A significant overhaul of electoral legislation to give voters a second vote, open polling stations at weekends and make it compulsory to participate is being proposed by the government to increase turnout and improve the legitimacy of the Commons.
Ministers will begin a consultation effort on the plan after local elections in May, and hope the measures will increase the authority of MPs and reduce voter disengagement. In the 2005 general election, only 61% of those eligible participated. Under the alternative voting system, ballot papers would allow for a second preference vote which would be redistributed from the lowest-scoring candidate’s share until one candidate has more than 50% of the vote.
News of the proposals came as Jack Straw, the justice secretary, prepares to publish a draft constitutional reform bill tomorrow, before a separate green paper on a British bill of rights and responsibilities and the opening of discussions on a statement of British values.
A white paper on party funding, which proposes capping donations and campaign spending, is also expected shortly together amounting to a substantial programme of constitutional reform.
(Source: The Guardian)
Share:
13 Comments
Interesting, esp the suggestion in the Guardian report that this could happen before the next election. This is probably the only time that we might achieve fairer votes for the Commons: with Labour approaching an election where they are scared of being hit with the sharp end of FPTP.
I wonder what would happen? I could imagine lots of LD majorities dropping (with the squeeze message losing its validity) but more seats.
Most (but not quite all) Labour trial baloons launched in the Grauniad soon pop,
AV before the next election and without a mandate would be audacious even by this government’s standards.
A major constitutional change (such as a new system for electing the House of Commons) should either be in the manifesto or the subject of a referendum.
I cannot imagine Brown adopting a system that put Labour out of power in Scotland. But let’s wait and see.
In 1997 Blair promised a referendum on PR in the lifetime of the ensuing Parliament. I cannot recall if it was in the Labour manifesto, though.
Sesenco it was in the manifesto and all Labour manifesto’s since then.
Labour’s manifesto in 1997 had stated its original position as:
We are committed to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. An independent commission on voting systems will be appointed early to recommend a proportional alternative to the first-past-the-post system.
By 2001, following the Jenkins’ Commission however, the Labour manifesto now stated:
We will review the experience of the new systems (in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) and the Jenkins report to assess whether changes might be made to the electoral system for the House of Commons. A referendum remains the right way to agree any change for Westminster.
And in the 2005 manifesto, reference to the Jenkins Report itself (Jenkins had died in 2003) was dropped:
Labour is committed to reviewing the experience of the new electoral systems — introduced for the devolved administrations, the European Parliament and the London Assembly. A referendum remains the right way to agree any change for Westminster.
-Wikipedia (primary source not found)
Wow! I am amazed that this has not descended into an interminable ding-dong about Sainte-Lague vs D’Hondt.
That’s because everyone knows Condorcet is the ultimate system…
As has been mentioned, many of the balloons which drift into the Gruaniad pop. I would be very cautious about this story, to be honest.
I would welcome the move to AV for the next election, but would need to be convinced that this is not another attempt by Labour to skew the results in a desperate attempt to pretend how democratic they are.
Labour wants this because it would be to their advantage.
I know that’s what the LibDems are accused of, but our support for a proportional system is based on principle, not party ambition.
According to the ERS, AV could be even more distortionary than FPTP (undoubtedly in Labour’s favour given they’re proposing it).
It fails on the most important aspects for LibDems – proportionality, representation of minority groups and power is still held by party authority not voters.
Who cares why Labour wants it, as long as it votes for it? Anyway, it will at most be damage control for them. With current polling rates they would probably lose their majority even in AV, but they could prevent Tories of getting an outright majority, either.
But if they are counting that the majority of the Lib Dem voters would give their second preference to Labour, they are making a mistake, because that number has altered, and the majority of Lib Dem voters might in some circumstances give their second preference to Tories, also. Currently that seems already be the case in London.
I care why they want it.
I want electoral reform, but not as part of some plan to hurt the Tories or ensure a ‘progressive consensus’, but to enable people to actually have a choice in elections and to get a Parliament which actually reflects the choices of the voters.
That is what is important. If it coincides with hurting the Tories then fine, that’s a result of what voters want.
What must be avoided is political parties manipulating the electoral system for party political gain.
Desperate times call for desperate measures… things must be looking bad from inside Brown’s bunker!
I’m all for reform of the electoral system, but I’m against the policy of perpetual reform and boundary changes which make results incomparable to previous elections and prevents feedback from voters impacting on the decision of who to vote for in each specific circumstance.
Does anyone trust Jack Straw? He’d be doing a greater service to society if he went back to Blackburn and campaigned for health justice seeing as he can’t vote in line with his conscience on preventing Post Office closures.
i just clicked the ad at the bottom of the page “Mayoral Elections 2008″ “Wondering who to vote for?” (Ads by Google, it says). Nice useful short-cut to Ken’s website.
maybe we should just let Google choose our next government – by whatever mechanism they use for deciding what we might want.