Public and Commercial Services Union

Campaigning for a fairer electoral system is an important part our work in putting trade union priorities, and PCS priorities in particular, higher up the agenda of political parties.

Annual delegate conference in 2008 passed Motion A152 on Make Your Vote Count, which is set out below.

In point 4, it requires the national executive committee consider the various types of proportional representation, in order to determine which would best meet the objectives set out in point 3.

This report fulfils that requirement and is published in order to permit branches to consider the issue before annual delegate conference 2009.

The main types of proportional representation

Most elections in UK are conducted by ‘first past the post’ (FPTP), which can mean that candidates, and governments, are elected by a minority of those voting, while significant minority views can be excluded altogether.

The Electoral Reform Society, although it favours one particular method of proportional representation – single transferable vote – lists nine different PR methods.

These are summarised below, together with the voting system used in France, which while not strictly proportional, has similarities with the supplementary vote system.

Evaluations

The potential benefits of the various systems were examined for the government by the Jenkins Commission which reported in September 1998, coming down in favour of alternative vote+.

This has the advantage of compromise in that it maintains a single-member constituency relationship for those who felt that to be important. No steps were taken to implement the commission’s recommendations, however.

The experience of existing systems of proportional voting in UK (outside of local government) was examined in a review conducted by the Ministry of Justice published in January 2008 (Review of voting systems: the experience of new voting systems in the United Kingdom since 1997).

Because this restricted itself to practical experience, it did not examine systems such as AV or AV+, nor did it look at the recent experience of STV in Scottish local council elections.

However, the report did conclude that there was no evidence that any form of PR delivered less stable or effective government, that PR gave a greater choice to voters, and increased the chances of their vote counting towards who got elected.

The report was cautious over further changes, arguing that ‘first past the post’ gives the simplest direct relationship between voters and their elected representatives.

It also argued that “There has been relatively little change in the focus of campaigns under the new voting systems”, claiming that “The role of UKIP in the 2004 European parliamentary elections, and the Greens and Scottish Socialists in the 2003 Scottish parliament elections, are exceptions.”

This seems more a defence of the status quo than a serious analysis and, as was pointed out by the organisation “Make Votes Count” at the time, was based on research which paid very little attention to the views of voters themselves.

In the end the report does not come down firmly in favour (or against) any particular method. The government has said that any proposals for electoral reform need to wait until it has decided what to do about reforming the House of Lords. A white paper on this was published in July 2008, but no firm proposals are now expected until the next general election.

Meeting the aims of motion A152

The extent to which the various systems match up to the aims set out in the motion are evaluated below. However, it should also be borne in mind that the media’s coverage of elections is also significant. For example, even though the recent elections and by-elections to the Scottish Parliament and councils were conducted by AMS, the media treated them as predominantly Labour/SNP contests. By contrast, in France, all presidential candidates must receive the same coverage from broadcast media.

1. Making politicians more accountable

Party lists (particularly closed lists) would be least likely to do this, as they place great influence in the hands of those within the parties who determine the content and ordering of the party lists. Open and semi-open list systems would diminish, but not eliminate this disadvantage.

AMS, STV and AV+ are all more likely to put pressure on parties and candidates to respond to voters, but because they rely on multi-seat constituencies, can be argued to reduce the direct relationship between those elected and their voters.

This argument cannot apply to local councils, of course, where many already have multi-seat representation at ward level, but in national elections these systems must mean larger constituencies.

2. Making political parties reflect a broader range of voter concerns

Proportional systems, by bringing about more choice, should in time ensure more attention is paid to the concerns of voters.

For this to come about, however, a higher degree of political campaigning is required - such as our own Make Your Vote Count campaign - and a belief by individuals that their votes may influence the outcome.

This in turn requires a system which is at least comprehensible to voters, so they can make reasonable judgements as to the effect of voting in a particular way. Experience from Scotland suggests that using more than one voting method at the same time may be confusing.

The calculation method used in both the European elections and the AMS systems in Scotland and Wales (which is called “d’Hondt” after the person who devised it) is very complex.

There were also serious problems with larger than normal numbers of disqualified votes in the 2007 Scottish Parliament election.

Similarly, STV is complicated, and it is hard for voters to assess the consequence of their voting pattern.

The alternative vote (AV) system, because it requires the winning candidate to have more than 50% of first and subsequent preferences, may arguably require candidates to bid for the widest possible mandate in the electorate. However, it really results in the least offensive to the most voters being elected. This will rarely mean a challenge to the established consensus.

The same argument applies to supplementary votes (SV) and the run-off system.

3. Giving greater choice at the ballot box

It is clear that the introduction of various forms of proportional representation in UK has resulted in a greater choice of parties and candidates.

In Wales and Scotland AMS has made a marked difference, with the outcomes of the assembly and parliament elections being more closely aligned to voter preferences, resulting in coalition government.

STV does not guarantee that parties with smaller percentage vote get represented; this is more likely with systems including some sort of party list.

In the Scottish local government elections (STV), many councils went to no overall control, as the previous over-representation of Labour was no longer possible. The Greens and independents improved their position, but the split to the left of Labour damaged both the SSP and Solidarity.

4. Marginalising the far right

It is sometimes argued that proportional methods of election favour the BNP - Richard Barnbrook was elected to the Greater London Authority under AMS, because the BNP got over 5% of the vote, for example.

However, in council elections, the BNP has also had success under ‘first past the post’: in Burnley and Stoke for example. Analysis of a survey in Burnley conducted in June 2003 showed that had an STV system been used across the whole council in the May 2003 elections, the BNP might have gained 11 or 12 seats, but under FPTP they would have won 18.

PR encourages other credible alternatives to be offered, and this may reduce the attraction of the far right as a protest vote.

Ultimately, the key to defeating the BNP cannot be choice of voting system; it must be to campaign effectively on issues, and to expose them for what they really are.

This requires us to continue with our anti-fascist campaigning, especially in the run up to the Euro and council elections in 2009.

5. Making votes really count at elections

Although AV, SV and the run-off system can be said to increase the chance of voters having given a preference to the winning candidate, this is only because of the exhaustive voting systems in use. The London Mayoral election showed how such systems quickly exclude minority candidates.

Systems relying on multi-seat constituencies seem likely to give the best chance to voters of influencing outcomes.

In the end, however, this relies on choice of candidates being available, which in term relies on local political engagement. PR is likely to increase the chance of this, particularly where there is some relationship between those elected and an identifiable constituency.

Some problems are reported where there are both constituency and regional representatives (for example in Scotland and Wales - AMS), but this seems to be more a problem for the representatives themselves than for their electorate. Constituencies of the size of those for Euro MEPs (elected from Party lists) may be too large for a relationship to develop between representative and constituency, however.

Recommendations

No one system is obviously preferable to others in meeting all of our aims. However, the NEC considers that:

• Pure party list systems, AV, SV or the run-off system do not meet our aims sufficiently to be acceptable;
• With all their disadvantages, multi-seat systems based on AMS, STV or AV+ seem to offer the best chance of meeting our aims;
• However, methods of calculation and voting within those systems should be as simple and predictable as possible;
• For any methods to be effective for PCS, initiatives such as Make Your Vote Count and our anti-fascist work must continue;
• Fairer regulations on access to the media may also be required in order to prevent elections being cast as the preserve of the existing major parties.