The electoral system used for electing our Members of Parliament goes to the core of the country’s system of government, the electoral system used by the United Kingdom at this time to elect MPs to the House of Commons is the First Past The Post system. The main advantage of FPTP is that each constituency elects an MP who can identify with his or her area and is identifiable to their constituents. The main disadvantage of FPTP is that the result is seldom representative of how the electorate voted nationally at the General Election. For example in the last two General Elections (1997 & 2001) the Labour Party has won just over 60% of the seats in the House of Commons whilst receiving only just over 40% of the votes cast at the General Election.
|
Election |
Number of Votes |
% of |
Number |
% of |
|
Year |
Cast for Labour |
Votes |
of Seats |
Seats |
|
97 |
13,518,167 |
43.2 |
418 |
63.40% |
|
2001 |
10,724,953 |
40.7 |
412 |
62.50% |
N.B. These figures
are exclusive of the Speaker (S1)
The Relay System is a new electoral system that I am presenting in this paper. Using the Relay System the way we vote would not change but the way in which the results are used would. The candidate in each constituency with the most votes would be elected and would sit in the House of Commons as the MP for that constituency. The difference is that when voting in the House of Commons, each MP would have a number of votes rather than just one. The number of votes for each MP would be equal to the sum of those votes they received from their own constituency plus a share of those votes cast in favour of their party in other constituencies where the party’s candidate did not win.
After the Labour victory in 1997 the government set up the “Independent Commission on the Voting System”, known as the Jenkins Commission. This was due to Labour’s then manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on an alternative to the current FPTP system. The Jenkins Commission was asked to observe the requirement in any new electoral system for broad proportionality, the extension of voter choice, the need for stable government and the maintenance of a constituency link. The commission concluded there was no perfect system. (S2)
The Relay System is an extension of the FPTP system, that meets those requirements for a new electoral system the Jenkins Commission were asked to observe.
The paper is split into two parts, Part 1 The Relay System, aims to explain how the Relay System would work; Part 2 Why Change to the Relay System, aims to explain why we should change from FPTP to the Relay System.
Part 1 The Relay
System
How the Relay System Would Work
The Speaker and Deputy Speakers
Results of the 2001 Election using the Relay System
How Party Votes would be distributed
By-Elections and MPs who relinquish the Party
Whip
Part 2 Why Change to the Relay System
Requirements for a new Electoral System
Comparison of FPTP and Relay Systems
Why not Proportional Representation?
How the Electoral System would be changed
If the Relay System were used for the election of MPs to the House of Commons, voters could cast their votes exactly as they do now, to elect the candidate of their choice, to represent their constituency, as happens now with FPTP system. The difference using the Relay System would be that once elected to the House of Commons each MP would have a number of votes, they could use as a “block vote” when voting in the House of Commons.
The total number of votes each MP had would be the sum of their ‘Constituency Votes’ plus their share of the ‘Party Votes’. The Constituency Votes being those votes that were cast directly for that MP in their constituency. The Party Votes being all those votes cast for their party in constituencies where the party’s candidate lost. An MP’s share of the Party Votes would be the total of these votes divided equally amongst the MP’s of that party as whole votes. Any votes not distributed equally amongst the MP’s going to the party’s leader in the House of Commons.
For example using 2001 General Election results, the Liberal Democrat Party received 4,814,321 votes and had 52 elected MP’s, with the Relay System 3,752,701 would have been Party Votes, dividing the Party Votes between the 52 MPs would give each MP 72,167 Party Votes and the Liberal Democrat leader would have taken the remaining 17 votes.
Therefore the Liberal Democrat MP for Bath would have had 23,372 Constituency Votes plus 72,167 Party Votes giving him a total of 95,539 votes.
Independents who were elected would only have those votes they received from their constituency. Votes cast in favour of independents that failed to win would not be passed on and would not be used when voting in the House of Commons.
To prevent a single MP acquiring an overwhelming number of votes there would be an Upper Vote Limit, putting a cap on the number of votes each MP could have. Without a UVL if a party stood for election in a large number of constituencies but were only successful in one, that one MP would collect all the votes cast for that party and could potentially accumulate a massive total vote that would give them a disproportionate amount of influence as an individual MP. The UVL would prevent this and encourage parties to win a number of seats.
However with the UVL for example set at 0.5% of the total votes cast at the General Election, in a House of Commons containing six hundred and fifty nine MPs, a MP whose total number of votes had been capped would still have a total vote equivalent to the average vote of two or three MPs combined from more mainstream political parties.
Calculating the UVL using the 2001 election results:
Total Votes Cast 26,367,383
UVL 0.5% of Votes Cast 131,837
Note no MP would have been capped if the Relay System had been used in conjunction with the 2001election results.
Using the Relay System and the UVL there would be the option of having Additional Members. This would allow parties that were unable to win a constituency outright but receiving more than a predetermined percentage of the votes cast nationally to be represented in the House of Commons by the party’s leader, as an Additional Member with a total vote equal to the UVL.
The following table shows what the threshold figure would have been if the pre-determined percentage had been set between 1% and 5% of the 26,367,383 votes cast at the 2001 election.
|
% of Votes |
Threshold using
2001 |
|
Cast |
Election Figures |
|
5% |
1,318,369 |
|
4% |
1,054,695 |
|
3% |
791,021 |
|
2% |
527,348 |
|
1% |
263,674 |
If the predetermined percentage of votes had been 5% the threshold figure would have been 1,318,369 votes using the 2001 election figures and there would have been no Additional Members in the House of Commons.
The UK Independence Party received the fifth largest number votes nationally 390,563 just under 1.5% of the votes cast in the 2001 election but won no seats. If the threshold percentage of votes had been 1% the threshold figure would have been 263,674 using the 2001 election figures and the UK Independence Party would have had an Additional Member with a block vote of 131,837 because of the UVL. The next largest number of votes to be received by a party without winning a single constituency was the 166,487 votes for the Green Party the eleventh most popular party across the UK. Even with the threshold percentage set at 1% they would not have qualified for an Additional Member.
The option of Additional Members would extend voter choice, possibly allowing more parties to be represented in the House of Commons but even with a Threshold Percentage of 1% only one or two more parties are likely to qualify for additional members and the UVL would encourage parties to maintain an emphasis on winning a number of constituencies.
Votes for parties that did not win a single seat or qualify for Additional Members (if this option were used) would not be passed on to another party and would not be used when voting in the House of Commons.
A further option would be to allocate seats for groups of Universities, in effect ‘University Constituencies’. Students would be registered on the electoral roll for their University Constituency as part of their joining routine and removed from any other they may have been on, unless they specifically opt to remain registered with another constituency. Many students do not vote because they have not registered or they are registered to vote from where they lived previously and are unlikely to return on Election Day to vote. This would facilitate voting by a large number of young persons and also make it more relevant to them.
The Speaker acts as Chairman during debates, and sees that the rules laid down by the House for the carrying on of business are observed. The direction and the guidance the House receives from the Speaker, is central to the way the House of Commons works. Using the Relay System the role of the Speaker and the deputies would not change.
The Speaker has three deputies. The Chairman of Ways and Means takes the chair when the House is in Committee or discussing ways and means resolutions. There is also a First Deputy Chairman and Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means. The Speaker and three deputies do not vote in Divisions of the House, if however there is a tied vote, the occupant of the Chair must exercise a casting vote. The Speaker and his deputies represent their constituencies like any other MP dealing with constituents’ letters and problems. (S3)
By tradition the House of Commons Speaker on election to that post resigns from their political party as a courtesy gesture, as they are expected to be politically impartial when presiding over the House of Commons. The Deputies give up their party affiliation on becoming a Deputy however they do not distance themselves as far from party politics as the Speaker. They remain members of their respective political parties and when the next general election takes place they contest their seats for their respective parties.
Using the Relay System the Speaker and his Deputies would have a single vote to use, as a casting vote should it ever be required and all their constituency votes would be transferred to the ‘Party Votes’ of their former party or respective parties.
Traditionally the main parties do not challenge the seat of an incumbent Speaker, though smaller parties have been known to do so. Were the Relay system to be introduced it would be likely that the main parties would also contest the Speaker’s constituency. So the Speaker’s former party would have to contest it on their behalf. Therefore using the Relay System with the 2001 election results the Speaker’s 16,053 votes (a former Labour MP) would be added to Labour’s Party votes giving Labour a total of 10,741,006 votes. Presently one of the Deputies is a Labour MP and the other two Deputies are Conservative MPs.
On the General Election day as the Returning Officers declare the final results for their constituencies the results would be entered on a centralised database that would process the results. Once all the constituencies have finalised their results and all the votes have been counted and the total number of votes cast is known the UVL and the threshold figure for Additional MPs would be calculated. Then the number of MPs each party had would be confirmed, then the total number of votes for each MP in Parliament calculated, and from that the total distribution of votes in the House of Commons finalised.
When all of the results are known the Queen would invite the leader of the party winning the most votes in the House of Commons to be Prime Minister and form the Government. The party receiving the second largest number of votes would become the Official Opposition with a small number of it’s MPs forming the Shadow Cabinet. Similar to what happens presently.
If the election of a Speaker or Deputy Speaker is required afterwards the distribution of votes within the party or parties will have to be re-calculated, but this will not effect the total votes of a party unless a Speaker or Deputy is elected from a party with a small number of MPs, and the remaining MPs are subsequently effected by the UVL.
|
|
Total Votes |
Constituency |
Party |
Number |
Votes in |
% of Votes in |
|
Party Name |
For Party |
Votes |
Votes |
of MPs |
Parliament |
Parliament |
|
Labour |
10,741,006 |
8,229,268 |
2,511,738 |
411 |
10,741,006 |
42.4 |
|
Conservative |
8,357,615 |
3,509,413 |
4,848,202 |
164 |
8,357,615 |
33.0 |
|
Liberal Democrats |
4,814,321 |
1,061,620 |
3,752,701 |
52 |
4,814,321 |
19.0 |
|
Scottish Nationalist |
464,314 |
65,811 |
398,503 |
5 |
464,314 |
1.8 |
|
Ulster Unionist |
216,839 |
110,369 |
106,470 |
6 |
216,839 |
0.9 |
|
Plaid Cymru |
195,893 |
52,724 |
143,169 |
4 |
195,893 |
0.8 |
|
Democratic Unionist |
181,999 |
88,269 |
93,730 |
5 |
181,999 |
0.7 |
|
Sinn Fein |
175,933 |
90,151 |
85,782 |
4 |
175,933 |
0.7 |
|
SDLP |
169,865 |
69,458 |
100,407 |
3 |
169,865 |
0.7 |
|
KHHC Independent |
28,487 |
28,487 |
0 |
1 |
28,487 |
0.1 |
|
Speaker & Deputies |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
0.0 |
|
Others |
1,021,111 |
0 |
1,021,111 |
0 |
0 |
0.0 |
|
Total Votes |
26,367,383 |
13,305,570 |
13,061,813 |
659 |
25,346,272 |
100.0 |
Note the Speaker
and Deputy would have a single vote to use, as a casting vote should it ever be
required. Also that the number MPs has been reduced for Labour and the
Conservatives due to the Speaker being a former Labour MP, one Labour MP being
a Deputy and two Conservative MPs being Deputies, these show instead as the
Speaker and Deputies.
The left hand side of the table shows how the party votes would have been distributed and the extra that would of gone to the respective party leaders.
The right hand side of the table shows that none of the MPs would have been capped by the UVL, because the MPs representing the constituencies that had the most constituency votes won by their respective parties being also those having the most total votes in their respective parties.
|
|
|
|
Party |
Party |
Most Votes |
Most |
Constituency |
|
|
Party |
Number |
Votes |
Leader’s |
from one |
Total |
of the MP with |
|
Party Name |
Votes |
of MPs |
per MP |
Remainder |
Constituency |
Votes |
the most Votes |
|
Labour |
2,511,738 |
411 |
6,111 |
117 |
28,903 |
35,014 |
Kingswood |
|
Conservative |
4,848,202 |
164 |
29,562 |
34 |
27,911 |
57,473 |
Daventry |
|
Liberal Democrats |
3,752,701 |
52 |
72,167 |
17 |
32,282 |
104,449 |
Winchester |
|
Scottish Nationalist |
398,503 |
5 |
79,700 |
3 |
16,710 |
96,410 |
Banff &
Buchan |
|
Ulster Unionist |
106,470 |
6 |
17,745 |
0 |
25,966 |
43,711 |
Lagan Valley |
|
Plaid Cymru |
143,169 |
4 |
35,792 |
1 |
16,130 |
51,922 |
Carmarthen E
& Dinefwr |
|
Democratic Unionist |
93,730 |
5 |
18,746 |
0 |
24,539 |
43,285 |
Antrim North |
|
Sinn Fein |
85,782 |
4 |
21,445 |
2 |
27,096 |
48,541 |
Belfast West |
|
SDLP |
100,407 |
3 |
33,469 |
0 |
24,538 |
58,007 |
Foyle |
Presently the House of Commons votes by dividing; those voting Aye (yes) to a proposition walking through the Division Lobby to the right of the Speaker and those voting No through the Division Lobby to the left of the Speaker. In each of the lobbies there are three desks occupied by Clerks, who tick member’s names off on Division Lists as they pass through. Then at the exit doors the members voting are counted by members acting as Tellers. (S4)
Using the Relay System, votes could still be carried out by dividing and the procedure remain the same except the Division Lists would be scanned, inputting the information of who voted for and against into a computer system linked to a database, which would have a record of the Total Vote of each MP. The computer system would then be able to calculate the results of divisions using spreadsheet software.
The clerks would have the results in a matter of seconds of the last MP exiting the lobby and would check the spreadsheet results against the division lists and the numbers of MPs as recorded by the Tellers. Once checked the result could be passed to the speaker and later the results would be sent to Hansard and the Editorial Supervisor of the Vote for printing and published on the Internet for total transparency.
Note that the layout of the Division Lists may need to be amended for scanning purposes or rather than scanning the system could be configured so information could be entered directly, the exact methods used would have to go through a discussion phase prior to being implemented.
The main point being the Relay System would work using existing technology and only the application of the existing technology would be new.
By-elections would still be held using the Relay System during the lifetime of the parliament to fill vacant seats, votes being adjusted after the results of the by-election and not when the seat becomes vacant.
MPs who relinquish the Party Whip or are excluded from the party, with whom they were elected, would be thereafter treated as independents until the next election, even if they align themselves with another party. They would only keep their constituency votes and the party votes they had would be distributed amongst the remaining members of their old party.
Any new electoral system introduced should have fulfilled four main criteria Broad Proportionality, Extension of Voter Choice, the need for Stable Government and the maintenance of the Constituency Link.
For Broad Proportionality what is meant is ‘fairness’ or the proportionality of seats to votes. The Relay System is not a system of Proportional Representation but more a system of Indirect Representation and using the Relay System 96% of the electorate’s votes* would be included in the decision making process in Parliament, it would be difficult to get much ‘fairer’ than the Relay System (* using the 2001 election results).
Voters would be able to vote for the party of their choice, knowing that even if their party’s candidate did not win in their constituency their vote would be “relayed” to a MP of that party as long as they won at least one seat outright and if the Additional Members option were adopted then Voter Choice would be further enhanced.
Adherents of FPTP suggest the role of the commons is to provide the ‘core’ for the executive and that the purpose of elections is to provide the country with a stable government rather than represent all shades of the nation, but there is no electoral system, which is a guarantee against periods of instability, for example the FPTP results in Britain in 1922-4, 1950-51 and 1974. (S5)
This is in fact is the main argument against the Relay System that unless a party got more than 50% of the votes in the House of Commons, the government would be formed from a coalition or would be a minority government.
The inference being a coalition is inherently flawed and unable to form a stable government and it is more stable to have governments that stand or fall because of a small number of voters in a hundred or so key constituencies and look no further than the next election.
Using the Relay System if the majority of the nation wanted a particular party to rule alone all they have to do is vote for it to do so, however if the majority voters do not decide for a single party and a coalition of parties representing a majority of voters is formed on the basis of concentrating on that which they agree on and putting aside their differences, would this be so bad, after all Churchill led a coalition government in the Second World War, described by many as our finest hour.
The Relay system would actually bring a different sort of stability to our political landscape with political parties no longer being able to focus on a small number of ‘swing’ voters in a hundred or so key constituencies to win the election, they would have to instead focus on the nation as a whole, therefore a larger number voters would have to change their voting preference to produce a change in the overall result nationally.
Finally fulfilling the fourth criteria for any new electoral system, the Relay system maintains the Constituency Link. This being the advantage the Relay System has over the various forms of Proportional Representation, the direct link between the MP and his constituency being maintained and there being no change in the way the electorate vote.
Voting is central to the way in which our democracy works. A strong and stable democracy relies on us using our votes. By voting, our elected representatives are accountable to us, votes are power.
We need to hold our representatives to account because decisions are constantly being made on our behalf, ranging from what is happening in our local schools and what recreational facilities we have, to national issues like healthcare and education and global issues like defence and the environment. Decisions that we live with the consequences of.
Yet the last UK general election in 2001 saw a big drop in turnout, falling from 71.4% to 59.4%. Fewer than six out of every ten eligible voters across the UK bothered to take part in choosing this country’s government for the following four to five years. (S6)
There has been much talk about ‘voter apathy’ but the accelerating trend away from democratic institutions contrasts with what seems to be a growing tendency for people to make their voice heard through a variety of forms of direct action rather than through the ballot box.
Research shows that people do not vote for a number of reasons and these can be the result of; voting having no impact, disillusionment with politics, apathy, alienation, a lack of knowledge and inconvenience.
Voting having no impact, the view that an individual vote will not make a difference. Unfortunately using the present FPTP system unless your candidate wins, your vote does not count after the election result is announced and will not contribute to the decision making process in the House of Commons. In a large number of constituencies this will be the case for the majority of voters, for example in the 1997 election half of all MPs were elected on less than 50 per cent of the vote, so when somebody says it makes no difference whether they vote or not, under the FPTP system they unfortunately have good grounds for what they say, not a state of affairs that encourages people to vote.
Using the Relay System each vote would be equally as important to the political parties when looking at the overall national result, whether it is in a safe seat or a marginal, in the largest or smallest of constituencies but most of all even if the candidate it is cast for does not win (as long as that candidate’s party can win somewhere).
The responsibility for increasing participation and overcoming the disillusionment with politics the view that “it makes no difference who wins”, the apathy or lack of interest in politics and the lack of knowledge about politics to decide on a party and cast a vote must lie primarily with politicians and political parties. The Relay System cannot solve these problems but it would mean that the main parties would no longer be able to win an election outright by just focusing on the key marginal seats and virtually ignoring their own safe seats and those of their opponents and would have to engage the whole electorate.
Alienation being the view politics is not for your ‘group’, whether it be defined by age, ethnicity or social class. Young people are some of the least likely people to turn out and vote. In 2001 MORI estimated that only 39% of 18-24 year olds voted compared to 70% of those aged over 65. Again it is primarily the responsibility of politicians and political parties to engage these groups but the Relay System would enhance voter choice and possibly allow parties representing these groups to emerge.
Inconvenience, the Relay System would not make voting easier than it presently is rather it would raise the value of each individual vote. Therefore it would be paramount that the validity and accuracy of the counting of those votes was at least maintained if not raised.
The Relay System would raise the impact and worth of each vote and therefore a corresponding responsibility on every member of the electorate to vote and mark a ballot paper with a pencil, a tradition that lends the vote a great deal of legitimacy and produces a verifiable audit trail of what the voter did in the booth.
The Relay system would not encourage E-voting, hailed by some as a possible answer to falling voter turn-out because it is presently less accountable than the ballot paper as there is no verifiable audit trail of what the voters intended, it is also prone to technical failure at peak periods like elections and more prone to fraud than the existing system of ballot paper and pencil. (S7)
|
|
|
|
FPTP System |
|
Relay System |
|
|
||
|
|
2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Difference |
|
|
General |
|
Total |
|
|
Total |
Percentage |
|
Between |
|
|
Election |
|
Number |
Percentage |
|
Votes in |
of Votes in |
|
Relay System |
|
Party Name |
Total Votes |
|
of Seats |
of Seats |
|
Parliament |
Parliament |
|
and FPTP |
|
Labour |
10,724,953 |
|
412 |
62.5 |
|
10,741,006 |
42.4 |
|
-20.1 |
|
Conservative |
8,357,615 |
|
166 |
25.2 |
|
8,357,615 |
33.0 |
|
7.8 |
|
Liberal Democrats |
4,814,321 |
|
52 |
7.9 |
|
4,814,321 |
19.0 |
|
11.1 |
|
Scottish Nationalist |
464,314 |
|
5 |
0.8 |
|
464,314 |
1.8 |
|
1.1 |
|
Ulster Unionist |
216,839 |
|
6 |
0.9 |
|
216,839 |
0.9 |
|
-0.1 |
|
Plaid Cymru |
195,893 |
|
4 |
0.6 |
|
195,893 |
0.8 |
|
0.2 |
|
Democratic Unionist |
181,999 |
|
5 |
0.8 |
|
181,999 |
0.7 |
|
0.0 |
|
Sinn Fein |
175,933 |
|
4 |
0.6 |
|
175,933 |
0.7 |
|
0.1 |
|
SDLP |
169,865 |
|
3 |
0.5 |
|
169,865 |
0.7 |
|
0.2 |
|
KHHC Independent |
28,487 |
|
1 |
0.2 |
|
28,487 |
0.1 |
|
0.0 |
|
Others |
1,021,111 |
|
0 |
0.0 |
|
0 |
0.0 |
|
0.0 |
|
Speaker |
16,053 |
|
1 |
0.2 |
|
0 |
0.0 |
|
-0.2 |
|
Total Votes |
26,367,383 |
|
659 |
100.0 |
|
25,346,272 |
100.0 |
|
0.0 |
The Jenkins Report was published on the 29th of October 1998; it recommended as the best form of Proportional representation a two-vote mixed system it described as either limited Additional Member System (AMS) or Alternative Vote (AV) Top Up, in which 80-85 % of the House of Commons would continue to be made up of constituency members but elected by AV.
To the Commission, AV alone was unacceptable, because of the danger of disproportionality and so another 15-20 % of the MPs would be elected through lists using small top-up areas, based on city or county boundaries. (S8)
So what does this mean?
It means that in the system recommended by the Jenkins Commission there would be two different votes a preferential or AV vote for the constituency MP and a second vote for an Additional Member for the Top-up area of that constituency.
Some 80-85 % of the MPs in Parliament would be elected directly from constituencies using the Alternative Vote or Preferential System. This involves the voters in each constituency numbering each candidate in order of preference, if there is no clear winner on ‘first’ preferences with a majority of the votes in that constituency then the least favoured candidate is eliminated, and their votes redistributed according to the second preferences of their voters. This process continues until one candidate has an absolute majority.
The other 15-20% Additional Members would be allocated correctively based on the second Top-up vote. Each party would have a list of two or three Additional Member candidates for each of the Top-up areas where they are contesting at least half the constituencies (using the AV system).
The country would be divided into small Top-up areas in order to provide a broad constituency link and local accountability for the Top-up members. In England these would be the ‘preserved’ counties and equivalently sized metropolitan districts. In Scotland and Wales the ‘units’ already used to return Additional Members to the Parliament in Scotland and the Assembly in Wales would be used. This would mean eight Top-up areas in Scotland and five in Wales. In Northern Ireland the Commission recommended two Top-up areas.
The second votes for the Additional Members would be counted for each Top-up area and divided by the number of constituency MPs plus one gained by each party in each Top-up area. The party with the highest number after this calculation would be allocated the first Top-up member, as some areas may have more than one Top-up member, any second Top-up member for an area would be allocated using the same method but adjusting to the fact that one party will already have gained a Top-up member.
The Commission stressed the need for all members of the House of Commons whether elected from constituencies or Additional members should have equal status in Westminster.
The Commission considered the principal advantage of the Alternative Vote Top Up system to be flexibility and that voter choice would be enhanced by the ability of electors to vote in different political directions, where their choice of candidate for their constituency might not be a member of a party they would choose to run the government or vice versa.
The Alternative Vote comes into play only when any candidate fails to secure a majority of first preference votes within the constituency. It does not, however, take into account the second preferences of all voters, only those who have supported the least successful candidates. So it ignores the second preferences of the voters who supported the two candidates with the highest first preference votes but allows the voters for the least favoured candidates to have their second votes counted so as to determine the result. In 1931 Mr Winston Churchill described this proposal as taking account of “the most worthless votes of the most worthless candidates”. He went on to describe AV as containing an element of blind chance and accident which would lower respect for Parliament and at the time he was not unsympathetic to some sensible form of electoral reform.
At the top of page 22 of Voting Systems: The Jenkins Report, it reads “ The Commission recommends that the proportion of Top-up members needed for broad proportionality without imposing a coalition habit on the country should be between 15% and 20%.” So the British electorate, the boundaries commission and the electoral commission are to jump through hoops so as to massage the result slightly but still to keep a winner takes all result even if it is not representative of the electorate’s wishes.
A fundamental change in the electoral system should only be brought about after a referendum. If it were a straight choice between the Relay System and the present system of FPTP then the choice at the referendum would be to retain FPTP or change to the Relay System.
The report of the Labour/Liberal Democrat Joint Consultative on Constitutional Reform stated, “ Both parties are also agreed that the referendum should be a single question offering a straight choice between FPTP and one specific proportional alternative.” (5/3/97) So if the Alternative Vote Top Up system had been allowed to go forward then the country would have been presented with a straight choice between AV Top Up and the present system. (S9)
However in 1992 in New Zealand when a referendum was called on voting systems, voters were asked two questions:
Part A allowed them to choose either to retain FPTP or for a change of electoral system.
Part B offered voters a choice between four different types of electoral system.
Either way Parliament would first have to pass legislation requiring a referendum to take place prior to a change in the electoral system.
The Relay System would allow the option of Multi-Level Representation providing the opportunity for truly devolved government without breaking up the United Kingdom removing the need for an extra tier of representatives requiring separate elections, which divide and fudge the responsibilities of government and leave some representatives redundant.
Imagine a future United Kingdom with five parliaments, one each for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, each with equal powers and a First Minister.
The fifth parliament being for the whole of the United Kingdom which would deal with matters concerning all of Great Britain and Northern Ireland such as defence and foreign policy and would include all the MPs from the other parliaments and from which the Prime minister and HM Government would be drawn. Each MP would have the same number of votes in each parliament they sit and the Prime minister would represent the UK to the world in the same way the Prime minister does now, but would be involved in domestic issues to a lesser extent.
Using Multi-Level Representation the West Lothian Question, the anomaly that Scottish MPs can legislate for English and Welsh constituencies but not their own would be resolved.
For example under such a system the MPs could carry out their duties in their respective parliaments for a two week period before moving onto the UK parliament for a fortnight followed by another two week period set aside for constituency work, completing a six week cycle that could be repeated at least seven times a year but could be changed for emergency sessions.
Multi-Layer representation would also avoid the potential division of responsibility and fudging of issues between the parliaments of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and that of the United Kingdom because it is the same people sitting on both tiers of government. Examples of this division of responsibility and fudging of issues between tiers of different representatives occur sometimes between district and county councils, even when the same party runs both.
At the national level there would be the problems of location of a fifth parliament and there would also be issues of office facilities and accommodation as many MP’s would not be able to commute to either parliament in which they held a seat but these problems are practical administrative problems that can be overcome.
What cannot be overcome is that the more representatives we have the less they individually represent. In England there are local councillors, county councillors, MPs and MEPs. There maybe in the future regional representatives and will England forever remain without it’s own parliament when Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own parliaments?
The Relay System could also be used in local government and could allow councillors to represent their constituents at District and County level. Though this would probably mean less district councillors but more county councillors. In fact with the possible introduction of Regional Assemblies it might be possible to represent their constituents at three levels!
The councillors would have their Total Vote calculated in the same way as described previously for MPs and similar systems introduced for calculating the results for votes on policy.
So potentially we have six different tiers of representation, presently we have four tiers of representation and most of the population would be unable to recognise or even name one of those persons who represent them. Multi-Level Representation would be a way of limiting if not reducing the number of different representatives we have whilst the Relay System would force parties to engage the whole electorate as opposed to a comparatively small number of swing voters, so our representatives become more recognizable.
The Relay System would not be costly to implement for the House of Commons as there would be no requirement to change any of the procedures for electing MPs in the constituencies, the electorate would vote in the same way they do now so there would be no requirement for large scale education programmes as would be required for the Alternate Vote Top-up system, existing technology could be used and would be located within the House of Commons.
The First Past The Post system is not representative and does not guarantee effective government. The FPTP system was not designed to be representative because it was not designed but evolved over hundreds of years and works best when two parties are competing head to head, a situation it also encourages. Over the years the identities of the two parties has changed periodically normally at a time of flux during which the FPTP system has not returned strong governments and were the FPTP system to produce a string of hung parliaments the whole rationale for having it would disappear.
Conversely no one wants endless hung parliaments where the smallest parties swing the balance of power but in the United Kingdom the events of the 1970s and the Lib-Lab pact demonstrate the power of ‘swing’ parties maybe exaggerated and that poorly chosen alliances or decisions to topple governments can harm the smaller party electorally. (S10)
The Relay System’s purpose is not to produce a series of coalitions nor weakened governments, but when it results from a hesitancy of national mood it is not the fault of the system. It is the system being representative and working correctly.
Using the Relay System thresholds would remain for parties and independent candidates to overcome, primarily being able to win at least one constituency, as is the case now before they can represent their views and their voters in the House of Commons.
The Relay System would shift the development of policy in the United Kingdom towards a more incremental approach, steering away from the combative relationships between the parties and the exaggerative effects of the FPTP system that bring about policy discontinuity as a result of disappointing a small number of people who happen to live in key marginal seats. Thus using the Relay System more long-term policies could develop.
The main benefit though of the Relay System is a truly representative system that holds equal all the electorate’s potential votes regardless of their location, the size of their constituency and the demographics of their party’s supporters so nearly all the electorate’s votes would count rather just be counted.
S1 Voting Figures for 2001 Elections
For the purposes of this document I have used the 2001 Election Results downloaded from the Electoral Commission’s Website (www.electoralcommission.org.uk) in June 2003, though there are differences between them and those found in the Research Paper 01/54 General Election Results 7 June 2001, Bryn Morgan, Social & General Statistics Section, House of Commons Library, I have used those from the Electoral Commission website as they are broken down to constituency level.
The1997 results used are from the Paper No68 General Election Results, 1May 1997 produced by the House of Commons Information Office.
|
|
|
Results from |
Results from |
|
|
Political Party |
Number of |
Electoral |
Research Paper |
Difference |
|
|
Candidates |
Commission |
01/54 |
|
|
Labour |
640 |
10,724,953 |
10,724,895 |
58 |
|
Conservative |
643 |
8,357,615 |
8,357,622 |
-7 |
|
Liberal Democrat |
639 |
4,814,321 |
4,812,833 |
1,488 |
|
Scottish
National |
72 |
464,314 |
464,305 |
9 |
|
UK Independence |
428 |
390,563 |
390,575 |
-12 |
|
Ulster Unionist |
17 |
216,839 |
216,839 |
0 |
|
Plaid Cymru |
40 |
195,893 |
195,892 |
1 |
|
Democratic
Unionist |
14 |
181,999 |
181,999 |
0 |
|
Sinn Fein |
18 |
175,933 |
175,933 |
0 |
|
SDLP |
18 |
169,865 |
169,865 |
0 |
|
Green |
145 |
166,477 |
166,487 |
-10 |
|
Speaker |
1 |
16,053 |
16,053 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total votes cast
for all |
3319 |
26,367,383 |
26,368,798 |
-1,415 |
|
parties
including others |
|
|
|
|
S2 Voting Systems: The Jenkins Report, Summary of main points (First Page)
S3 The Speaker HC Fact sheets – M2
S4 HC Fact sheets – Series P No9
S5 Voting Systems: II The Jenkins Report, C A Mixed System p25
S6 The Electoral Commission Website: Your Vote
S7 BBC News 17 February 2003, Doubts over the new Democracy
S8 Voting Systems: II The Jenkins Report, A. Summary p20
S9 Voting Systems: I Introduction, B The Current Debate p17
S10 Voting Systems: III Arguments, D “Outcome” arguments: Formation of Governments p60
Electoral Reform Society www.electoral-reform.org.uk
Make my vote count: Change the system: up the turnout www.makemyvotecount.org.uk
To contact me click here