Is proportional representation a justice issue?

Last week Bishop Martyn Jarrett argued in the Church Times that PR is a better way to elect a parliament. This week there is some pushback, first from Peter Ould:

It is an entirely subjective argument that says that forms of proportional representation (PR) are more just than plurality voting... You may think PR is more "just"; I just don't see it. Is proportional representation a justice issue, as Bishop Jarrett argues?.

I think that his dismissal is a little disingenuous. I think that it must surely be fairly clear that there is an injustice -let's call it a lack of fairness- at the level of a parliament not to represent votes more fairly than FPP regularly and necessarily does in a national multi-party scene. I do find it difficult to believe that he cannot discern some prima facie injustice/unfairness in the way that the 2015 General Election distributed seats in parliament in relation to national vote shares. To admit the discrepancy and to recognise it as having failure-to-represent effects is not necessarily to take stand either way on the advisability of one system or the other. It would merely be to admit that there are occasions in human affairs when claims of justice have to be weighed and may, to degrees, conflict.

A bit later in his letter, Mr Ould alleges that PR fails to offer direct accountability via MPs in constitutencies and thereby is less just:

Start moving to the single transferable vote, and you water down that direct connection. If you have straight national PR, then you lose that local accountability altogether. For some, this notion of local accountability is a factor that makes first-past-the-post far more just than PR systems.

In passing, I note that by writing 'more just', he accepts a degree of justice for PR. So I take it that his 'just not getting it' is a relative (and rhetorical) rather than an absolute point. and that we are weighing up two claims for relatively just outcomes.

More seriously, he is ignoring the Electoral Reform Sociey's preferred option of multimember constituencies (probably 4 or 5members in each constituency in Britain) which it is being suggested is the way that STV be operated. It is suggested precisely because it retains that local accountability prized by Mr Ould. Obvisouly this point considerably weakens the relative case for greater justice of the FPP system as put forward by him.

I read his letter to make a case that FPP is more just because it delivers local accountability whilst evading the force of the the argument for the fairness PR by not engaging with the national proportionality issue. However the local accountability issue can be addressed in the way that the ERS suggests while delivering results that are far more fair to a multiple of parties at a national level.

I'd have to say though that there is a further issue of principle involved which I believe undermines further the defence of FPP as made by Mr Ould. It is that the representative system as he portrays it, really only makes relatively good sense on the basis that the representation remains by persons rather than parties. I say this because the issue of justice or fairness arises here in relation to representation of parties at a national level. A government is formed from people elected to a national body -parliament-  whose commonality is their party political bond and manifesto. Therefore, at a national level, we should expect a relatively fair ('just') representation according to representatives' allegiance to party manifestos. That is the basis for the justice of the idea that a national parliament should represent reasonably well the spread of opinion in the nation as a whole.

If he wants to make the personal representation idea primary, then candidates for parliament should not be identified as belonging to political parties in elections and whip systems and other partisan behaviour in parliament should be outlawed. But as soon as you introduce party political allegiances then you weaken the personal accountability idea at a local level and scale up representation towards a view of ideas or manifestos being represented in national policy. The party 'brand' links to the national direction of political effort.
Furthermore, when we have more than two parties contending elections for national levels of government, then we have already begun to erode the personal accountability argument in favour of a 'brand' being franchised in local constituencies where the accountability goes also to a party discipline and personal favours, deals etc.

Since, at a national level, we have, in practice, parties forming governments, then proper acknowledgement of party politics should be taken into account in the voting system.

We should note that this party political branding of allegedly personal candidature already produces the manifest injustices of so-called safe seats in which elected members can, and sometimes do, take their personal accountability somewhat lightly since they know that the few hundred voters who may be dissatisfied with their less than properly accountable-to-constituents efforts in office will only tip the balance against them once in a blue moon (like an SNP resurgence in Scotland several generations and some very particular contextual happenstances in the making). And that is before we consider the arrogance of MPs towards constituents who don't appear to share their views, and the safer their seats the greater the temptation and more frequent the falls.
So if it's accountability that is desired and FPP remains the system, then finding a mechanism to 'unsafe' MPs seats and to unbrand their politics is what's wanted. But if we're making those kinds of reforms, we should note that STV in multi-member constituencies goes some considerable way to addressing the 'safe-seats' issue, diminishes the deleterious national effects of party branding by allowing plurality of views to be more fully represented (and indeed allows for independent candidates) and would help raise the game of lazy constituency MPs who would find themselves being outshone by more diligent colleagues and perhaps by PPC's in their own or other parties.

I'd have to say that it is not entirely subjective to say the PR might be better that FPP. We would have to agree of critera for judgment. But te decry the arguments as subjective as if that made them doubtful would be to fail to note his own arguments as putting another subjective point of view. In fact, both are offering reasons designed to appeal to senses of what 'ought to be' and these are rooted in something pretty close to objectivity in their appeals to fairness and to accountability. The question is what way does the best as far as we can tell according to criteria of fairness and accountability. This does not rule out a claim being made that one system is more just than another, provided we understand in what way justice is being defined.

As a codicil, I found another letter interesting from a Michael Cavaghan-Pack.

Proportional representation, for which Bishop Martyn Jarrett makes an impassioned plea, was rejected in the 2011 referendum by 67.9 per cent to 32.1 per cent.

While it is true there was a referendum on the voting system for elections of MPs to Parliament, it was not about proportional representation. Rather it was for the Alternative Vote which can sometimes deliver more proportional effects at a national level, but sometimes can deliver even less proportional effects. As such it can't really be said that we've had a referendum on PR. And in any case we should note the political context and have to ask how far it was actually being used by the electorate as a way to register dissatisfaction with the coalition government and the LibDems in particular. The irony being that AV was in the manifesto of Labour party and not the LibDems, presumably being accepted by the LibDems as about as much concession as they could get from the Conservatives which went a little way to their preference for STV.

And in any case, is there a set time between referenda on what might be judged the same or similar-enough topics? I think the simple answer is 'no'. But as this would be a different thing again, it doesn't apply in any case.

Voting in elections is stressful

Followers of this blog (and incidentally, apologies for a long gap -I've been moving house) will know of my interest in Electoral Reform. And so it won't surprise you to learn that this piqued my curiosity.
Voting in elections is stressful -- emotionally and physiologically:

A new study, conducted by scholars from the University of Haifa and Ben-Gurion University in Israel, has found that the level of cortisol -- a hormone released when a person is under pressure and helps the body cope with threats -- in individuals immediately prior to casting a vote was significantly higher than in the same individuals in similar non-voting conditions.

There are two things I want to say in response to this. And they're just initial thoughts; this is a 'watch this space' sort of thing. The first thing is that this was conducted in Israel. The question (perhaps naturally) is whether this would replicate in other societies, and under other electoral systems. My suspicion is that conditions in Israel might mean that the results are an unusually high stress response. And what's more is that this could be because of one or both of the fact of the kind of stakes involved in Israeli politics, and/or the very wide multi-party choice and the electoral system. Might it be less stressful to vote in France, or the USA or New Zealand, or the Czech republic or Bolivia?
So more studies in a variety of cultural settings supplemented, I think, by more qualitative studies in the perceptions of voters (and perhaps non-voters as a control?). Stress is at least partly due to the way that the stressed frame things, so examination of those frames would be important.

The other thing that could be interesting therefore, is whether there are voting systems that are less stressful for voters and whether that correlates with voter participation. I suspect that systems that involve less tactical voting may fare better, but I'm not sure whether the Israeli case tends to confirm or discount that.

Intelligent ‘mulling’ of floating voters points to PR?

Worth pondering at this time: RSA The intelligent ‘mulling’ of floating voters : Social Brain: "I think it unlikely all floating voters are ‘irrational’. I think rather that many of them are ‘mulling’ over what is a very complicated choice: there are policy trade-offs, tactical-voting trade-offs and personality/character trade-offs. Not to mention trade-offs between these three sets of issues, as well as trade-offs around how long a party has been in power and whether this is healthy from a governance point of view.
In other words, voting is bloody complicated if you are not ideologically aligned. Waiting and mulling is a way of letting your automatic brain whir through all the possibilities and permutations below the surface of consciousness. The ‘hunch’ a floating voter may end up with as a result of this process can be a highly nuanced and intelligent decision. It’s just that the decision wasn’t a consciously controlled one. So what?"
I see this as a potential argument for a more proportional system. What we have in FPTP increasing the trade-offs needing to be considered because it effectively reduces the choice to two candidates. With only two choices (and this is the dynamic of the infamous 'two-party squeeze') then the likelihood is that each candidate is going to be a rich mix of the various concerns a voter may have; rarely will a candidate have a critical mass of a good majority of all the considerations and policies that a voter will want in a representive.

This relates to voting reform in this way: by making the system more effectively pluralist it is easier for a voter to find a candidate who has a critical mass of policy and characteristics whom they would feel more comfortable representing them in parliament AND, crucially, would feel would have some chance of actually representing them.How Should We Vote?: Democracy and Voting Reform in the UK (Democratic Audit Paper)

Vote for a Change -Your Story

MPs lack of accountability has led directly to the expenses crisis. How can we have any trust in them when most of them aren't elected by a majority of their constituents? It's time to work together to kick out our antiquated electoral system and replace it with one that's fit for purpose.

I've just joined a campaign that's putting pressure on shamed MPs to agree to add a referendum on changing the voting system at the General Election next year.

It only took two minutes to join. Why don't you have a look at what they're doing and sign up now?

Vote for a Change | Your Story

Here's mine:
I don't think I've ever voted for my MP although I have voted in every general election. Frankly, if it wasn't for a sense of duty, of inheriting a tradition that could so easily be taken away (I'm talking about democracy) of being a class of person that wouldn't in many previous ages have got a vote, I'd have given up. I well understand, I think, why many just give up; they can't sense that 'they' have any affinity, that 'they' are in it for the benefits and in any case, nothing we do can make much difference: whoever we vote for the government gets in on an alternating elective dictatorship basis. That's demotivating; and only my sense of 'duty' keeps me at this voting thing.

It has always seemed to me, since the mid-1970's when I first became interested in politics, that we have about the worst variety of democracy it is possible to have. The government is always elected by a minority and those who are less happy with the main alternatives rarely get a sense of being represented; and worse are under-represented to boot.

I want a shot at an MP who I either voted for directly or at least who I indicated was a second or perhaps third choice. I don't want to feel I have to vote tactically to get preferences registered. I want my MP to feel that if they don't do a good enough job of listening to 'us' there is a realistic chance they'll be ousted and that their local party won't be the only power they have to keep onside in the constituency.

In short, I want a system that is more proportional, more responsive and gives us a better sense that our ideas and opinions will be registered and could make a difference.

Which voting system is best?

The answer to this is that there is no clear winner for the title of 'best', it depends on the criteria you think most important; so part of the argument is what constitutes a good balance of advantages and downsides. However, as to what are the upsides and disadvantages, well you could do worse than to look at the front running options here with a fair-looking set of assessments. LabourList poll: Which voting system is best? | LabourList.org

We shall see ....

Report here: Labour plans election day poll on new ways of voting | Politics | The Observer seems to indicate a good thing; "plans are being considered to hold a referendum on general election ... called Alternative Vote (AV) ... Government insiders say the plan would be a step towards fairer voting. But they also believe it has tactical attractions as it would force Cameron, a staunch supporter of first-past-the-post, to campaign actively against change and for a 'no' vote ahead of an election. ... 'It has the added attraction that if the Tories won power and the answer in the referendum was 'yes', the first act of a Cameron government would be to do something he was fundamentally opposed to, or overturn the will of the people.'"
It's a shame that it would come about for 'mere' political embarrassment, but it could be a step in the right direction. Of course, Cameron could decide that the logic of his position on reform could push in a still more radical direction and he could outflank by saying 'yes' and press for multi-member constituencies ...

The perfect storm for the BNP?

Alan Billings in last week's Church Times draws attention to a really excellent set of 'put downs' to some of the BNP's policies. It may not be viewable for a couple of weeks here: Church Times - The perfect storm for the BNP. Anyway here's the bit that I really enjoyed "in my local newspaper, the Sheffield Star, last week. Alison Gethin wrote a letter setting out her reasons for not voting BNP. Here are a few:

“Vote to have Lenny Henry reclassified as a foreign national? You must be joking, he’s a Brummie. . . Why should I vote to lose Olympic medals by reclassifying Dame Kelly Holmes, Colin Jackson, Amir Khan, Linford Christie etc? . . In 2004 I was diagnosed with cancer, and thanks to the expert treatment in the NHS by medical staff of various ethnic groups, I’m still here. . .

“All my working life I have been a member of a trade union. The BNP would abolish unions. . . I have no wish to return to a time when adult homosexuality was illegal. I admire John Barrowman and Graham Norton too much to vote BNP. . . When I was married in 1972, I needed my husband’s permission to buy anything on hire purchase. I won’t vote for the BNP because of their outdated views on women’s rights. . .

“As a Christian, I know how careful the churches are to stay out of politics. Now churches are asking their congregations to vote for any party other than BNP. They know that the views of the BNP are not Christian, whatever their leaflets say.”"

What I wasn't quite so keen on was this "The centre of this perfect storm is the European electoral system. Unlike British General Elections and elec­tions to local councils, the European election will be decided by propor­tional repres­enta­tion. PR enables smaller parties to capture seats with tiny fractions of the overall votes cast. In some regions, the BNP could achieve victory on the basis of perhaps a single-figure percentage. Then a seat in Brussels will bring a platform and funds for further advance."
To get a handle on why I wasn't happy about this, well, here's my letter to the CT:

Sir,
it was good to see a really robust and helpful approach to the BNP spelled out by Alan billings. It's such a shame that in doing so he mistakes one of his targets and seems to be trying to dissuade the reader from one of the things that could actually help. He writes; "PR enables smaller parties to capture seats with tiny fractions of the overall votes cast. In some regions, the BNP could achieve victory on the basis of perhaps a single-figure percentage."

There are a number of problems with this apparent dismissal of PR. The most serious, in my view, is that it could be read to imply that we should avoid democratic processes if they produce results we don't like; that it's okay to have governments elected by minorities as long as they are 'our' minority. I trust that isn't what is being said, but that apparent principle lurking by implication is worrying. It is also misleading when considering the Padiham and Burnley West County Council where 31% of the voters managed to elect to the sole seat a BNP candidate: first past the post will do that when the tiny minority is actually not quite so tiny (and in fact, with enough of a split vote, fptp could also deliver a single-percentage-figure elected candidate). By contrast I can think of no PR system which would allow 'victory' on a single-figure percentage. Representation conceivably (though unlikely in EU elections under the current system), but then that would mean far more representation for people and parties who have gained the rest of the vote -who would then, I hope, soundly defeat the BNP in debates and show them up for what they are.

There are further difficulties with Alan's implication. He doesn't seem to take into account that there are several versions of PR and a number of them don't work quite like he makes out: 'tiny fractions' are unlikely to win much under most PR systems including the ones being used in Britain; please have a look at the experience of the Welsh assembly and the Scottish parliament.

We should note that we have a situation in the EU constituencies where the vast majority of voters are represented by someone they voted for which is not something that could be said of Westminster constituencies. That said, the closed list system probably isn't the one to go with. STV or at least the AV system (which seems the likely candidate should things go to a referendum) would be better for Westminster elections. Especially so when we consider that it would appear that the MPs who have given greatest concern in recent events are those with 'safe' majorities. Appropriate PR systems would make 'safe seats' far less safe thus concentrating minds on voters more fully than on fellow politicians. It is also arguable that the main parties' acquiescence in the safe seat effect means that they target 'winnable' seats and so have recreated a version of 'rotten boroughs' where most of us don't have a vote that means anything. Such a situation creates the apathy, disengagement and sometimes anger that parties such as the BNP can exploit.

If we want to diminish and dilute the influence of the likes of the BNP we need a more democratic system not less. An appropriate PR system is part of the solution not a further potential problem.

For further information I refer you here.

Counting votes and making them countt

This is a rip-roaring article on STV-PR from the experience of many years of using it. I particularly found this paragraph resonant having lived in a number of areas where the kind of invidious choice mentioned has indeed been my experience.My vote will really count this week: but then I'm lucky enough to have PR | Politics | The Observer: "Unlike voters in marginal constituencies in Britain, I won't have been given the unpalatable choice of either supporting my least-worst candidate or in effect wasting my vote. Unlike many people in Britain, who can spend their entire lives without ever casting a vote that actually helps to elect someone, I can vote for someone who represents my own minority views, knowing that if she or he doesn't get elected, my vote will be transferred to my second choice, and so on down the line. If the election is really tight, my choice between the ineffectual eejit who got my ninth preference and the obnoxious git who got my tenth could be decisive. PR gives me a Duracell-bunny vote, one that keeps on working long after the first-past-the-post model has given up the ghost."
And then, joy of joys, a point I have often made but until now not seen in print from any other keyboard:

According to Blunkett, however, PR encourages political parties to "horse-trade" and "engage in dodgy stitch-ups". Which is fair enough: British voters presumably feel that horse-trading and dodgy stitch-ups are alien to the Westminster system and that Britain is currently blessed with a government of incomparable strength and ineffable decisiveness. To an outsider, though, it looks rather as if what happens is that the factional deals and carve-ups simply happen within the governing party.

The difference with PR is not that deals don't get done by politicians after elections, but that they're negotiated relatively openly. Each party comes to the table with its manifesto commitments and a number of parliamentary seats that is close to its actual share of the vote. Is there horse-trading and compromise? Are there outcomes that voters didn't quite expect? Sure - just as there are in a first-past-the-post system. The implication that, in the Westminster system, voters control what happens after the election is laughable. Remind me - how many people voted for Gordon Brown as prime minister?

Read the whole thing for further helpful reflections on allegations of relative stability of governments. And given the current British concern for accountability of MPs, this supposed downside of the Irish system seemed quite refreshing: "Sometimes, though, politicians end up competing against members of their own party, leading to an emphasis on constituency work over parliamentary business"; would that many constituencies here had that problem: politicians 'fighting' to serve the people that elected them. That actually sounds like a strong argument in favour of the Irish system or -come to think of it- perhaps the Scottish.