Make My Vote Count

Labour�s make your mind up time on elections: �Let's play by Aussie Rules�

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:43:31 +0100

News Release from Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform

Peter Hain leads call for historic Labour compromise on electoral reform this side of next General Election

At an anxious time for Labour members, the Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform (LCER) invites Labour members to thrash out the Party’s position on electoral reform on Tuesday.

Figures including former cabinet minister, Peter Hain, John Grogan MP, and The Mirror’s Kevin Maguire will join together to start the debate that could lead Labour to adopt the Alternative Vote.

Peter Hain has led the call for Alternative Vote since the publication of his book Proportional Misrepresentation in 1986. Kevin Maguire has coined the term “Let's play by Aussie Rules” to illustrate a consensus drift towards Alternative Vote at every level in the Labour Party.

The panel will be joined by Paul Smith, President of Australian Labor Party Abroad.

Electoral reform debates in the past have produced deep debates within the Labour Party. However at last year’s LCER meeting Cabinet Minister and former LCER Chair, John Denham, suggested that Alternative Vote for the Commons could be coupled with a proportional voting system for elected members of the replacement House of Lords.

LCER has recently consulted Labour reformers using a questionnaire and most of those who responded were willing to live with what we are now calling the Australian model, AV for the Commons, Single Transferable Vote for the Upper House/Senate. It could well be that a historic compromise has been reached between Labour’s First Past the Post and Proportional Representation supporters.

John Grogan, Chair of LCER, chairing the discussion says:

“The Prime Minister’s debate on the Constitution will provide an opportunity between now and the General Election to advance the case of electoral reform. It is crucial that LCER is at the centre of the debate regarding a reformed upper chamber, local government and what goes into the Manifesto on electoral reform.”

Meeting open to public.

Let’s Play by Aussie Rules: Electoral Reform without dividing the Labour Party

Tuesday 15 July, 6.30 - 7.30 pm in Committee Room 6, House of Commons.

Let's Play by Aussie Rules event

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:30:52 +0100

"Let’s play by Aussie Rules"

Committee Room 6, House of Commons

Tuesday 15 July 6.30pm – 7.30pm

Public meeting. All welcome. Turn up on the day or RSVP to lcerinfo@yahoo.co.uk

Chair: John Grogan MP

Speakers: Peter Hain MP, Kevin Maguire (Mirror), Paul Smith (Australian Labour Party)

Followed by the Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform Annual General Meeting: 7.30pm – 8.30 pm

MVC's London Elections results briefing

Sat, 03 May 2008 15:40:13 +0100

Make Votes Count have produced a comprehensive and unique take on the London Mayoral and Assembly election results.

View / download a copy online - click here.

You'll find details on turnout, spoilage rates, the d'Hondt allocation of seats; and systems commentary. But, more interestingly, there are figures on % of votes counting, proportionality on the Assembly, and gender representation. I have included a critique of the FPTP constituency section, references to the SV vs AV and Alternative Vote for the Commons debates, and a tie in with the Review of Voting Systems. There is also a section on MVC's response to the election of a BNP Assembly Member

Some key facts:

Turnout was 8.3% higher than when these elections were conducted in 2004.
Almost half of Londoners who voted cast one of their preferences for the winning mayoral candidate, and almost 90% had one of their votes count towards the overall result in the final round.
86% of Londoners who voted, did so for a party that gained seat(s) on the London Assembly. Nearly 9 in 10 voters are now represented by at least one London Assembly Member from a party they voted for.
The number of rejected votes – and especially wrongly filled in or spoilt ballot papers – was much lower than in 2004. 4.2% lower in the case of the assembly ballots. Voters were not confused by the different ballot papers or voting systems used. Spoilage rates (excluding papers left intentionally blank) for the respective ballots were: mayoral 1.14%; assembly constituency 0.32%; and assembly list 0.38%.

Hopefully plenty of useful information for us all to use over the coming days and weeks. Download a copy and email it around.

Londoners understood that their votes mattered

Fri, 02 May 2008 17:49:56 +0100

Whoever wins the London mayoral and assembly counts later tonight, these elections have been good for voters, good for the parties and good for London democracy.

The high turnout figures in London, estimated at 45%, and in many places predicted to be above general election levels, show what happens when you get a competitive election and voting systems that give voters increased choice and the power to affect the result no matter where in the city they live. Londoners have understood that every vote actually can matter and have responded accordingly. This picture favourably contrasts with the local elections across the rest of the country, where turnout is significantly lower, at 35%, and far fewer voters would have felt they could have made a difference.

It may be the third set of London elections, but this is the first time that political parties, the media and civil society organisations have really got stuck in to explaining how the different systems work and how people can make the most of their votes. What we are seeing is the benefits of this education and attention.

The London voting systems encourage campaigning and ‘get-out-the-vote’ activity by parties in their heartland areas – those places and voters often marginalised during other elections. It appears these voters have responded to this increased attention and the rare opportunity they have to matter, and are likely to have had a significant impact on the result.

Election day message

Thu, 01 May 2008 17:40:21 +0100

If you have a vote today – and there are elections in many places across England and Wales - use it. We will be closely following all the election counts and results; looking both for examples of democracy flourishing and democracy failing. We will be paying special attention to what happens in London. You can follow our progress on election day, throughout Friday and over the weekend on this website and our blog.

Londoners' Votes Count
www.londonersvotescount.org.uk

Once every four years, all Londoners’ votes matter. Contrary to a general or local election, "every vote counts". For the London Assembly, the system is straightforward and empowering. The make-up of the Assembly will reflect how all of London voted. People can affect the overall result no matter where in London they live. That is because of the proportional voting system used. In addition, for the London Assembly (Londonwide ballot paper) your vote will in effect count twice: once for the party you support; and once against extremists. This is because your vote makes it harder for extremist parties to be elected; as it takes them one vote further away from reaching that 5% threshold. And for electing the Mayor, Londoners get the chance to express both their 1st and 2nd choices, rather than condense all their thinking down into a single candidate. So people can vote with their heart and with their head. Again, the advantage of the preferential system used for the mayoral election.

Londoners' Votes Count has been a new MVC initiative to help with last-minute voter education and mobilisation efforts in London. The website explains in simple terms how to vote, how the different voting systems for the London elections work, and how Londoners can make the most of their vote. The website also provides more detailed information about the voting systems used, and makes the connections between these elections and the current electoral reform debate about the Alternative Vote for the Commons, and also contains sections on 'the election and the Far Right' and 'mythbusting' which are particularly useful.

While many of us may have issues with the limited Supplementary Vote system used for the mayoral elections, and some may also prefer a different way of electing the London Assembly than the Additional Member System in place, much more important are the positives of these elections and voters' experiences of them.

ENGLISH AND WELSH LOCAL ELECTIONS:

As well as in London, the areas where elections are taking place are as follows:

The 36 Metropolitan Boroughs – one third of the seats, councillors elected top of the poll in 2004 up for re-election.
19 English unitary authorities electing by thirds – one third of the seats, councillors elected in 2004 up for re-election.
4 new English unitary authorities electing all-out – every seat to be fought.
22 Welsh unitary authorities electing all-out – every seat to be fought.
67 shire districts electing by thirds – one third of the seats, councillors elected in 2004 up for re-election except in a few cases where there were boundary changes in 2007 or 2006.
7 shire districts electing by halves – half the seats, councillors elected in 2004 up for re-election.
4 shire districts electing all-out – every seat to be fought because of boundary changes.

Real results in real elections are likely to make the case more eloquently for ‘making local votes count’ and for a fairer voting system for Westminster, than projections and punditry. This year is even more vital as:

(i) direct comparisons can be made with the experience of voters using different systems in London, and also with the STV local elections in Scotland last year.

(ii) another push at electoral reform for Welsh local government and increased pressure for England to look at the issue too could be on the cards.

Both MVC and ERS websites will feature number-crunching from London and across the UK, including some of the more distorted English local election FPTP results. You could pick up any of these points if they were true in your area:

1) wrong winners - the party that got most votes did not get the most seats.
2) ‘electoral deserts’ - parties gain many votes but no seats at all. Not only are parties un-represented, but so are the electors who voted for them.
3) councils dominated by a single party with little opposition; making it difficult to hold the executive to account.
4) uncontested seats – no incentive for other parties to stand candidates so they don’t, thus depriving voters of any choice or say whatsoever.

Remember that your comments should not just be focused on the parties - unfairness to parties means unfairness to the people who voted for them as well; with all the negative consequences for political participation, trust and satisfaction.

In addition, there are things some additional points to look out for / to make: In England outside of London it is almost the case of the ‘forgotten elections’ in many areas. Partly this has to do with people’s perceptions of the power and efficacy of local government. But the current First-Past-the-Post election system exacerbates the situation. Here are some questions which more attention should be given to:

(1) Will the lack of Conservative representation in northern metropolitan areas, despite a 10%-20% vote share, continue?

(2) Labour retreat: will the party be left with control of virtually no councils south of a line from the Severn to the Wash, outside London. What implications does this have for future party organisation? And what about the lack of representation for Labour voters in the south and south-west?

(3) Competitive elections: is there a difference – both in terms of turnout and more generally for the health of local democracy – between places where large numbers of seats are uncontested and control of the council is decided before a vote has even been cast and local authorities where party competition is much higher and voters have a genuine choice ?

(4) Are more people voting for the minor parties – especially BNP, UKIP and the Greens – and if so is that fairly translating into seats won?

(5) BNP: will intelligent targeting allow the party to win local council seats, often on a 25-35% vote share? Would a different voting system have made it much more difficult to achieve such a result, and tackled some of the underlying reasons – of discontent and disconnect with mainstream politics – why people feel attracted to the BNP in the first place?