Arguably the greatest area of imminent conflict that the coalition will meet, if they haven't already, is the debate surrounding electoral reform. The Lib Dems in their election manifesto explicitly state that they wish to reduce the number of Commons members by 150 as well as wishing to replace the "First Past The Post" electoral system with Proportional Representation by Single Transferable Vote. PR-STV, while the ideal and fairest voting system in the eyes of many scholars, is not without it's fault's, and most certainly presents a conflict of interest within the Lib Dem manifesto itself. PR-STV is used for parliamentary elections in two countries, Ireland and Malta, while it successfully portrays the wishes of voters, as far as picking those who represent their constituency goes, the composition of government can be, at best, an abstract conclusion compared to what voters may actually want.
PR-STV: How It Works
Since the foundation of the Irish state, the Fianna Fail party have opposed the system of PR-STV, asserting that it leads to unstable and fragmented government. One argument posed by opponents to PR-STV however, deal with it's comprehensibility. This is a non-argument as the principles and functions of PR-STV are, when explained properly, rather easy to understand. In fact, it can be explained in 4 steps:
- Voters rank the candidates on their ballot sheet in order of their preference, i.e. 1 (1st), 2 (2nd), 3 (3rd), etc.
- During vote counts, the first preference votes are counted and the candidate who reaches the designated quota (which varies depending on constituency size and number of seats available) is awarded a seat.
- If, after the first round, all seats are not filled, the person with the least amount of seats is eliminated from the race and their votes are dispersed amongst the remaining candidates, this dispensation is based around the 2nd preferences of the eliminated candidates ballots. As well as this, those who are elected and possess a surplus of votes, those votes are also redistributed based on the 2nd preference of their ballots.
- This system of vote counting continues until all seats are filled. That's it!
It is a rather straight forward system and enables voters to elect candidates that might not otherwise get elected. However, in order for PR-STV to function, constituencies must be multi-seat constituencies. In other words, unlike FPTP, constituencies might, depending on their population, merit 2, 3, 4, 5 or more seats.
A point to note is that, the greater the number of seats in a constituency, the lower the quota will be. For example, in a 1 seat constituency the quote would be 50% plus 1 vote; in a 2 seat constituency the quota is 3% plus 1 vote; in a 3 seat, 25% plus 1 vote, etc.
The multi-seat element of PR-STV in itself presents a major problem for the Lib Dems who seek to reduce the number of MPs by 150. To do so would actually require much larger constituencies with an amalgamated and subsequently reduced number of MPs. This seems most contradictory through the lens of fairness in that a much larger number of votes would be needed for people to elect a representative. Therefore, minority groups would be completely isolated in lieu of the majority. In fact, if we just look at the basic figures,as it stands each seat represents over 77,000 voters. If the number of MPs were to be reduced to 500, those seats would each represent over 100,000 voters. However, under the principles PR-STV, constituencies would need to be redrawn and, for example, if constituencies were to be changed to 3 seat constituencies, each elected member of the House of Commons would need to reach a quota of roughly 75,000 votes in order to take a seat. This figure is of course a rough estimate, but is still representative of the changes introducing a PR-STV system with a reduced number of MPs would result in. This seems to be far less representative of the currently in place FPTP system. Don't you think?
In order for PR-STV to work effectively and be truly representative, the number of MPs would actually need to increase to well over 1000 MPs in order to give a voice to voters who feel disenfranchised in areas where leading parties repeatedly flourish. And even with this change, representation is not always guaranteed.
Clientelism, Brokerage and Transparency
Another major factor to remember when talking about PR-STV are the imminent trends of clientelism and brokerage, as well as issues of transparency, that emerge. Based on studies of the system in countries such as Ireland and Malta, clientelism and brokerage (the difference being that the former is illegal and the latter is not) become rife as a tool for election and reelection. If we examine Ireland more closely, the 1997 and 2007 elections were both years when the leading party, Fianna Fail, sought the support of the Progressive Democrats as well as Independents. PDs gain policy concessions in certain areas, much the same as what the Conservative and Lib Dem coalition suggests and Independents, most of whom did not disclose the nature of their deals with the leading party, were granted major concessions as well. This presents issues of transparency as well as questions surrounding the good of the nation. While PDs
A Trend of Coalition Governments
The final major issue regarding the PR-STV system which is of relevance, is the fact that PR-STV inevitably leads to a trend in coalition governments. While not necessarily a bad idea, coalition government are usually hashed out behind closed doors leaving voters 'out in the cold' about the deals reached. At the moment, the Lib Dems and the Tories issued a formal statement with a rough outline of their agreement however it in no way was sufficient to suggest a 5 year plan nor did it go into detail about the policy concessions either party made in order to form an alliance. In a system of PR-STV, coalition governments might well become the norm, they certainly have in Ireland where, since 1973, all but two administrations have been coalition governments. As well as this, the likelihood of coalition talks has led to Irish political parties becoming less ideologically driven and more suggestive of flexibility in their manifestos, this in turn as led to indifference between parties in many policy areas.
If transparency was guaranteed in coalition negotiations, voters would be afforded the ability to see how their parliamentary party has stayed true to its manifesto, core values and beliefs. They would be able to decide whether the parliamentary party has forsaken its integrity for a share of power and would therefore be able to make a more informed vote in the next elections. This would act as a validation for parliamentary parties themselves rather than dining out on the fact that they had a share of power and would increase fairness to their non-parliamentary party members and supporters.
To Finish
PR-STV is not a bad system of electing parliamentary representatives in fact, if it is executed fairly an properly, it can be the fairest system of all. However, as you have seen above, it raises major issues regarding the size of government, transparency, and it's representative integrity towards the electorate. In Ireland and Malta, both very small countries when compared to the UK, the system seems to represent its voters proportionately. However, on order for the system to work effectively and actually act as a voice for all, Parliaments need to be large and constituencies need to have more representatives than are currently afforded electoral colleges in the UK.
The Liberal Democrats manifesto proposal was either poorly thought out, or was rather deceiving. Their policy advisers clearly have not looked too deeply into the scholarly well of articles that deal with PR-STV and it's requirements, it's pros, and its cons. Their notion to introduce the voting system and reduce the number of MPs cannot work and be truly representative of the diverse nature of the UK. If anything, PR-STV and a smaller House would actually alienate a large number of minority groups in the UK, such as ethnic minorities and voters for parties and candidates outside of the main political families. PR-STV can only be efficient and effective if the number of representatives is large, so large that it affords candidates, those who do not have the resources to have large national campaigns and fund their own political broadcasts, an equal chance at becoming elected. This is something I am not confident that the Liberal Democrats want, most certainly after jumping into bed with the Conservatives. Issues such as transparency, brokerage, and voter confidence will have already been tested, but to jeopardise their own parties seats in favour of a larger and fairer parliamentary composition is now not going to be on the top of their list of things 'to do'.
Best,
SHC
PS. Smokinghotcoffee.org now has a Zazzle.com account. As soon as we get the designs for merch. sorted, we'll be posting an article with links to where you can get some SHC gear and, in turn, help some great causes!
