Here’s your starter for ten in our Saturday slot where we throw up an idea or thought for debate…
With the news that Ed Miliband wants to give the public a share of the votes in future Labour leadership elections, and with the Conservative Party already having run several open primaries in which the public could vote for Parliamentary candidates, the Liberal Democrats are currently the only one of the three main parties looking to keep such party elections in the hands of party members only.
Should the Liberal Democrats stick to that position or should the rules for leader and/or Parliamentary candidates be changed?
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1528
Endometriosis and acetylation
Reform makes first gain from Conservatives in this by-election cycle
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Geoff Reid
Tom Bailey
Leonora Scipio
Kira Collins
Daniel Walker
42 Comments
I would not be in favour of opening up internal elections to the general public. You would have opposition party members voting for the least effective candidate.
It seems like a pretty ridiculous idea to me, even if we could afford it.
If you want to have a say in choosing our leader, join up. It costs next to nothing.
And as for open primaries for candidates, if you’re a party running campaigns on a shoestring, forget it.
Welcome the public to become members and make the barrier of entry low; but neither the expense, nor the risk, of letting non-members vote to select candidates is justified in my view.
I agree. For a smaller party outnumbered by activists from other parties, this would be a daft idea. Make a commitment or this party alone (it is unconstitional to support another party) or sling your hook!
I’m in favour of consulting the public, but we must ultimately make our own decisions.
I wonder where this is coming from? Is it another of Mr Clegg’s ideas, to dilute the impact of the fact that hardly any activists agree with some of his deeply held views?
Well… I sort of feel that if you’re keen enough to want a say in internal party elections you should join the party you support. It’s not an unreasonable hurdle for most people.
“You would have opposition party members voting for the least effective candidate.”
Is there any evidence that this happens in places with open primaries (such as some US states)? It may well happen, but I’ve never heard it mention in the coverage.
I’m not saying that I see the point of it though, as I don’t. At least not from a democratic point of view. I can kind of see why Ed Milliband is saying this: if a lot of non-Labour/-Union members would have voted for him as leader, they would see him as ‘their candidate” and thus would be more likely to vote for his party in the next general elections.
I’m in favour of public consultation but not allowing non-members to vote.
Public opinion is important and had we had more of it would Menzies Campbell have been elected party leader? He’s very well respected within the party but the public never warmed to him. We might have known that up front. It’s probably fair to say that if the public were more involved in the section process there’s a greater chance they’ll go out and vote for their selected candidate.
What we must do, however, is ensure that party leaders and selected candidates have the support of those the have to work closest with. It’s all too clear to the public the Labour MPs didn’t give their full backing to Ed Milliband and he was elected on the basis of the union vote. How can he lead the Parliamentary opposition when the majority of MPs didn’t want him? Because if that I’d hate to open up voting to those who don’t have an active interest in the Liberal Democrats.
I don’t think it is sensible to further reduce the priviledges of membership. We have to be able to give people at least some benefits of membership.
@Scott Walker
“It’s all too clear to the public the Labour MPs didn’t give their full backing to Ed Milliband and he was elected on the basis of the union vote. How can he lead the Parliamentary opposition when the majority of MPs didn’t want him? Because if that I’d hate to open up voting to those who don’t have an active interest in the Liberal Democrats.”
That’s exactly the reason why people should vote against AV.
Why should a candidate be elected as an MP when potentially they where losing in the first 3 rounds, and then finally winning the seat on the back of another parties vote.
Why should a MP get to represent a constituency that was not the majorities, preferred candidate
Terry: Where it is “coming from” is the news from Labour reported recently in the media. No conspiracy I’m afraid 🙂
This is a silly Milli-gimmick. End of.
Liberal Neil has come fairly close to the nub of it. Are the Liberal Democrats a political party owned and controlled by the members, or merely a supporters’ club that rallies behind Clegg and his acolytes? Allowing non-members to vote in internal party elections/selections would effectively kill party democracy and strengthen immeasurably the party elite.
Let’s start with the facts. It’s not proposed that 50% plus of the public should vote to elect Labour’s party leader — the suggestion is that a proportion of the Electoral College should offer the public the opportunity to express a view. So there is no possibility that opponent’s votes could disproportionately affect the outcome. The details would have to be worked out but in principle I think that it is an excellent idea. After all, MPs are always telling us that they don’t represent their party, they represent their constituents. I would suggest that your party wouldn’t be in the mess it is in over tuition fees if you had taken more account of public opinion. What government is teaching the Liberal Democrats is that while you may be able to face both ways in opposition, you can’t face both ways when you are in power and not become a laughing stock. If you’d consulted the public they might have told you that. If democracy benefits as a consequence, I’m sure that the public will respond warmly to Ed Miliband’s proposals for reforming the voting arrangements for Leader by opening up the electorate to some degree.
You have to ask yourself the value of being a member of the party if you aren’t in control of the selection process and in control of who gets selected. Open primaries do not work. This party has a proud democratic tradition and regulally holds closed primaries. If people want to vote in Liberal Democrat internal elections and have a say who is a Liberal Democrat candidate, then they should join the party. People are free to join the party. What next, do we allow any person to stand as a candidate for the party? The point of party members choosing is because the party membership have to believe in the candidate to campaign for them and believe in them. Otherwise you end up with candadites no one believes and and are un-electable.
No the public should not have a say in internal elections and selection, if they want a say they should join the party.
There is an argument for opening up internal party elections, IF AV was to get through.
if the electorate are expected to rank each Candidate/Party, Then you could argue that they should get a say in who leads each party.
I think I’m right in saying that in the US people register as Democrat or Republican voters. This gives them the right to take part in the Primaries. This would be an idea as although I voted Lib Dem at the last election I have never, and probably will never be a member of a political party. I think for me this is some strange throw back to my service days where membership was not allowed.
As long as people could only register for one party this would stop the majority of problems relating to other parties supporters distorting the vote.
Political parties that forget their voters do not entirely consist of their membership tend to lose their way.
Complete rubbish. An MP who gets 30% of the vote (and hence 70% preferred somebody else) is not the “majorities, [sic] preferred candidate”.
If we get AV, we won’t have to.
We will be able to field multiple candidates without being penalised by our vote being divided.
This could, for example, allow us to field a “left” candidate and a “right” candidate to further encourage Labour and Conservative voters to put one or the other as their second choice, give Lib Dem voters a choice between the two and encourage the public at large to examine our policies.
So, yes, we can allow the public to choose which candidate wins. But not with First Past the Post. If I were asked to choose the Labour, Conservative, UKIP or BNP candidate I’d pick the least charismatic (although in my home constituency that doesn’t seem to stop Iain Duncan Smith…)
@Andrew Suffield
“Complete rubbish. An MP who gets 30% of the vote (and hence 70% preferred somebody else) is not the “majorities, [sic] preferred candidate”
It is not complete rubbish at all.
why should anyone’s second preference be worth more than anyone else’s or indeed the same as anyone else’s first preference.
AV is not fairer than FPTP.
It is not STV or PR
@Steve Way
“I think I’m right in saying that in the US people register as Democrat or Republican voters. This gives them the right to take part in the Primaries.”
I’m pretty sure the former is correct, but I’m also sure it differs from state to state. In some states any voter can vote in any parties primary. See Wikipedia.
AV elects the least unpopular candidate not the most popular. It is an attempt to rig the electoral system so that no-hopers such as the Lib Dems and other fringe parties can sneak in using second hand, half hearted votes and then sneak into coalitions that benefit nobody. It is also a Trojan Horse for the Tories to gerrymander the constituencies with boundary changes that local people can not appeal against. AV should not be touched with a barge-pole. I hope that the Lords throw out this disgracefully undemocratic legislation.
AV is not about electing the least unpopular candidate. A nonentity may be the least unpopular candidate but he will never win under AV because he will be the first to be eliminated.
Equally a candidate who wins just 30% of first preferences has not done enough to be elected an MP. He or she should win more votes than their nearest rival on a head-to-head basis ie 50%. Those who support FPTP just want to cheat the electorate and deny voters a real choice of candidates, like when the Tories used to run Literal Democrat candidates to steal our votes.
I agree that AV is not as good as STV but one needs to remember that AV is the same as STV when there is only one candidate per constituency so it’s a big improvement on the FPTP lottery and the first step to a properly fair system. And we want to avoid the party list or additional members systems which leave the main decisions to parties rather than voters.
I’m always suspicious of so-called supporters who can’t bear to give us any actual help, but I think there might be a case for giving votes to registered voters for some internal elections, if they actually certify that they are supporters and waive data protection rights. Not many of our opponents will do that, and we can hold it against them if they have any ambition and show their true colours in an election.
FPTP has it’s Problems admitted, but AV is in no way fairer, or democratic.
It can never be right where a voters second preference can be worth more than someone else 2nd preference, or indeed first preference.
AV should not be seen as a step towards PR.
IF a system needs changing, then it should be changed FULLY the 1st time round,
We should never change to a lesser alternative that is going to produce even less democratic votes.
Smaller parties (Especially Liberals) need to first accept responsibility and accountability in Government if they want to convince people to vote for AV.
Whilst they are breaking promises and blaming the fact that they did not win a majority is not convincing anybody.
The public needs to see the differences between the Conservatives and the Liberals, When negotiating policies we need to know where the conservatives started negotiations from and where Liberals started, so we can judge the outcome and see if plural politics actually works.
As it stands the coalition is shroud in secrecy and that will also not convince anyone to vote for AV
No.
For me this is about the sovereignty of the party and its ability to lead rather than follow. What is the purpose of a political party? – It is not a machine to get people elected. It has vision, purpose and priorities. Liberal Democrats should be making choices about Liberal Democrats based upon Liberal Democrats values so that we put forward the candidate that best represents what we want to achieve. Then the electorate can choose between our candidate and that of other parties representing what they want to achieve. We have always been a party which is membership based. Unlike the other parties, we exist only because of our members and we have always given them the power. If we put that aside because others who lack that strength are doing so then we throw away a great deal for no obvious reason.
@ Matt
Our party is called the Liberal Democrats, not the Liberals. Oh, and “it’s” is short for “it is”.
If we vote down AV now, we’ll never get a chance to vote on electoral reform again. I hope you realise that. Never again. Ever. So whatever arguments about what would be lovely in an ideal world, the end result of a no vote will be FPTP in perpetuity.
@Robert C
Instead of just arguing that your view is the right view, Why not actually put together a constructive argument on why you say AV is fairer than FPTP.
And Just because AV probably will (and rightly so in my opinion) get voted down, does not mean that another vote can not take place at a later date for STV or PR.
Back to the question as posed. It’s a bad idea to give power to people outside any party to choose office-holders or candidates. The people who choose should be those who subscribe to the party’s general ethos and are prepared to support it in an election, as far as their abilities, time and means allowed . In the Liberal Democrats the individual members (and their elected representatives) are also those who form the party’s policies.
I am old enough to remember the shenanigans that went on 40 or more years ago as Communist elements tried all sorts of things to gain control of trade union branches and local Labour parties. Also how rival factions tried to wrest control of Ulster Unionist branches, leading to circumstances where the courts were having to decide who was the official Ulster Unionist candidate for a Westminster election. Later on there was Militant Tendency seeking to control the Labour party.
The point I am making were that much of this was done by recruiting polarised members to the parties concerned. Think how much easier it would have been, if people could sign up on a one-off basis to influence a party to which they lacked commitment or who were even hostile to its ethos.
@Robert C
And I do not need educating on the English Language thank you
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/its
It;s
1. contraction of it is: It’s starting to rain.
2. contraction of it has: It’s been a long time.
AV does not do this. Each voter has exactly one vote of exactly the same value in each round.
@Andrew Suffield
It can never be right where a voters second preference can be worth more than someone else 2nd preference, or indeed first preference.
AV does not do this. Each voter has exactly one vote of exactly the same value in each round”
Actually it does.
Lets say for Argument sake I rank my preferences as
1) Labour
2) UKIP
3) Independent
4) Conservative
5) Liberal
And another voter Ranks their preference as
1) UKIP
2) Independent
3) Liberal
4) Conservative
5) Labour
After the 1st rounds, nobody is the clear winner, and UKIP goes out with the lowest votes and their share of the vote is redistributed.
The other voters vote then goes on to their 2nd preference the Independent candidate.
After the 2nd round their is still no clear winner and the Independent candidate goes out with the lowest share of the vote, and again it’s votes are redistributed,
The other Voter goes on to their 3rd Preference Liberal Democrat.
After the next round, Labour goes out with the lowest share of the vote.
I can not use my 2nd preference as UKIP has already gone out
I can’t use my 3rd preference as the Independent has gone out
So my vote for Labour, would have to go to my 4th Preference for the Conservative candidate.
Therefore AV is an unfair system as some people’s 2nd preference can be worth more than other’s 2nd preference or indeed 1st.
Primaries don’t fit our political system. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primary no voter can vote in both the Republican and the Democratic presidential primary. In some states you have a free choice of which to vote in, in others you have to register with the state party. In all cases, you have to choose which party’s primary to vote in.
In the UK, parties don’t choose new leaders at the same time, so it’s not possible to have this mutual exclusion from primaries for that position. One could perhaps have primaries for MP selections, but to prevent sabotage by supporters of other parties, all parties would have to co-operate in this matter. That’s harder to achieve given that we don’t have a two-party system.
What nonsense. As your own example shows, your vote was worth exactly one vote in each round, and in each case your highest preference of the remaining candidates was used. That’s exactly the same as everybody else.
@Andrew Suffield
That’s not the point I was making and you know it.
Why should it be fair, that after my preferred candidate gets knocked out in the 3rd round, My vote would then have to go to my 4th Preference on the ballot to be counted in the next round?
That is not fairer than FPTP
matt: Under FPTP, if your preferred candidate gets knocked out, your vote goes nowhere.
The US approach of allowing anyone to vote for who gets a party’s nomination may seem very democratic, but the much higher hurdles for standing for election mean it is very difficult in the US to even get onto the ballot paper without the formal nomination of one of the two main parties. In the UK, anyone may stand. In the US, anyone may decide who stands. My preference is for the former. I agree with the comments of others that primaries don’t fit with the UK political system. To accommodate them, it would be necessary to impose onerous, costly rules on candidate selection processes of political parties that would make it impossible for any but the two main parties to stand candidates.
Also the idea of registering voters by party profoundly disturbs me. Think about it: this implies that a state-run body holds records of the party affiliations of voters.
@Alex Macfie
“matt: Under FPTP, if your preferred candidate gets knocked out, your vote goes nowhere.”
Exactly and that’s the system that i believe is fairer, until STV or PR is introduced.
AV should not be accepted as an alternative, as it does not give fairer votes and results
matt: How is your vote going nowhere fairer than your vote counting towards someone you have voted for? And AV is simply STV with a single winner: it does not make sense to support STV yet prefer FPTP to AV.
@Alex Macfie
It is fairer, because i do not believe that someone who has supported a losing party, should get another chance at backing a winner.
@matt: Under AV *all* voters get “another chance” if there is no clear winner in the first count. It works like a multiple-ballot system in which all the ballots are held at once (hence another name for the system, Instant Run-off Voting). Each “round” of counting is like a run-off ballot, in which the bottom-placed candidate drops out and the voters for the remaining candidates are assumed to vote again for that candidate. This makes sense: why would they change their vote if their preferred candidate is still in the running? Meanwhile voters for the candidate who drops out notionally vote for their next-placed candidates. Everyone gets the same chance to “vote again”.
@Alex Macfie
I understand how AV works, and I do not believe it is a fairer voting system.
Even most people who support PR and STV, do not believe AV is a fairer system, Nick Clegg even called it a miserable little compromise I believe.
I do not believe in having a voting system where a party could influence it’s voters to support another party as their 2nd preference, i.e the current coalition government.
I Believe in 1 Person 1 Vote
AV would lead to more hung parliaments in my opinion, And until Junior parties are prepared to be more accountable in government, then I do not support the change to AV.
@matt: I very much doubt most Lib Dem members would accept a situation where the Lib Dems did a deal over preferences with another party. I know I would not; I would certainly leave the party. And the nature of the party’s voter base (which is roughly evenly divided between the other two parties in terms of second-choice party) means that it would severely backfire on us.