« Reform promised, but how far will it go? | Main | Conservatives to cull MPs? »
April 11, 2005
Change the system: up the turnout
The politicians are spending huge amounts of time in this election trying to whip up interest: a "critical" a "vital" election, one "on which the whole future of our country depends." In fact, by the standards of some elections, this one falls some way short of vital. Compare and contrast with 1945, for example, or 1979 or 1997.
So what is going on? What is going on are desperate attempts to bolster turnout. According to a MORI poll for the Financial Times last week, Labour leads on voting intention, but if only those who say they are certain to vote are counted, the Tories are five points clear. So both sides are trying hard to get their people out.
Never mind the party politics: what does this say about our democracy? In the old days, some political scientists used to argue that low turnout was a good thing: it showed that most people were content with the political system. Constructive apathy ruled.
It is true that elections with very high turnout mostly take place in countries where something is wrong with politics, as in the old Soviet Union where Joseph Stalin frequently achieved turnouts in excess of 100%. But there is a tipping point: perhaps around 70% of the vote in general elections when the level of turnout becomes a worry. Whichever party wins on May 5th, it is highly unlikely that they will have the support of above a quarter of the electorate. That will be a pretty shaky basis on which to claim any kind of mandate.
What relationship does this have to the electoral system? In part the relationship is a direct one. It is a simple fact about our system that the majority of voters in the majority of constituencies could vote if they do in the sure and certain knowledge that they cannot possibly affect the result. Elections are decided by middle voters in middle constituencies and by them only. As I have argued here before, in those circumstances it is perhaps more surprising that so many voters do turn out as that so many do not.
However, the biggest effect of the present voting system on depressing turnout may not be this direct one. It is an indirect one. First-past-the-post creates a certain kind of politics: tribal, high-volume, unsubtle. Other electoral systems create a more plural politics. At their heart may be a multiplicity of parties (Britain for example is quite unusual in having a week green and no rural/farmers' party). But even failing this - and Germany is an example of a proportional electoral system where parties have not multiplied – other systems tend to lead to a more subtle politics. So for example Labour could not continue under a different electoral system to pay such little attention to the environment. If they did, a Green Party would gain representation in parliament, and might even be in a position to join in a green-tinged coalition.
Every survey shows that the old tribal politics is dying. Young people in particular are not as the old canard has it, uninterested in politics. They are uninterested in politics as it is played by the politicians under the rules of first-past-the-post. If they are to be re-engaged, if future elections are not to be turnout elections like this one, that system must change.
Posted by davidlipsey on April 11, 2005
Comments
Changing the electoral system will undoubtedly help turnout. I'm not sure exactly what sort of system needs to be implemented in its place - in any 3-party system I am suspicious of PR, and alternatives such as AV would scarcely achieve much more. But as I blogged at the General Election blog, it's not right that I, a genuine floating voter, should have no attention paid to my vote purely by semi-accident of where I live.
Posted by: Ken at April 11, 2005 08:31 PM
Would that suspicion of PR be down to the 3rd party's bargaining power in the case of a hung parliament?
I will assume so until you say otherwise. I can see how this could bring about difficulties in a back-room-shady-deals kind of way. Not as bad as sofa governance though.
Ultimately, however, PR would make the govt more accountable, so even if deals were being brokered behind closed doors (not that I believe PR would have a contrary effect in this direction) the people, by virtue of being better represented at parliament would have more sway over making sure that policies, wherever negotiated more closely reflected their wises, rather than the wishes of a leader with hegemonic aspirations
Posted by: Paul Davies at April 11, 2005 09:01 PM
I'm in my late 60s and this is the first election in my memory that is already boring me after just a few days.....therefore I have decided to cast my vote at www.may5election.com At least it will not be wasted on whomever wins.
Posted by: David Davis at April 12, 2005 05:55 AM
Dear Sir or Madame
I have some thoughts on electoral reform based on what I have called the Relay System.
The Relay System is a weighted electoral system 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.
I have put the paper on a website www.relaysystem.co.uk which you can goto for more details.
However I would be most interested in any comments you would like to make.
Yours Sincerely
Griffin Turton
Posted by: Griffin Turton at August 22, 2006 02:38 PM
We're democrats and believe in free speech, but we're also committed to civil and rational debate. We reserve the right to delete material posted to our site, but we hope and expect to exercise this right rarely if at all.
