Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Fighting the Ukrainian option
The Western Mail reported yesterday that the Electoral Reform Society has joined in the attack on Peter Hain's Ukrainian option for the Assembly voting system. Electoral Reform Society Chief Executive, Ken Ritchie, said: "Even if dual candidates were banned there would still be conflict between constituency and regional members. There is no proposal for ending that problem. Instead of this artificial ban we would rather see a change in the voting system so that all Assembly Members are elected in a similar manner. Our favoured solution is the single transferable vote (STV) system as recommended by the Richard Commission - a recommendation that the Government has curiously chosen to ignore. Under STV all members are elected by the same method."
James Graham has drawn my attention to another piece on this badly thought through piece of gerrymandering, this time exposing more nonsense by the Secretary of State for Wales as he tries to justify his proposal:
Peter Hain was presented with the finding from two academics that the only system similar to the one he proposed had been used in pre-Orange revolution Ukraine, and why that was the most appropriate model for Wales. Hain replied:
"It is not, and indeed the two academics are wrong because I researched this very carefully. The issue of dual candidacy is one that has proved controversial in many other jurisdictions that have introduced additional member systems, and there are not many that have. This is a fairly unusual system. For example, it was considered by New Zealand's independent commission on electoral systems and two Canadian Provinces that are planning to introduce the additional member systems and are committed to banning dual candidacy. I draw from that that in those British-type parliamentary systems, New Zealand and specifically in Canada, they are committed to doing this. The somewhat gratuitous reference to Ukraine is wrong, and I suggest the academics get better researchers in the future, similar to the ones I have got."
The reference to New Zealand is flat-out wrong. In 2001 their Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry (yes, a government that held an open review into their electoral system!) in New Zealand was very firm about dual candidacy - in support of the idea.
"The committee was unanimous in its view that dual candidacies should continue. Members saw the placement of candidates as an issue for parties to determine. Committee members also considered the alternative would impact unreasonably on small parties who may not be able to field candidates in all electorates. Committee members agreed that parties must have the flexibility to decide where and how members will be placed as either electorate candidates, or on the list, or both. There may be very good reasons for a party’s decision in this regard. The committee also considered that the impact of a prohibition on dual candidacies on smaller parties would be unacceptable. This could be seen as restricting their ability to participate in the democratic process."
There was much more concern in the early years of MMP in New Zealand about the position of MPs elected on party lists who subsequently defect from the party. This led to legislation in 2001 banning party-jumping by list MPs. I might return to the issue of party-jumping among list MPs in due course. The committee's recommendation on dual candidacy was wholeheartedly endorsed by the New Zealand government, who agreed that a ban would interfere in the proper functions of parties in candidate selection and be an unreasonable imposition on small parties.
While it is true that recent Canadian proposals have included bans on dual candidacy, it is not generally regarded as a problem in most countries - the Canadian debate on MMP may have been influenced by the entirely artificial fuss about the system in Wales. AMS is far from an unusual system, either. It has been used since the 1940s in Germany, and was adopted by several countries in the 1990s (there are fashions in electoral systems as in other things) such as Italy, Japan, Hungary (in a complex variant) and New Zealand.
Dual candidacy is just one of the wrinkles and anomalies with AMS systems - STV is a lot tidier in that there is only one route in. Some countries seem to manage just fine with AMS - presumably because, unlike in Wales and Scotland, some thought has gone into the role and purpose of the list members. Another issue is the partisan split. In other countries (including Scotland) all parties have some list representatives, while in Wales a Labour executive draws its support exclusively from Labour constituency members. This then leads to a temptation, into which Hain has unfortunately fallen, to delegitimise the opposition members (mainly from the lists).
It is certainly not an abuse for candidates to stand in both list and constituencies - it is often a lifeline for smaller parties. Peter Hain would do well to read the New Zealand committee's conclusions properly, and not use his position to take gratuitous shots at people who do research whose conclusions he doesn't like.
I thought I would quote it in full as I know how you all dislike leaving this blog to go and look at the links!
James Graham has drawn my attention to another piece on this badly thought through piece of gerrymandering, this time exposing more nonsense by the Secretary of State for Wales as he tries to justify his proposal:
Peter Hain was presented with the finding from two academics that the only system similar to the one he proposed had been used in pre-Orange revolution Ukraine, and why that was the most appropriate model for Wales. Hain replied:
"It is not, and indeed the two academics are wrong because I researched this very carefully. The issue of dual candidacy is one that has proved controversial in many other jurisdictions that have introduced additional member systems, and there are not many that have. This is a fairly unusual system. For example, it was considered by New Zealand's independent commission on electoral systems and two Canadian Provinces that are planning to introduce the additional member systems and are committed to banning dual candidacy. I draw from that that in those British-type parliamentary systems, New Zealand and specifically in Canada, they are committed to doing this. The somewhat gratuitous reference to Ukraine is wrong, and I suggest the academics get better researchers in the future, similar to the ones I have got."
The reference to New Zealand is flat-out wrong. In 2001 their Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry (yes, a government that held an open review into their electoral system!) in New Zealand was very firm about dual candidacy - in support of the idea.
"The committee was unanimous in its view that dual candidacies should continue. Members saw the placement of candidates as an issue for parties to determine. Committee members also considered the alternative would impact unreasonably on small parties who may not be able to field candidates in all electorates. Committee members agreed that parties must have the flexibility to decide where and how members will be placed as either electorate candidates, or on the list, or both. There may be very good reasons for a party’s decision in this regard. The committee also considered that the impact of a prohibition on dual candidacies on smaller parties would be unacceptable. This could be seen as restricting their ability to participate in the democratic process."
There was much more concern in the early years of MMP in New Zealand about the position of MPs elected on party lists who subsequently defect from the party. This led to legislation in 2001 banning party-jumping by list MPs. I might return to the issue of party-jumping among list MPs in due course. The committee's recommendation on dual candidacy was wholeheartedly endorsed by the New Zealand government, who agreed that a ban would interfere in the proper functions of parties in candidate selection and be an unreasonable imposition on small parties.
While it is true that recent Canadian proposals have included bans on dual candidacy, it is not generally regarded as a problem in most countries - the Canadian debate on MMP may have been influenced by the entirely artificial fuss about the system in Wales. AMS is far from an unusual system, either. It has been used since the 1940s in Germany, and was adopted by several countries in the 1990s (there are fashions in electoral systems as in other things) such as Italy, Japan, Hungary (in a complex variant) and New Zealand.
Dual candidacy is just one of the wrinkles and anomalies with AMS systems - STV is a lot tidier in that there is only one route in. Some countries seem to manage just fine with AMS - presumably because, unlike in Wales and Scotland, some thought has gone into the role and purpose of the list members. Another issue is the partisan split. In other countries (including Scotland) all parties have some list representatives, while in Wales a Labour executive draws its support exclusively from Labour constituency members. This then leads to a temptation, into which Hain has unfortunately fallen, to delegitimise the opposition members (mainly from the lists).
It is certainly not an abuse for candidates to stand in both list and constituencies - it is often a lifeline for smaller parties. Peter Hain would do well to read the New Zealand committee's conclusions properly, and not use his position to take gratuitous shots at people who do research whose conclusions he doesn't like.
I thought I would quote it in full as I know how you all dislike leaving this blog to go and look at the links!
