Assembly, had the last election been fought using Two Member First Past the Post. This is despite the fact that Labour secured around 40% of the vote.

“While this may be good news for aspiring Labour candidates, its bad news for Welsh voters. Two Member First Past The Post would rob thousands of voters of a choice and voice.

Over half of Welsh voters chose the Tories, Plaid Cymru or the Liberal Democrats in May this year, yet under Two Member First Past The Post, those parties would be left with less than a third of the seats in the Assembly. That would be damaging for democracy and damaging for devolution.”

The research from the Electoral Reform Society Wales also reveals how the different parties would fare if Wales used the Single Transferable Vote, the system used to choose MPs in Ireland.[4]

Professor Roger Scully, Director of the Institute of Welsh Politics, stated:

The Assembly voting system has already been discussed in detail by the independent Richard Commission. The Commissioners, chosen on a cross-party basis and looking at the evidence, came to the decision that 80-member STV was the most suitable voting system for a Welsh Assembly with legislative powers”.

Steve Brooks added:

Had the recommendations been implemented Labour would have secured 40 of the 80 seats. Voters would have had more of choice over who represents them locally, and who governs them nationally”.

Commenting on the row between the UK and Welsh governments on Assembly voting reform, Steve Brooks said:

A proportional system is part of the devolution package and it’s been endorsed in two referendums. 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”.

ENDS

Download the full report here: Welsh Election Report (English language version) or here: Welsh Election Report (Welsh language version) or see summary of findings in graphs.



For more information or for interview requests you can contact:

Stephen Brooks stephen.brooks@electoral-reform.org.uk, 07525619622

Owain ap Gareth owain.apgareth@electoral-reform.org.uk, 07771661802

ERS London Media Office 020 7202 8601



Summary of Findings

The report examines the outcomes of 30 constituencies with two Assembly Members (AMs) elected in each under First Past the Post (FPTP), the Single Transferable Vote (STV) and the Additional Member System (AMS): See graphs and tables of the projected election results.



Notes to Editors

1. The Electoral Reform Society Wales aims to build a better democracy by ensuring that the electoral processes of Westminster & Wales are fair and accountable. Find out more at www.electoral-reform.org.uk/wales
2. The report, written by elections experts, academic Prof. Roger Scully and ERS Wales’ researcher Dr Owain ap Gareth, the report compares projections of what the results could have looked like under different voting systems and questions the impact of the proposed Boundary Changes. The report strongly 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 constituencies to Westminster constituencies.
3. The boundary changes instigated by the UK Government propose to cut the number of Welsh MPs from 40 to 30.