Categories: Andrew Coyne, Capital Read

Will the last country on earth to use first-past-the-post please turn out the lights?

by Andrew Coyne on Tuesday, February 2, 2010 9:20am - 101 Comments

British PM plans to ditch first-past-the-post

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has announced he will seek parliamentary approval for a referendum to ditch the first-past-the-post voting system for Westminster elections.

Mr Brown said that the switch to the Alternative Vote system could be part of a “new politics” which would restore public trust in Westminster in the wake of last year’s expenses scandal.

In a wide-ranging package of planned reforms, he also confirmed that a draft Bill to create a democratically accountable House of Lords will be published within the next few weeks.

And he gave his backing to parliamentary reforms to give MPs more power over the running of the Commons, new avenues for public petitions to be submitted for debate in the House and the swifter release of official documents under Freedom of Information laws…

It is thought that the Commons will vote on the issue before it rises for its half-term break next Wednesday, and Mr Brown’s spokesman this morning insisted that enough parliamentary time remains for it to reach the statute book ahead of the election, which must take place by June 3.

Mr Brown confirmed that he will campaign for a move to AV – under which voters rank candidates in numerical order, rather than simply placing an X on the ballot paper – in the referendum, which he said should be held by October 2011.

So that’s reform of the upper house, more power for MPs, and electoral reform, in one go. Must be nice to live in a country that can, you know, do things.

Tags: , , ,
Bookmark and Share
← Older Comments
  • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

    Anything is possible when it comes to politicians trying to feather their own beds.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

    Gordon Brown also wants to lower the voting age to 16:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politi…

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

      Gee, I wonder why?

      http://www.angusreidstrategies.com/uploads/pages/…

      Age
      18-34 35-54 55+
      Conservative 35% 38% 45%
      Labour 25% 24% 21%

      http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/Polit…

      Conservative Lead over Labour by age
      18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 75+
      8% -17% -2% 3% -2% 30% 33%

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

        That could certainly explain it!

        • Brian

          Wow, he really IS desperate!

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/andrewcoyne Andrew Coyne

      ACK! Pfft! Pfui!!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/ChrisInKW ChrisInKW

    Not relying on him as much as recognizing that he's the only 'ideas person' that has a chance of forming government. It should be noted that Ignatieff supported OMOV and has seen through the modernizing of an institution as old as Confederation itself. Further, it's a Liberal strength to show up and listen to Canadians, respect alternative points of view, make compromise, protect the most vulnerable and give a vision. Democratic reform is definitely one of those vision things that will test all of these strengths.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

      I'm sorry. I thought there was a chance that you weren't a kumbayah Liberal. My bad.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/ChrisInKW ChrisInKW

        I'm definitely a Liberal that believes in human and spiritual unity, closeness and compassion, thank you for bringing the fact to light. In all seriousness, can anyone objectively envision Harper's government bringing forward such ideas? And if not Harper, the pragmatist in me says "look to Iggy." I hope he steps up.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

          In fact, he has an idea for Senate Reform and he's actually tried to pass it. It's been Liberals who have opposed it at every turn, and only now promise to offer "me too" changes. And I emphasize the word "promise".

          I don't know what you look at. I try to look at what's actually happened.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/ChrisInKW ChrisInKW

            Of course Harper gets points for trying for making an attempt to unilaterally impose his reform plans. Also many points for promising to do things differently. Conversely, he loses points for the unilateral part and the failure part. Also for the broken promises part. And I emphasize the word "broken".

            I like to look at the future as well as the past. From this, I can state with some certainty that Harper does not possess nor is willing to learn the skills of compromise and conciliation necessary for such sweeping constitutional changes. Iggy just might.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

            Like I said, you're obviously a kumbayah Liberal. You look to them to answer all your hopes and dreams, and they get answered no matter what they do. Got it.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/ChrisInKW ChrisInKW

            Oh, I see you meant that as a derogatory. Now I'm the one feeling sheepish for giving you the benefit of the doubt. Having long criticized my party and continuing to do so, I'm hardly the cheer leader you characterize me as. Given that the Libs finally seem to be giving heed to voices like mine in the grass roots, I am hopeful they are starting to get it. I'm not a zombie and resent your categorization.

            Iggy's a man of letters and ideas and many remain hopeful that he can bring these to the table. God knows we need ideas and the capacity to work with others to see them through. Those who dismiss the ideas of others by claiming mastery or ownership of a particular issue are working against the common good. One would hope you are not such a man.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

            I don't think you're being sincere. You just finished telling us that the Liberal party has always been about listening to the people, yet you're now telling us that Iggy is changing all that, even though his rise to power has been undemocratic, and his offering of ideas has been slim at best. Kumbayah.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/ChrisInKW ChrisInKW

            Please don't put words into my mouth.

            As I said, it's a Liberal strength to show up and listen. Like you, I prefer basing my beliefs on "what's happened" and it's plain to see that Harper is unable to "show up and listen" but rather prefers groomed crowds and pre-screened questions from the media. You've avoided responding to the fact that democratic reform cannot be achieved without achieving broad consensus. Without consensus, the institutions lose legitimacy, which is exactly what is sought when undertaking these reforms. Preaching reform and then throwing one's hands up when failing to achieve it unilaterally is disingenuous at best.

            Iggy has responded to the thirst for involvement the wider population seems to have expressed through the hundreds of thousands on Facebook. He's talking about these things. While talk is cheap, shutting down debate without contributing any more ideas to the discussion is obstructionist. Calling into question someone's perceived character by questioning his sincerity instead of moving forward the discussion through arguing the merits of the ideas in question is undemocratic.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

            Like I said, you're obviously a kumbayah Liberal. You look to them to answer all your hopes and dreams, and they get answered no matter what they do. Got it.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

            You're right, Harper does have an idea for Senate Reform, but he's killed it by proroguing. Excellent example there, Dennis.

            Or were you talking about the other idea for Senate Reform, where he stocks it up with the Mike Duffys of Canada, and then when it STILL doesn't pass legislation on his schedule, claims it's a Liberal conspiracy against him, so that he gets public opinion curried enough to do away with the whole darn thing?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

            Honestly, it this the best that some of you can do? Like I said in the other blog post. The Harper bashers can't go to sleep without their hourly fix nonsensical prorogue bits. lol.

            For example, the idea that this rather routine 5-week prorogue of Parliament in any way impacts Senate Reform is nonsense. Harper's tried for four years now, and he's been blocked each time by the very same Liberals who now say they want reform light. Whatever.

            Also, it's only now that Harper has been able to attain a plurality of seats in the Senate, isn't it? So, no, it wasn't a conspiracy that blocked legislation in the past. It was actual Liberal senators, right?

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/ChrisInKW ChrisInKW

        I'm definitely a Liberal that believes in human and spiritual unity, closeness and compassion, thank you for bringing the fact to light. In all seriousness, can anyone objectively envision Harper's government bringing forward such ideas? And if not Harper, the pragmatist in me says "look to Iggy." I hope he steps up.

  • curious

    I was trying to find the section of the constitution which establishes FPTP as the method for electing MPs but without success. Is the method of election a constitutional requirement or merely statutory. If its statutory getting rid of it only requires that parliament pass a bill changing the method of representation without having recourse to a constitutional amendment.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Wilf_Day Wilf_Day

    It's great to see that England can consider recalibrating their voting system without proroguing. But Brown is, to my great regret, still playing phony reform games. He would ditch the first-past-the-post voting system in favour of — another winner-take-all system. Far from proportional representation as already enacted in Scotland, Wales and London, his new gimmick was rejected by the Jenkins Commission as a partisan scheme to hurt the Tories by sucking up second choices from the Lib Dems, Greens, etc.

  • http://eugeneforseyliberal.blogspot.com EugeneForseyLiberal

    The Times mentioned this a while back, and I wrote about it. Two things the commenters seemingly haven't considered, like many Brits in fact, used to majority governments. 1) There's a long way to go, but anyone who's been following Brit politics and understands the electoral map, and the forces in play, realises there's a very good chance of a hung parliament. Given the Lib Dems have electoral reform as their biggest, most longstanding demand, and it's already worked out OK in Scotland, Labour, by getting this idea out now, stakes a position in case of a hung parliament, or minority government, as we Canadians, instinctively dismissive of Parliament, are more used to saying. It may be that Brits' aversion to minorities means there's a least minute wave to the leading party. But there are a lot of efficient, entrenched Labour seats…2) As the Times paraphrased Hain: "If a voting reform bill does become law, it would be a “poison pill” for an incoming Conservative government. David Cameron, the Tory leader, would be forced to decide whether to use political capital and parliamentary time to repeal the legislation.". Times article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/ar…

  • orval

    Brown must have internal polls predicting that Labour will be extinct after 2010 General Election. You might as well go for broke, like promise to repeal the notwithstanding clause….

    Cameron……soldiers with guns…..in our cities……..British cities!…..we're not making this up…..vote Labour…….

  • FVerhoeven

    Before generally addressing the democratic deficit should we not pose the question what it is we want to rectify? For instance, do we expect our political system to be pro-active or do we expect it to be reactionary??

    When we demand democratic reform, do we refer to drawing a clearer line between executive, legislative and judicial powers, or are we merely demanding for optics to be changed?

    In other words, is there an underlying and therefore deeper concern which needs to be addressed at its core?

  • FVerhoeven

    Dear Mr.Coyne,
    for what it’s worth in regards to democratic health, I want to add a few more comments on the topic. The mind works in mysterious ways because I have to tell you that while trying to decypher an article by Noam Chomsky, entitled The Mysteries of Nature: How Deeply Hidden?, fragments concerning the well being of our democratic system keep popping up in between, and so I might as well release these fragments of thought here and now.

    I’m not sure that PR is the medication we need. It may turn out to be as benign as the workings of a placebo, or it may turn out to be devastating in outcome, as likewise the presciption of wrong medication tends to be.

    Geographically considered, Canada is far too large and too diverse for PR to be able to work its wonders. Adopting the PR system in Canada might, in the long run, add to our democratic deficit, not overcome it.

  • FVerhoeven

    But instead of dwelling solely on the topic of PR versus 'first past the post' there are various other means by which we can improve our democratic deficit.
    Trying to conceive CONSISTENCY within the democratic system should be on the priority list, pronto! For instance, when the anti-prorogation club insists and demonstrates in the street that the PM should be severely restricted in his or her right to use the right of prorogation, because the act of prorogation coming out of the PMO would be considered an executive power interfering with legislative power (and in principle I am not against such restriction although it would require alterations to our current head of sate senario), then surely the act of appointing senators must be restricted also, for both, the act of prorogation and the act of appointing senators originate in the PMO and are therefor both acts of executive power interfering with legislative power.

  • FVerhoeven

    And although the appointment of senators allows for the act of interference to last much longer than the act of prorogation (senators appointed long ago interfering with a current government) we see few people on the street s demonstrating in favour of senate reform. I don't know WHY that is but I do know WHAT it is: blantant inconsistency on sight with the recent demonstrators.

  • FVerhoeven

    So why not dispell some of the myths by which the experts hold themselves up in high regard.? Why not differentiate between, on the one hand, expert opinion which tries to educate and, on the other hand, expert opinion which tries to dominate?

    Don't forget that the formation of positives (in matters of acquiring visuals, as in being able to look with the mind's eye) always, and inevitably, works in unison with the formation of negatives; expert opions undifferientiated as to be either informative or domineering, form a blurred line for not seeing a clear picture.

    When not being able to make out which is which, whether the positive is in fact the negative or vice versa, has tremendous consequences for our democratic process as it is being played out.

    First and foremost, we need clear vision while trying to tackle the democratic deficit.

  • FVerhoeven

    Also, and of great importance when trying to improve the quality of our democracy: should universities slowly be allowed to slide into beings of grand-scale copy-making machines, or should our educational institutions backtrack into being the instiller of life long-learning they once managed to be?

    and…(also very important for the well-being of our democracy)

    should the so-called experts (on constitutional matters, for instance) be decision makers or should they merely be providers of objective information when called for?

    Say what you will, but if we don't ask the right questions we will not be able to bring about democratic reform in earnest.

    If that is what we want, of course.

  • Ritchie Simpson

    As usual with the hard-to-kill PR crowd much promised, little delivered. Brown will have a stiff battle on his hands to get this sold in "jolly-old" but the real problem that Coyne and other Pro-PR's fail to see that PR in and of itself will not deliver democracies to some promised land of a government responsible to you and you alone. It will however remove much of the visible politics of argument, debate, diatribe and denunciation. All that unseemly contentious behaviour will be replaced by scholarly discourse in the offices of the political parties, "Yisss, I believe I would like to be placed on the Party list and not have to work to sell myself or my aprty, we'll hire some PR (coincidence? I think not) flaks to create a Campaign."
    Proportional Representation is a Trojan Horse, great for the weaker political organizations, bad for the individual.

    • Brian

      "Proportional Representation is a Trojan Horse, great for the weaker political organizations, bad for the individual."

      That makes no sense at all. The reason many individuals are poorly served by democracy is precisely because our systems reinforce stronger political organizations at the expense of weaker ones – and, of course, at the expense of individuals.

      Let the hate flow, Ritchie. :-)

      • FVerhoeven

        I believe you have that backwards, Brian.

        The party list will have to be created somehow, and Richie is right in that the party politics will be fought more and more inside, not through riding nominations etc. PR means doing away with our understanding of constituencies. But constituencies do form an important role within our political landscape.

  • FVerhoeven

    Which brings me to the next item on the list of priorities for trying to eliminate our democratic deficit:

    when so-called experts insist that particular changes in our system could not happen because our constitution would not allow for it, then are they insisting that our constitution is a none-changing entity, forever to be held above our democratic system?

    Where then does the division between the legislative and the judiscial bounderies exist if the house could no longer instigate the will of the people?

  • Doug Derouin

    Good. His party will go down in flames anyways and so to will this insane idea. No one in Canada will touch a redo once they lose. Like BC and Ontario where the same thing was floated another defeat helps keep that idea where it should be.

    Everyone for better or for worse in our House is voted in. The last thin I want is a percentage to be named from a list of second to last placers in any election. Talk about a opportunity for bribes etc. Does not Israel and or the forty plus elections in Italy since WWII not compute with anyone.
    Canada is one of the best in the world in most ways– please do not break it!

  • JoeC

    Alternate Voting is not a PR system.

    I'd love to see Canada move to an AV system, personally. It changes the way politicians behave, leading to a more civil level of discourse (you don't want to demonize other parties because you want those second or third votes of their supporters), and it also leads to parties seeking support outside of their traditional bases (again, looking for 1st, 2nd, or 3rd votes).

    That it is not as "democratic" as PR is not an issue to my mind. More democracy does not equal a better government, though PR supporters throw that "democratic deficit" idea around like it's a given fact. Democracy needs to be balanced and, to a degree, mitigated. Furthermore, I've never heard a convincing explanation as to how PR would change how politicians behave. As long as they're still competing for one vote, they've got no incentive to play nice(r). And I loathe the idea of getting rid of riding representation and leaving the selection of MPs to party leaders.

    Anyway, I'd love to see one of our national parties pick up on this. Just, for the love of god, don't go with PR!

← Older Comments

Previous

Next

From Macleans