There is a lot not
to like about the new voting system which will be used for the Senedd elections
next year. Whilst most seem to object to the idea of voting for parties rather
than individuals, I tend to see that as little more than validation of what
already happens: people tend to vote for parties not individuals, even if individual
candidates prefer to believe that their ‘personal’ vote is a bigger factor than
it is in practice. I've been there myself. The bigger issue for me is that, effectively, only first
votes count – votes cast for any party which does not win enough votes to gain
a seat are effectively worthless. It is simply not true, as proponents of the
system claim, that it means that ‘every vote counts’. Like many others, I would
prefer a system of STV, which overcomes both of those objections.
As systems go,
however, it’s still better than the one we use for Westminster elections. At
the last election, Labour gained absolute power and almost two-thirds of the seats.
This is described as an overwhelming victory, despite Labour receiving only a
little over one third of the vote. Latest opinion polls (and there’s a lot
which can change in the interim, including a high probability of a Farage-led
implosion) suggest that it’s a trick which might be repeated by Reform Ltd at
the next election. It would, again, be described as a huge victory. Opinion
polls for the Senedd suggest a similar level of performance by Reform Ltd in
terms of votes which, translated into seats, might even make them the largest
party – but they would be a very long way short of a majority. And given that
their only conceivable coalition partner is the Tories, there is a vanishingly
small probability that they will get anywhere near forming a government. Some
have talked about how excluding the ‘winners’ from government is somehow
undemocratic, but the problem is with language not democracy. A party which can
only win around one third of the vote and cannot find one or more coalition
partners to get it up to 50% of the membership of the Senedd hasn’t ‘won’ the
election, even if it has more votes than any other party. The only thing
they’ve ‘won’ is a few seats, the same as any other party represented in the
Senedd. Generations of dealing with a system based on first past the post has
led us to a degree of confusion about what ‘winning’ means, and we need to
recalibrate our language. The ‘winners’ of an election held under a system of proportional representation are those who end up with enough partners close enough in outlook to them to be able to form a government.
There should be a
lesson there for Westminster parties (and most especially Labour) in that first
past the post may well gift absolute power to Farage and Reform Ltd, but a
system of proportional representation would be likely to lead to a very
different outcome. As Polly Toynbee pointed
out in Monday’s Guardian, based on current polling Sir
Starmer has a choice of legacy: he could be the man who reformed the UK’s
electoral system or he could be the man who gifted the UK to Farage. The omens
are not good. Not just because this is not a man who never seems particularly
enamoured with the idea of changing very much at all, but because he also seems
to belong to that strand of thought which has long dominated the Labour Party
which would prefer to exercise absolute power occasionally (leaving the Tories
or even Reform Ltd to hold similarly absolute power the rest of the time) than
share power almost continuously. Choosing between enabling Farage and blocking
him ought to be what is jokingly called a no-brainer, but Sir Starmer seems
likely to make it literally so, by avoiding the engagement of a single neuron
in the process.
No comments:
Post a Comment