Not a party hack

To the best of my memory (I'm a little hazy about my first couple of local elections), since turning eighteen I think that I have voted for (or given first preference to) candidates from at least nine different parties (counting independents as a single party; if counted separately, it may be a higher). I've also now voted in three referenda, all failed.*

I attempted a little while back to summarise briefly where I stand politically.

How many of my votes have I come to regret? Nearly all of them. Voting is such a blunt instrument (even with electoral reform) and I'm more and more tempted towards supporting demarchy.
*The AV referendum has not yet been officially called, but it stands close to zero chance of passing.

UK voters: Yes to AV tomorrow

The primary benefit of AV is that allows voters to give more information about their desires. In particular, since there is no requirement to fill in all preferences, by leaving parties blank that you definitely do not want to see in power, extremists are excluded. Unless a candidate can gain the goodwill of a majority of voters, they will not be elected. It is not a perfect voting system, but it is better than first past the post.

The "No" group have really run a very dirty campaign. Their lies may be taken to court. They have not revealed their sources of funding. They claim that the BNP will be more likely to be elected. Not true: the BNP are the only party officially endorsing the "No" campaign because they know that they will be wiped out in a system that requires any candidate to gain the trust of 50% of voters. They claim that it will be more expensive because voting machines will be needed. Not true: Australia has had AV for eighty years without machines. I have been employed as a returning officer doing the counting. It really is very simple. They say that voters will be confused, which I find quite insulting as it implies that voters don't know how to count to five. Indeed, if anyone really is confused, they can simply put a "1" for their first preference and leave the rest blank, giving them the option of continuing to vote as they always have. They say that AV gives people more than one vote, which is a half-truth. Yet insofar as people get more than one vote, everyone's vote is recounted every time. It is just like having multiple rounds of an elimination election condensed into a single day. The "no" vote have (as far as I am aware) never answered how it is that the method used to elect party leaders (AV) is deficient for the nation as a whole.

The "Yes" campaign are guilty of overselling, as though AV is going to singlehandedly reform UK politics. It won't but it's still an improvement. A "Yes" vote is a vote for a system that lets voters have more say, a system that recognises the UK is no longer a two-party state (35% of voters at the last election voted for someone other than Labour or Conservative), a system that excludes extremists by preventing candidates with strong minority support being elected without majority backing, a system supported by the leaders of the following parties: Labour, Liberal Democrats, Greens, SNP, Plaid Cymru, UKIP. The only leaders who are supporting the "No" vote are the Tories and the BNP.

Vote "yes" tomorrow.

AV: Some historical perspective

Apologies to non-UK voters for picking on this issue a little recenelty. It will be all over by Thursday.

Please explain: Preferential and proportional voting

One of the criticisms made against proportional voting is that it makes it easier for extremists to gain a seat in parliament since a successful candidate only needs to secure a relatively small percentage of the vote. Indeed, it had been looking like Pauline Hanson, the extremist Australians most love to hate, was going to get a seat in the NSW Upper House after the recent election.

However, it was not to be, because proportional voting in Australian Upper House elections is combined with preferential voting, and so even though Hanson won more primary votes than the two other candidates with whom she was competing for the final two seats, on preferences, they both overtook her.

Preferential voting prevents extremist candidates from winning in races where multiple candidates split the vote, since it allows voters the chance to indicate who is their last preference, as well as their first. UK voters, vote "yes" to electoral reform on 11th May.

Electoral reform irony

The UK faces a referendum on 11th May over whether to switch from a voting system in which you can select one and only one candidate (known as First Past the Post, or FPTP) to one in which you can express all your preferences in numerical order (switching to something much closer to the Australian system for electing MPs, and which is known as Alternative Vote or AV).

Some critics of first past the post want to see a more radical change to a proportional system (closer to elections for the Australian Senate), or a mixed system, with some proportional and some preferential by constituency.

Those in this latter camp, who think that the proposed reforms do not go far enough, are split in what to do. If they vote for electoral reform and it goes through, then perhaps the politicians will feel that they have "done" electoral reform and the chances of a proportional or semi-proportional system will recede into the background for another decade or more. Others think that at least preferential is better than the current system and they should take what they can get.

The irony is that if the referendum were to be held with a preferential vote on different options, the supporters of proportional representation would largely swing behind the more limited preferential reform as at least better than the current system. As it is, they are placed in the very situation that First Past the Post fails to account for and have to decide whether to vote tactically for their second preference or vote "no" in protest.

A similar thing happened in the 1999 Australian republic referendum, where opinion polls indicated a majority of voters wanted a republic, but disagreements over the specifics of the proposed model led to a split in the republican vote and the motion being defeated in every state. However, the current example has the added irony of being precisely a vote about how to reform voting, which might well lose due to the very factors that give rise to a desire for reform.

And, speaking of electoral reform, Jeremy reminds of the other electoral reform debate, which gets even less public attention.

If you've forgotten why voting "Yes" to electoral reform is important, see these seven reasons. I think that supporters of the new system frequently oversell their case, but it is still true that AV is a noticeably better system overall than FPTP.

Hung parliament: not so bad?

Random thoughts on the Australian federal election result

"This is clearly the closest election result we've seen in Australian history."

- Antony Green, ABC's election analyst during an interview on Lateline.

I am not entirely disappointed with a hung parliament in Australia after Saturday's election. At the very least, it means that neither side can claim victory. They both lost. There was indeed a swing against the ALP (-5.4%) and towards the Coalition (+1.9%), but elections are not won on swings. And indeed, if they were, then the Greens received a much larger positive swing (+3.7%). One significant factor in this was likely to be disgruntled ALP supporters registering their disapproval of the Rudd/Gillard failure of nerve on climate. It may have also been punishment for Gillard's move to the the right on asylum seekers, but Rudd's popularity started its precipitous decline when he announced the shelving of his carbon trading scheme.

In the Senate, before below the line and postal votes are counted (and below the line postal votes, like mine!), it looks like both major parties faced negative swings (Coalition -1.3%; ALP -4.6%) while the Greens are highly likely to have secured balance of power (+3.9%) and the most Senate seats of a minor party in Australian history. The DLP may have followed Family First's success in 2007 by gaining a Victorian seat with only 2.23% of the primary vote.

Earlier this year in the UK election, when it became clear that the parliament was going to be hung, there was a lot of misinformation peddled by politicians, pundits and certain sections of the media about what it was going to mean. Due to a busy weekend, I haven't been following enough Australian media to know if a similar pattern has been emerging there. So to clarify some issues that were muddied here and may be there, by constitutional convention, Gillard remains caretaker PM until the result becomes clear, the incumbent PM has first right to form a coalition or minority government, and there is no necessity for either side to have a formal coalition to govern. Having more seats (yet not a majority), having more primary votes, having more two party preferred votes: none of these are really relevant in determining who forms government (except insofar as they can be spun to provide some kind of moral weight).

That a hung parliament doesn't necessarily mean instability can be seen from a wide range of nations who regularly manage to get along with one. That they have been rare in the UK and Australia has led to a little hysteria (from what I've seen, not quite as much in Oz as there was here a few months back) about the dangers of no party having a majority. However, it ought to be remembered that neither the ALP nor the Coalition (!) are really a single party (the internal divisions within the ALP are famous, and were on display in paradoxical ways with the recent leadership spill) and so Australia has never really had a majority government. We've pretty much always had to get along with a cobbled together kind of political power, and that's not all bad. Yes, this might be a little more pronounced than usual, but I think that it could turn out to be healthy if it means some negotiations and compromises, with each issue needing to be argued on its merits and weighed against other priorities. That's how the system works. As long as one side can guarantee a majority who will pledge to avoid frivolous votes of no confidence and won't block supply, then a minority government is quite feasible.

To get there, both sides are now wooing the support of the three independents (Tony Windsor, Rob Oakeshott and Bob Katter) who have pledged to work as a bloc. Although they are all former National Party members, it has quickly become obvious that they can not simply be assumed to belong naturally to the Coalition. They have affirmed their desire to (a) stay independent, avoiding a formal coalition and (b) provide enough stability for a full three year term, enabling one or other side to form a minority government with some stability. I found this quote from Oakeshott interesting. Along with a single Greens member, there is likely to be a fourth independent, Andrew Wilke, a former Greens member, who was also a whistle-blowing intelligence analyst under the Howard government.

In addition to these five, it is also important to note (and few media outlets seem to have mentioned it) that the sprawling WA electorate of O'Connor (which covers a greater area that NSW), saw not simply a surprise defeat by the outspoken and controversial Liberal veteran Wilson Tuckey, but a victory by a member of the National Party of WA, who are affiliated with the national National Party, but maintain a distinct party structure from them. In particular, they do not recognise a formal Coalition with the Liberal Party and so just as the Greens member is likely to side with Labor yet not enter a formal coalition, so Tony Crook of O'Connor is likely to side with the Coalition, but not be a formal member for the Coalition. There is no love lost in WA between the Nationals and the Coalition and Crook has indicated he is willing to negotiate with the ALP.

Speaking of the National Party (and for a moment lumping the WA Nationals in with the rest), that they can gain seven seats with 3.87% of the national vote, while the Greens gained just one lower house seat with 11.39% does make one wonder about the relative merits of arguments for proportional representation. Of course, Australia already has PR in the Senate and so the Greens' balance of power there is an indication of their current popularity. Whether it is a short term punishment of the ALP or indicative of longer term trends towards a greater consciousness of ecological issues remains to be seen.

Whatever happens, despite (or perhaps because of) a deeply disappointing and cynical campaign in which both major parties ran very negative campaigns almost entirely devoid of any global or long term vision, Australian politics just got more interesting.

UK Electoral Reform: a letter to our MP

I have been corresponding with Ian Murray, our local MP here in Edinburgh South, about electoral reform in the UK (amongst other issues), not because electoral reform is the most important or pressing issue facing the UK, but because it is one where improvement seems possible for relatively little effort. I thought I would post my latest message. It is not brilliant or groundbreaking, but I've been thinking about posting more of my letters to politicians as I think seeing examples is a good way of being encouraged to pick up pen or pixels for yourself.

Dear Mr Murray,

Thank you for taking the time to answer my correspondence when I realise you have received many similar messages recently. Thank you also for your reassurances about your opposition to a threshold cap on the referendum.

I agree that the issue is hugely complicated, but believe that there are a number of positive examples around the world of nations that have a better (though still imperfect) system than FPTP. Every system has its drawbacks, but I think that those involved in FPTP are large enough to justify a thorough review and referendum.

I am a little concerned that you think a result which would have led to a different outcome in 27 seats is only "minor". Although it may not have kept Labour in government, such a change would be a significant step forward in its own right.

I share your concern about both the moving goalposts of a vote of no confidence and the potential gerrymandering of electoral boundaries in any attempt to "fix" parliament. As an Australian citizen, I would warmly recommend that the UK investigate Australia's AEC (Australian Electoral Commission) as a moderately successful example of an independent body overseeing electoral redistribution and the entire electoral process. I am not familiar enough with the UK system (though my knowledge is rapidly growing) to know how well the local equivalent functions, but any concern that changes could be politically motivated would be at least partially answered if they came from a body that was genuinely independent in both perception and reality.

I have noted the concern expressed about the ballot being held on the same day as the other elections, however, don't particularly feel the weight of this objection. It seems to save money through only requiring a single electoral event. The idea that English voters are disadvantaged can only be upheld if one grants that they are not concerned enough to go to the polls for something other than an election. First, if that is the case, then we really are in a dangerous position of political apathy. Second, if it is the case, then why would a different polling date increase English participation? If they are in danger of missing out, it is not because Scotland and Wales are holding an election, but due to their own apathy. As for diluting the Scottish and Welsh elections, again, perhaps I have a higher view of the ability of the average voter to hold more than a single idea in their head at the same time. Perhaps I have missed something, but that particular issue feels like a storm in a tea cup to me.

Thanks again for your time and thoughtfulness and for all the work you do on our behalf. May God give you wisdom as you seek justice in this land.

Grace & peace,
Byron Smith

Cleese on Electoral Reform

Made in 1987, but still largely relevant.

There is of course much being written about the newly announced Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition. Here is one piece of insightful commentary for those interested.

Presidents vs Parliaments and electoral reform

Brief reflections on the aftermath of the UK general election
The UK general election took some interesting twists last night. It was really a loss for every party, except perhaps the Greens (who gained their first ever seat) and the BNP (who tripled their vote share). The Conservatives received the most seats (306 of 649), but fell short of the outright majority they seemed so certain to achieve a few months ago. There was a significant swing against Labour, but it was not uniform or strong enough for a clear result, leaving them with 258 members. Despite slightly increasing their share of the popular vote, the Liberal Democrats lost seats and ended with 57. The Conservatives now claim the moral right to form government, having claimed the most seats and the highest proportion of the popular vote (36%), but Labour has the constitutional right as incumbent to try to make arrangements for a coalition government, and a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition can claim over 50% of the popular vote, despite also falling short of a majority needed to govern without challenge.

I am sure that the debates and negotiations will continue over the next hours and days. Will the Conservatives reach an agreement with the Lib Dems and form a minority government? Will Labour be able to cobble together a coalition with the Lib Dems to stay in power? Will the UK see another election before too long? Only time will tell. But the election does highlight some interesting aspects of the electoral system here.

The UK has a parliamentary, rather than a presidential system, which means that the PM is ultimately selected by the parliament rather than the people. The immediate object of any election under such a system is not to pick a new prime minister, but a new parliament, one of whose tasks is to find a party or coalition of parties whose leader can gain the support of, or at least not be actively opposed by, a majority of the parliament. This means that the negotiations currently underway are themselves an important part of the system. There is no need to assume that a hung parliament is itself a crisis of some kind. Many countries have been successfully governed by minority parties or by multi-party coalitions. There is nothing necessarily superior about a two party system.

However, the real problem that this election has again highlighted is with the first past the post voting system, which disconnects vote share from seats. One party with 36% of the popular vote can gain 47% of the seats while another with 23% ends up with less than 9%. The 2005 election was little different, with Labour gaining a huge majority of seats from under 40% of the popular votes.

And so, as I said in my previous post, there are other pressing issues for the UK, but this period of uncertainty brings with it an opportunity for electoral reform. Here is a new campaign from an interesting alliance of 18 organisations - including dedicated reform groups as well as Christian and major environmental organisations. They are calling for "a Citizens Convention to be convened to decide on a new voting system to be put to the people in a referendum."

As always, it easier to be in opposition, where criticism can outstrip constructive efforts. Will this disparate coalition find sufficient common ground to put forward a workable alternative to the current flawed model? That too, remains to be seen.

UPDATE: For those who believe that reform still matters, even if there is no perfect system, apart from the petition mentioned above, you can also sign one here

UK General Election 2010

Today the UK goes to the polls to elect a new House of Commons. I would love to hear your thoughts and opinions. I am very interested in this election for at least five reasons:

• As Commonwealth citizens resident in the UK, we get to vote. As far as I can tell, this is one of the few remaining legal privileges of the echos of Empire. For instance, many people assume that my daughter automatically gets a UK passport, since she was born here, but that is no longer the case. We would have to be residents for five years before she could apply for one. In any case, this could turn out to be my only chance to vote in a national election outside Australia (unless either the new government or my PhD goes really pear-shaped).

• For the first time, I will witness a genuinely three-cornered race. In case, you haven't been following it, the Labour government under Gordon Brown has slipped into third place behind not only their traditional rivals in the Conservative Party (led by David Cameron) but also behind the previously-minor Liberal Democrat Party, led by Nick Clegg (though within the last 24 hours, it looks like Labour has moved back into second place). For the first time in the UK, this campaign period included televised debates between the three leaders and following the first debate, Clegg's popularity soared. While it is unlikely that the Lib Dems will form government, there is a strong chance of a hung parliament and a governing coalition with Labour. I don't think they have ruled out forming a coalition with the Conservatives, but I get the impression this is less likely. There has been a lot of fear-mongering in the media about the weakness of coalition government, but much of my life has been under a very strong coalition national government in Australia, and that is not particularly unusual.

• Our electorate, South Edinburgh, is one of the most marginal in the country, being held by Labour in 2005 by about 400 votes over the Liberal Democrats. Although the electoral boundaries have a shifted a little since then, it remains a close seat. In a feat of bodily contortion, the sitting Labour member is standing down.

• Speaking of members standing down, this election will have the largest number of retiring incumbents since the 1945 post-war election (where there had been no election for ten years due to the war). Of the 650 MPs, almost 150 will not be standing again. This is largely due to the MPs' expenses scandal that has seen public trust in politicians sink to new lows. Incidentally, the outrage over what MP behaviour has also led to a reduction in MPs' retirement package, effective from after this election. This has nothing to do with the number standing down, of course.

• There are many important issues at stake, including electoral reform of the somewhat hopeless first past the post system. This is not the most important issue of the day, but it may well be front and centre after the election since the Liberal Democrats have indicated that it will be a non-negotiable condition of forming a coalition. Reform is patently in their interests, since in 2005 they won 22% of the popular vote, but gained less than 10% of seats. It is opposed by Labour, who gained almost 55% of seats with just over 35% of the popular vote.

I would say more about other issues separating the major parties (taxation, debt, energy, climate, health, education, foreign policy and so on), but want to get this post up before the election is already over. I am still making my final decision before I cast my vote this evening.