News from the Electoral Reform Society

alexhilton Tue May 01, 2007 at 05:26:22 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

`Mr Smith goes to Edinburgh'
Americans come for a lesson in democracy - Scottish style.

Leading electoral officials, journalists and campaigners are in the UK this week to see democracy at the cutting edge.




But it's not the bright lights of Westminster that have brought in luminaries all the way from Washington to Auckland. It's town halls across the length of Scotland.

Ken Ritchie, Chief Executive of the Electoral Reform Society said:

"Scotland has found itself at the forefront of democratic modernization. The local elections under the single transferable vote (STV) are generating worldwide interest.

The Electoral Reform Society is hosting a visit by 35 election experts from across the US, Canada and New Zealand. The visit has been organized by the Society's opposite number in Washington DC, FairVote, which sees the voting systems and technology to be used in Scotland as a possible model for US elections.

Rob Richie, Chief Executive of FairVote said:

"Our organisations are about moving voting into the modern era. I certainly applaud the experimentation that is taking place in this country."

"It certainly seems that the Old World may still have something teach the New when it comes to democracy" added Dr Ritchie.

 "Scotland's politicians have made a brave choice.  A new system promises to revitalise local government, with new councillors and a new politics, together with a fair say for all of Scotland's voters."

"The world is paying heed to these elections. We trust the Parties in Westminster will take note."

Notes to Editors:

·        Visitors include Rob Richie, Executive Director, Fair Vote, John Nichols, Washington Correspondent for The Nation magazine, and representatives from electoral administration and campaigning organisations from across America.

·        A full list of visitors along with details of their itinerary are available at www.electoral-reform.org.uk. Interviews can be arranged via the Electoral Reform Society Press Office.

·        Visitors have fully accredited observer status from the Electoral Commission, and will be attending counts in Edinburgh.

·        More information about FairVote can be found at their website http://www.fairvote.org/

For further information, contact:
The Electoral Reform Society on 020 7928 1622 or Ken Ritchie on 07754 165551
Electoral Reform Society (ERS) Scotland can be reached on (0131) 7184280. Please contact Scottish Director, Amy Rodger (07960869018) or see www.electoral-reform-scotland.org.uk


tags: , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
News from the Electoral Reform Society | 8 comments (8 topical)

Re: News from the Electoral Reform Society (#1)

by petercoe on Wed May 02, 2007 at 01:16:11 AM GMT

...Except this article misses one teeny point: STV is not "advancement" of democracy - it is retrograde, removing power from the public, ensuring permanent corrupt coalitions in the vast majority of Scottish town halls and almost certainly costing Labour over 100 seats on Thursday.

This is just about the worst thing that Scottish Labour did - there's a case for returning the power to determine how local councils in the UK are elected to Westminster - and ridding Scotland of this cancerous electoral system.

And while they're at it, they could do worse than scrapping lists for European Elections and Alternative Vote for London elections too.


Re: News from the Electoral Reform Society (#2)

by jkitleft on Wed May 02, 2007 at 11:31:04 AM GMT

i don't like STV. I think that it is less proportional than FPTP. This is because the Lib Dems can portray themselves at local level as either Yellow Tories, to kick Labour out of seats, and get themselves into a more favourible position with the Conservatives. Or, they can portray themselves as the other centre-left force to give the Tories a kicking, and get themselves as the main opposition. I would prefer the MMP system used for the Welsh assembly and the Scottish Parliament, with a 5% or 10% barrier on getting seats, or winning 3-5 seats as they do in the Scottish, Welsh and also German and New Zealend elections. PR for local government.


[ Parent ]

Re: News from the Electoral Reform Society (#3)

by oratorhunt on Wed May 02, 2007 at 02:13:18 PM GMT

It's ludicrous to suggest that STV strips power from voters.  FPTP routinely gave parties over half the seats on local councils despite the fact they only recieved a third of the votes.  It meant that parties that got 20% of the vote across a whole city could be left with no councillors at all.  STV will see people elected in broad proportion to the votes they actually got.  Which is what democracy ought to be about.

So Labour will lose seats (they would get a kicking whichever system).  Having 'rotten borough' style councils where the same old cliques run things over decades is not in Labour's best interest.  If it gives us some competition, so what?  At least it will show that democracy is alive and kicking.

And I don't see why coalition deals are any more obscure than the deals that get cut in party group meetings under FPTP.   In fact, at the Assembly level, the parties have gone into the election giving a clear indication of who they will/won't enter talks with - so voters know what they're getting.

Above all STV allows people to choose to vote for individuals across party slates if they so choose.  So cretins are less likely to get elected by cosying up to party HQ's to get the single nomination. as they can and do under FPTP.   Labour in Scotland did the right thing for democracy when they went with STV for the locals, and it will only benefit us in the long run.


[ Parent ]

Re: News from the Electoral Reform Society (#4)

by petercoe on Wed May 02, 2007 at 04:05:27 PM GMT

"It's ludicrous to suggest that STV strips power from voters."

Don't bother evidencing that absurd statement will you?  While you're trying to: here's the evidence that they do precisely that: STV only "works" if every party fields full slates of candidates for every vacancy.  The evidence of Northern Ireland is that this isn't what happens: party aparachiks decide how many seats they're likely to win in any given area and nominate that number plus usually one or two.

That removes the principal argument in favour of the system: which is that voters get not only to choose parties but candidates reflecting the spectrum of opinion within them.

Myth number 2: STV is fairer than FPTP.  Well again, let's look at the recent Northern Ireland results: of the candidates who finished in the top six places after the first round of voting in each constituency (ie the round most similar to FPTP) those same six ended up elected after elimination round 752 in the majority of cases, and in the remainder the seventh beat the sixth, which hardly  made any difference to the result.

You're correct that a coalition is a coalition regardless of whether FPTP or PR created that scenario: but FPTP greatly reduces the likelihood of coalition and that's one of its great strengths, alongside the strong representative-elector link and the transparency of the process.

Elections are principally about electing governments; they're not about making sure that all shades of society are represented in parliament.

The great flaw in the arguments of those who favour PR is that presumably you do so on the basis that you believe elections should in fact be about ensuring that every shade of opinion that wins votes should be represented...in which case, the ONLY "fair" system is one giant constituency for the whole electoral area returning the total number of representatives elected to that body.  Yet hardly any PR fan(atic) advocates such a system.  

You either believe in proportionality as the principal priority of an electoral system or you don't. I don't - but if you do, have the philosophical integrity to argue for the only system that delivers it.


[ Parent ]

Re: News from the Electoral Reform Society (#6)

by oratorhunt on Wed May 02, 2007 at 05:04:44 PM GMT

Well, the maximal efficacy of STV might be limited to an extent by party tactics - but that will be true whatever the system.  However, under STV
  1. there is no disincentive for voting for small parties
  2. there is the option of not voting for a full slate of your party's candidates, but going across the ticket should you choose to do so.
  3. You get a broadly fair outcome.  

Even in the 1st round of an STV election, the result is not disfugured by tactical voting (as in under FPTP). And cctually, in N.Ireland Assembly elections 2007, there were examples when vote transfers had a decisive effect on the outcome.  For instance in Upper Ban, the UUP got elected despite finishing 8th in the first round, becasue they had a broader appeal than the Shinners who came 6th.  
And over 97% of voters who turned out played some part in getting a local candidate elected, whereas in FPTP elections hundreds of thousands of electors effectively waste their votes.

Incidentally, STV is popular and fairer in N.Ireland compared to FPTP for Wesminster.  eg. in 2005 the DUP got 35.7% of the vote for Westminster, whilst the UUP got 17.7%.  So you would assume that they would get twice the representatives right?  No - due to the absurdity of the system, the DUP got 50% the available seats, nearly 10 times more than the UUP.  Absurd!

As for the broader philosphical point, the purpose of election is to ensure that representatives of signficant points of view are reflected in broad proportion to their share of the vote. Effective democratic governance should reflect the way the majority of people opt to cast their votes. I find it frankly odd that any democrat would dispute this.

I dispute the premise that inter-party coalitions are necessarily less transparent or effective than intra-party infighting amongst a party with an outright majority.  Take Scotland: the Scottish exec has delivered - through a coalition - more of what Labour voters thought they were voting for (eg care for the elderly, no top up fees), than has been the case in England depite Labour's whopping great majority.  


[ Parent ]

Re: News from the Electoral Reform Society (#5)

by jkitleft on Wed May 02, 2007 at 04:32:02 PM GMT

I will get slaughtered for saying this, but, it is unfair to the Tories, (before red dots start appearing on my head) I think it is therefore undemocratic, because the Lib Dems want to portray themselves as left-wing, and therefore, Lib Dem voters might vote en masse for Labour in a second round against the Tories. Simarly, if the Lib Dems were to portray themselves as right-wing, second round voting might see Tories creeping into office.


Re: News from the Electoral Reform Society (#7)

by oratorhunt on Wed May 02, 2007 at 05:16:23 PM GMT

? In some senses, PR would be fairer to all parties - the Tories included - and reveal least reveal their actual levels of support, rather than having the picture confused by the need to tactical vote
- eg. rather than Tory voters could vote Tory rather than tactically backing the Liberals as the only way of not wasting their votes.  The same would be true of Labour voters in 'no win' Southern areas.

IF - theoretically - the Libs could pull off that trick of convincing Labour voters and Tory voters of different things simulataneously that might stand.  But in the real world appealing for transfers needn't mean political chameleonship or equidistance - it could just be about a more consensual style of politics.

And of course under PR, labour voters could look at other parties for a 2nd pref vote - eg. Green or Respect - or, of course, no transfer their votes at all.  


[ Parent ]

Re: News from the Electoral Reform Society (#8)

by jkitleft on Wed May 02, 2007 at 05:43:39 PM GMT

sorry i meant to refer my last comment on the STV system. I support MMP, just not STV


[ Parent ]

News from the Electoral Reform Society | 8 comments (8 topical)