« The Spin on the Review | Main | Lord Hunt skewered on his own petard »
January 30, 2008
More review critique/ open the debate of electoral systems to the electorate
ERS Campaign's Officer Michael Calderbank published articles in both the Compass and Progress criticizing our government's biased response to the review on electoral systems ("the current system for UK general elections works well"-Michael Wills) when findings from the review clearly suggest that a form of proportional representation might be better. It is dissapointing as it is not surprising that a government would back a system by which it gained majority power on just 35% of the vote and with the support of only 1 in 5 of eligible voters. Worse though is the government's failure to widen the scope of the debate over electoral reform, mainly by not incorporating the public's views on electoral systems into the review, but also by by not allowing for Parliamentry debate over its findings. Calderbank argues that it is time for the government to open up the debate and make sure the voices of the voters do not continue to go unheard.
So did they deliver? Well, apart from the limitations of any "desk-bound" review, the content of the Review can be broadly welcomed as far it goes. The evidence complied by civil servants in the MoJ suggests that the PR systems all give fairer outcomes and have a greater tendency to allow all votes to count (as opposed to the millions of wasted/tactical votes under the First-Past-the-Post system). Some allow voters significantly greater choice. The new systems are encouraging greater representation of women and voters are "warming" to the experience of coalition. It also explodes some common myths put about by advocates of the status quo. It finds that there is no evidence to suggest that PR systems lead to weak government and alternative systems are no more inherently confusing to the voters. Plus, whilst as it correctly observes it cannot be automatically assumed that there is a direct causal relationship between moving to a PR system and increased turnout, nevertheless international comparisons suggest that turnout that it is on average at least 5% higher in countries with fairer methods of electing their representatives.
So far, so good. Unfortunately, whilst claiming that the Review is part of an "ongoing debate", the government appears to be doing nothing to actively widen the scope of the debate to canvass the views of ordinary voters, still less to bring forward proposals which would empower voters to determine what changes might be necessary. Despite being covered in the "Governance of Britain" branding, there are clearly no plans to use the review as the basis for engaging with citizens about how we are to achieve the "new type of politics" that Gordon Brown has spoken of. The failure to give any government time over to the Parliamentary debate to the Reviews findings shows how little they are keen to open the electoral system to any kind of public scrutiny this side of a General Election.
Posted by joshloewenstein on January 30, 2008
