The debate on whether to replace First Past the Post with AV for elections to the House of Commons certainly seems to be warming up. Both sides are seeking increasing media coverage, bloggers from both sides are debating on the internet, and public interest seems to be growing on the issue.
Yet there seems to me one thing missing – an appreciation of the role of the House of Lords, and how it might be reformed.
The reason for this is quite important – the House of Commons does not exist in a vacuum. The AS-level course I teach on Government and Politics stresses the importance of a second chamber as a revising chamber. In particular, there is a constitutional principle that the second chamber should not be a copy of the first.
This raises several questions.
The first is an obvious question for the Liberal Democrats. Having advocated STV for the House of Commons, they appear to also advocate the STV for the House of Lords. Such a position is untenable in my opinion. An elected Lords should not simply be a copy of the Commons, with some different electoral boundaries or different terms of office.
This is where the Alternative Vote (AV) could be useful to the Lib Dems. A logical compromise position would be AV for the Commons, and STV for the Lords (sorry, Senate!). The strength of such an arrangement would be the constituency link is kept in the lower chamber. Meanwhile, the Upper Chamber would have a wide diversity of opinion, with more Lib Dems, and Green and UKIP groups.
Yet this raises an interesting second question. We’re about to have a referenda on the alternative vote for the Commons. Why not the Lords at some stage as well?
There seems to be a consensus amongst the political parties about having an elected House of Lords. However, there is also a constitutional consensus that major constitutional changes should be put to the British people It’s difficult to argue when the North-East gets a referendum on a regional assembly, there shouldn’t be one on Lords reform.
Which leads me to the third question – what happens if we vote in a referendum to keep first past the post but then make the Lords elected by STV with no referenda? Those in favour of First Past the Post will argue that they’ve won a referendum, and so the system should not be changed, and the Commons remain dominant. Those in favour of STV will argue that a Senate elected by STV is more representative than the Commons, and therefore the new Senate should be the more powerful of the two chambers. Constitutional deadlock could well then ensue.
There seems a sensible balance of power here between two revised chambers, which the Liberal Democrats could sell to other parties. AV in the Commons plus STV in the Lords might just be the right balance of power for a reformed Parliament.
Simon Foster is a Lecturer in Politics in the West Midlands, and the author of several citizenship textbooks.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
A true US populist would support vaccination in poorer communities
The doubting Tories
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
How populists win culture battles while losing the culture war - The Week in Polls
Has the time come for the United Kingdom to reconsider who its true allies are?
Jack Nicholls
nigel hunter
Christopher Haigh
Anthony Acton
Thelma Davies
27 Comments
Logically to me you should elect a government by a party proportional system and negotiated coalition agreement, and you should elect a constituency representative by the best majoritarian system. The constituency representatives should be in the revising chamber, not the governing chamber. Of course that is the opposite of what appears possible at the moment….
Agree if would be a good combination, although more details on the reform of the Lords is supposed to be announced before the end of the year (partially or wholly elected) already.
Certainly a fully proportional Lords would counterbalance the inequality of the Commons, be that a Commons with FPTP or AV.
Agree that upper house shouldn’t be a copy of lower – but I don’t buy that having STV for both houses would therefore be precluded. Just because method of election is the same, doesn’t make one house a copy of the other – if elections are held at offset times, using overlapping but non-contiguous constituencies (i.e. Senate elected on non-geographical constituencies, or regional ones a al EU elections, or some such basis) then only one aspect would be shared between houses, in all other ways they would be different.
I do agree, however, that Lords reform should also be put to a referendum at the same time…
I’ve only read the headline, but I’ll react to it.
Also what about councils? If the electorate reject FPTP at the referendum, why should this rejected system continue to be used for local elections? The referendum should cover local elections too.
I’ll read your article now…
What is the problem exactly with having both elected via STV? I agree that it’s a waste of time to have a simple copy of the lower chamber. However, longer terms, fewer members, and different powers are significant differentiators. I don’t see why we should compromise on representation.
I’m going to echo again the sentiment that just because the two chambers should be different it doesn’t follow that STV cannot be used for both, unless you have a valid reason that is omitted from your article.
Your ‘constitutional deadlock’ with a more representative Senate than Commons will still occur if the Commons is elected by AV… yet that seems to be the balance you end up favouring.
Prateek… a while ago on my blog I suggested that constituencies should be divided up on both age and geographical boundaries.
So perhaps your non-geographical constituncies for the Senate could be based around age.
But however it is done, STV should be used for as many elections as possible. It is the only absolutely good electoral system out there.
I like this article. AV ensures a majority election to a constituency based house of delegates. STV acts as the representative house.
Having said this, constutional deadlock would not, I think, ensue, as Erskine May is effectively our constitution for the passage of legislation and I cannot see those written conventions being rejected. The FPTP/AV house would remain sovereign at the moment unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Also, I am unsure as to why you need STV for the House of Lords / Senators / Representatives if a constituency link is maintained within the House of Commons / Delegates? Surely a list system, with a constituencies the size of nations (with the option of expulsion from the list) is preferable. Alternatively, STV with a smaller senate might work on region-sized constituencies.
The overriding objection to lists is that electors do not get to choose individuals to represent them. Quite rightly, IMO. Every member of the legislature should be personally subject to direct electoral scrutiny not just those in the marginal zone.
This is actually one of the commonest raised objections to PR from people who think the Lib Dems are proposing Euro style lists for the HoC. There is not a good understanding out there of exactly what STV is.
“In particular, there is a constitutional principle that the second chamber should not be a copy of the first.”
I agree with that principle, otherwise the party make-up of the second chamber might well be whipped to rubber-stamp whatever the commons had passed.
If we want the second chamber to be less whipped, and more independent minded, then one option is to allow election for one term in the second chamber, with a longer term of say, eight years. That would have some of the advantages of the current life peer system, but with the appointments being by the people, rather than patronage.
The disadvantage, of course, would be that an excellent member of the upper house would be lost after eight years, and a dreadful one would remain for the full eight years, even if their electors wanted rid of him.
But then there’s no ideal system.
“There is not a good understanding out there of exactly what STV is.”
This is an argument for AV. Once we have preferential ballots, this allows us during arguments for AV to say ‘the ballot papers needn’t change (apart from having several options of candidate per party), it’s only the number of MPs you have that will change’.
From where we are at the moment, two changes are needed to get from FPTP to STV: preferential ballots and multi-member constituencies. It is arguable that it is politically easier to change one thing at a time, and AV allows us to do this.
A logical compromise position would be AV for the Commons, and STV for the Lords (sorry, Senate!). The strength of such an arrangement would be the constituency link is kept in the lower chamber.
This is an illogical compromise. The point of representative democracy is that government is through an assembly which accurately represents the population as a whole. By “representative” is meant people we can trust to think and act as we would were we in their place. It is important to make this distinction from the “delegative” idea where representatives are supposed not to think but instead do what they have been commanded to do at a lower level. The reason for this is that democracy has to be about finding the most satisfactory compromise, this cannot be done in a delegate system because it involves thought and independent action by the representatives. That is why the idea that democracy is delegative ends up in a Stalinist/fascist way of thinking about government. It reduces the representative chamber to a token with the real decision making beng done elsewhere i.e. by “The Party”. Then elections are really about nominating which of The Parties is to rule us, and that is it. This way of thinking cannot abide the idea of coalitions as that involves active development of policy outside The Party. It therefore prefers a system whereby whichever of The Parties gets most votes is elected to be dictator for the next five year. That is why this way of thinking prefers systems like AV/FPTP which tend to distort representation in favour of the largest party and thinks it better to have a dictatorship of one party that has less than half the share of the vote than have a coalition. Though the true logic of their position is that they should support the electoral system introduced in Italy in 1922 as that most accurately reflects their approach to politics.
If we go for representative democracy, it has to use proportional reprsentation. The truest form is the Hare system, where every representative is there because a fixed proportion of the population has asked that person to be their representative. STV compromises on the proportionality this gives in order to have geographical constituencies with managable ballot papers.
It is not so important that a second or revising chamber or Senate should be so accurately representative. The point of this chamber is to contain expertise. This is indicated by the word “Senate”, which means really a collection of old men. That is, people who have accumulated years of wisdom they can use to reflect on policy.
It seems to me that the Senate may well best be elected by a list system. It would then be up to the parties to ensure their lists contain what they feel is useful expertise. The thing about the list system is that it gives a chance for people who are not well-known to the public or who are not good at presenting themselves nevertheless to have a role in government by virtue of their other qualities. Such people might find it hard to get elected by STV because of the showmanship necessary to gain personal votes. It is then an important job of the parties to find and nominate these people to their lists. To some extent, this IS how the life peer system works. Also, in the UK, there is nothing to stop hereditary peers and bishops etc putting themselves forward as a list – so let us see just how much support they REALLY have from those who claim they are valuable.
@Duncan As an ex-councillor, I would support STV for local Government. The constituencies are multi-member in most cases, and there are councils up and down the country run by coalitions, including my own local authority in Birmingham.
With regards constituencies based on age, I’d be strongly against that. I think it would be ageist, possibly illegal, and not a fair way of electing representatives (Oh look, you’ve just reached age X, you can’t vote in this election, but you can now in this one). I don’t think that would command widespread political support.
With regards a constitutional deadlock under an AV (lower house) and STV (upper house) I believe its a combination that the general public would accept, and certainly more defendable that FPTP in the lower House with STV in the upper. I also think AV (Commons) and STV (Lords, sorry, Senate!) is more likely to happen in that it’s the direction we’re currently moving in, if the referendum passes.
@Colin There’s some other problem I have with STV, and a political observation.
My first problem is that of casework. Imagine you’re living in Oxfordshire under STV with 6 MPs. Which one do you go to with a problem? What happens if the MPs disagree with the advice they have given to? How do you prioritise one person’s opinion over another?
One of the advantages of AV (and FPTP – not that I’m a supporter of the latter) is that there is a simple, strong constituency link, where you can make an appointment at 1 MPs office and get them to raise your concern to the relevant authorities. Let us not forget a major function of Parliament is the “reddress of constituents greviances.”
Let’s get onto the Geography next. I want to go and see my local MP. Now, North Cornwall, as Dan Rogerson MP will know, is a constituency that takes a long time to drive to one end to the other. What size of constituency are we proposing for STV? (Cornwall?) Is it going to get even bigger due to the drive for equal constituencies that the Coalition is proposing? (Cornwall plus a chunk of Devon? Expect strong opposition from both sides…) How can you say a constituency in Scotland is too big already (limits in the current proposals) and then create something that spreads across most of the Highlands and Islands?
Additionally, there’s the principle that people should be able to clearly understand how their government is elected. I’m concerned that even with educating people, that a sizeable chunk of the UK population wouldn’t understand how the system is operating. I have enough trouble explaining the concept to my A-level students! I’ve also been a returning officer for an STV election to a Council group (note to Council group leaders – train your new members on this when they get elected if you use STV). Many of them had problems understanding what was going on. That worries me – even though I’m in favour of STV for a reformed Lords.
Now the political observation. I don’t believe the support for STV is out there in the country for the lower Chamber – even after a period of campaigning. I do believe that AV is a compromise to some which could well happen, along with STV for an upper chamber. And in terms of checks and balances, it’s something I could happily live with.
@John Richardson – I know. But I am not quite so swayed by this if we have indivicual champions for constituencies in another house.
I am also less won on this as STV means that I may be proportionally represented by someone I didn’t vote for, or best represented by someone in a different super-constituency. The objections to constituencies remain under STV, though I admit STV is more proportional and these objections are weaker. I have other worries about STV, the media, and rural/urban challenges.
I understand the arguments, I do not yet find them convincing.
I would never propose anything that is ageist. All (adult) ages would be catered for, and each age-constituency would be of equal size, so franchise would be equal. The big advantage of using age is that it would mean politicians would need to appeal to people of all ages, and not ignore those who don’t tend to turn out. Also, most of us would get the chance to vote in each age constituency across our lifetime (apart from those who pop our clogs early).
I could just as easily brand geographic constituencies as ‘addressist’, ‘a postcode lottery’. It was addressism that stopped anyone from voting in Oxford West and Abingdon, and stopped all the skeptics from piling in to save Evan Harris. It was addressism that stopped me from voting in Oldham East and Saddleworth to oust Phil Woolas in the face. It’s just as equally not fair as ageism (Oh look, you’ve just moved to place X, you can’t vote in this election, but you can now in this one).
Splitting people up into different groups is by its very nature discriminatory, but necessary if we are going to have constituencies. Age and geography are both good ways of making this discrimination, as different segments in each have their own values and needs.
@Matthew I think we’re in agreement that representative democracy is better than that of delegates.
I’m glad you don’t support the Hare system, or a national list system as they have in Israel. The major problem with this I see is that a complete nutter (IMHO) can get 1.2% of the vote (and no more – because they are a complete nutter) therefore gets 1.2% of the seats. You then have political fragmentation and major parties forming some very unstable coalitions.
You then argue for a compromise on proportionality with STV. I agree – but for the upper chamber, not the lower.
You then argue for a list system for an upper chamber. A major flaw for this systems is that they are controlled by the parties, and therefore they do encourage a delegate style of politics which you are advocating.
I’d accept your point about a second chamber needing experience, but I believe that it needs to be representative as well. A revising chamber needs both qualities in order to be as effective as possible. It will be interesting to see whether there is an unelected element of the reformed Lords (an idea popular amongst some Conservatives) or its fully elected.
I don’t believe I’ve been illogical – as others have commented, AV can be a compromise. It will also be seen as a stepping stone for some Lib Dems to STV.
@Duncan. I can’t see how an ageist system would work in practice, with artificial boundaries based on a shifting population pyramid if you wanted equal seats. How would you keep in contact with your constituents, scattered all over the place? I’m also unaware of any country in the world that uses this as an electoral system for a legislative chamber.
By contrast, geographical divisions are used all over the world. No system is perfect, but I think geographical divisions make a lot more sense than the ageist system you are proposing.
The trick with the upper house is to prevent it getting stuffed by the party in power (or used as a retirement home by the party that just went out) without encouraging Lords to be to populist and tabloid driven in an attempt to win seats.
The undemocratic nature of the place sits slightly at odds with me, but then again the thought of Baron Rees of Ludlow, the Astronomer Royal atop a battle bus with a megaphone or Carol Vorderman running a dirty tricks campaign against Floella Benjamin seems a worse prospect.
Or perhaps the expertise section of the upper chamber should be separated from the representative section so there are seats reserved for legal, scientific, economic and social experts which are elected by learned societies.
I’m not sure I agree with directly electing Lords.
Every time I see the Lords in action, it brings to mind how mature and rational they are compared to the populism, point scoring and sound biting we hear in the commons. Having to win elections attracts people with a “Public Relations” mindset, while the Lords’ job is more one of experience, qualification and expertise.
The only reason I can think of to elect the Lords is that the current balance of parties doesn’t necessarily reflect how the public want the chamber to be made up. I think that election of the Lords should be some kind of List-PR, where people vote for a party and the result determines how much of the House that represents that party.
That said, to answer the original post, and STV Lords would differ to an STV Commons as follows:
1) Each elected Peer would keep their place for 15 years. (So less short term)
2) The elections would be held at the same time as European elections and use the same large constituencies.
(Much larger than the constituencies for a Commons STV)
Here’s a white paper of proposals made:
http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm70/7027/7027.pdf
@Daniel – Thanks for the white paper link (My AS students will enjoy getting their teeth into that).
A concern with 15 year election periods – that’s an absolute lifetime in politics! How could there be any form of political accountability?
What surprises me so far is that I’ve given STV a good slating 6 posts ago on a Liberal Democrat website, and nobody has come back to me yet (I feel a STV and its flaws article coming on…. 😉 ).
An all elected House of Lords is vital since AV may be in trouble. A regional list is probably the best option to get Tory support. My fear is that obstruction from present incumbents, a long transition period which will not help preserve us beyond the next election and lack of willingness to have contingency plans if AV goes down will see us out-manoevred on this.
Simon Foster
Imagine you’re living in Oxfordshire under STV with 6 MPs. Which one do you go to with a problem?
The one you feel will do the best job for your problem. So you have a choice, you can picjk oneof your own party which you can’t under AV or FTP if you’re in a geographical minority. With a choice of MPs, you also might want to choose one of your own gender, etc. The choice of MPs to go to with your problem is a big positive feature of STV.
I want to go and see my local MP. Now, North Cornwall, as Dan Rogerson MP will know, is a constituency that takes a long time to drive to one end to the other. What size of constituency are we proposing for STV? (Cornwall?)
Yes, Cornwall.
But you illustrate a common fallacy made by people when discussing STV. To get elected under STV, you have to win a quota of votes, that is all. There is no requirement that the quota come from all over the constituency. If a candidate can get a quota of votes just from North Cornwall, that candidate when elected can regard himself/herself primarily as the MP for North Cornwall. Anyone who values the local conection can just campaign in one area. Anyone Conserativve or Labour person who says “I don’t like STV because of multi-member constituencies” can, when voting, cast their vote for the Conservative or Labour candidate who declares himself or herself as the local candidate for that part of the constituency, and give their second preference to the most local candidate of another party rather than to a Conservative or Labour candidate who is campaigning primarily in another part of the constituency. Simple – you can use STV as if it is AV if you want, there’s nothing stopping you. But why, if that’s the way you think, FORCE that way of thinking into other people by insisting they too must restrict their choices to a most local basis?
@Matthew – some good arguments there about two heads being better than one, and about choice when getting someone to deal with casework. I’m still concerned though about a constituent going to see more than one MP, getting different advice from each and then having to work out, who is offerring the correct advice?
With regards the Cornish argument, the trouble with the equal sized constituency proposal at the moment is that if adopted for STV, half of a Devon seat is going to end up in the Cornish constituency. Or do you see STV as having different numbers of MPs in different parts of the country (eg: 5-6 for Cornwall, 9-10 for Birmingham) based on historical boundaries?
Or do you see STV as having different numbers of MPs in different parts of the country (eg: 5-6 for Cornwall, 9-10 for Birmingham) based on historical boundaries?
Yes. In many cases the historic counties work well, so it might be a selling point to use them.
I am VERY puzzled by your comment about a constituent “having to work out, who is offerring the correct advice”. It appears that rather than have a constituent receive advice from multiple sources so he or she can work out which sounds best, you would want that person to receive just one lot of advice even if it is wrong.
I was myself a councilor in a ward which for as time had two LibDems and one Labour councillor. My constituents loved it – they could play one off against the other, making them compete to see who came across the best, go to me or the other LibDem to moan about the Labour-run council, then go to the Labour councillor when they thought going to someone who was in the ruling party would help.
BTW, when you wrote “I’m glad you don’t support the Hare system”, you had no evidence to state that. I described the full Hare system, then I described STV as a compromise to produce manageable ballot papers. This statement about STV was a factual statement, that’s all. I said neither that I supported this compromise or that I didn’t.
This is, if I can be bold enough to say, is a typical Lib Dem type post. Let us deal with real politics. A party rating 11 per cent in the polls should not really determine the voting system or unduly influence fundamental changes in the Constitution. Labour, which offers an alternative to the Coalition, has no conceivable interest in politics designed to perpetuate Con/Lib Dem coalitions. Electoral reform cannot take place in such circumstances. If a referendum on AV goes ahead next May (now there’s a date) it will be defeated. Labour is not in business to promote Coalitions and permanent Opposition for itself.
@Charliechops
Real politics puts the Lib Dems wanting electoral reform, the Greens wanting electoral reform, UKIP wanting electoral reform, and the Labour Party spending the last election campaigning for electoral reform.
However, you miss the real clincher. The parties won’t decide, we – the people, the voters – will. And with 1% between the Yes and No camps, there is everything for both sides to play for.
@Matthew – Sorry if I mislead your comments about the Hare system.
Let me try and express my concerns further about having more than 1 local representative.
When I ran an MPs office, one of the things we’d frequently get casework on is Tax Credits, from people desperate to sort out a pressing financial problem.
Some of these people do not have the time or energy to “play people off” as you suggest. They wanted a straight answer from somebody who would sort out their problem with the benefits system.
I’m concerned with what would happen if such a person got conflicting advice from different representatives – on a complex situation where they’ve been messed around far too much already.
Thoughts?
@Matthew – Or even “misread”. I really need to go and pick up those reading glasses from the opiticians tomorrow 😉