Growing Calls for a True Democracy
By Matthew Chapman
There is an emerging groundswell of support for a referendum on electoral reform as the public become increasingly alienated by the British political system.
The Vote for a Change campaign is in its infancy and its demand for a referendum by the day of the next general election has already received 3,400 signatories, including the high profile support of Philip Pullman, Damon Albarn and Stephen Fry.
The campaign falls under the auspices of the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) and newspark tracked down Ken Ritchie, CEO of the ERS, to quiz him about the implications of a referendum on electoral reform.
Ritchie is unequivocal in his demands for a referendum.
“In terms of building trust, there has got to be something that happens to politics after the expenses scandal and public anger over expenses,” said Ritchie.
Ritchie realises the various electoral systems are extremely difficult for the electorate to understand and so believes a two tier referendum consisting of the question ‘Do you want change and, if so, what system?’ could lead to difficulties.
Consequently the ERS are proposing that an alternative electoral system is decided upon by a citizens’ assembly, followed by a nationwide referendum on whether to implement it.
The ERS seeks proportional representation and believes that the Single Transferable Vote (STV) is the best way forward.
The STV system could lead to larger constituencies but with more seats in each one, perhaps three or four seats to a constituency.
It would provide voters more scope in voting for individual candidates and not just the party they are affiliated with.
It is hoped this system could transfer the power of accountability back to the electors and inject greater competition back into our democracy.
“Members of Parliament like to have a constituency to themselves, they don’t like competition,” said Ritchie.
“They don’t like the idea that constituents might be able to take their problems and issues to somebody other than themselves – they prefer to have the monopoly.”
It is traditional for the incumbent government not to support proportional representation because the current First Past the Post electoral system greatly favours the major parties.
However Labour MPs have recently come out in support of electoral reform, though some have suggested this is because they are likely to lose the next general election.
Alan Johnson has called for a referendum on the day of the next election and Tom Watson now advocates proportional representation in the form of the Alternative Vote.
This is a surprising political U-turn considering that in 1997 Mr Watson campaigned for the first past the post system as a member of the Amalgamated Engineering and Electoral Union.
The change in tide of opinion within Labour is a shrewd political move. Ritchie said:
“If Labour was actually seen to be taking steps to give more power and more control back to the electorate, that can not be a bad thing for Labour.”
However there are potential pitfalls for Labour within proportional representation. The implementation of the Alternative Vote (AV) system could in fact see them lose even more seats.
“Back in 1997, when Labour was in the ascendancy, AV would have actually given Labour a bigger majority and the Conservatives would have been more disadvantaged,” said Ritchie.
“Now when it comes to people using their second preferences, indications are that there are many Liberal Democrats in earlier years who would have tactically voted for Labour but now will tactically vote to keep Labour out.”
The leader of the Conservatives, David Cameron, has urged the public not to vote for proportional representation.
He cited mitigating factors such as smaller parties having an unfair and disproportionate boost, extreme parties being voted in, the possibility of ineffectual hung Parliaments and the emergence of backroom deals due to no party having a majority.
Although a hard-line supporter of electoral reform Ritchie did concede the possibility of hung parliaments:
“Okay, proportional representation would increase the risk of a hung parliament. You can look across the whole of Europe and those countries using a system of proportional representation – there are good governments and bad governments.”
“What we have got in Scotland now is a situation where the SNP are far short from a majority of the vote. But as Alex Salmond argued, they have got a parliament where issues are decided by the power of the argument rather than the argument of power.”
As for back room deals, Ritchie is pragmatic in his answer.
“I would far rather we had back room deals whereby a majority of the people got most of what they wanted rather than situations where the Labour government vote, thirty five percent of the vote, gets what they want and the other sixty five percent of people get short changed.”
Ritchie ended the interview by reflecting on the BNP’s recent success in the European Elections via a form of proportional representation.:
“I would not defend the [electoral] system that they introduced for the European Parliament.
“If we had the single transferable vote in the North-West and Yorkshire and Humberside it is a reasonable assumption that the BNP would not have won.
“In a system where you have transferable voting, votes can move to other choices of the voters and the large majority of the people do not want to see the BNP winning seats.”
Ritchie attributes the BNP’s current rise in fortunes to the malaise in British politics and argues a change in the electoral system could be used to give the crippled political institution a boost. He said:
“Changing the electoral system is about looking for a way in which you get a different culture of politics. The BNP has been winning in areas that have been largely neglected by Labour.
“You get many people who are supporting the BNP because they feel they are the only people who are, on a local issue, actually standing up for them.
“If we had a more healthy, vibrant democracy then we would not be leaving space for them [the BNP] to occupy.”
