Election Choices

Written by Amy Rodger, Scottish Director of Electoral Reform Society on Thu 10th Sep 2009

Amy Rodger, Scottish Director, Electoral Reform Society

There has been recent discussion about political events here in East Lothian over the past few weeks. Some of those concerns are about what happens when someone elected to a local authority or parliament changes their political allegiance but doesn't resign from office.

This is something I have discussed with other people and they, like me (Editor), feel something is wrong and needs changed but, none of us have a clear idea on what or how.

I subsequently contacted a friend of mine - Amy Rodger - on this subject. Below is her response which I reproduce to help inform.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

This is something ERS have considered in depth but, I have to say, we are still in the process of so doing.

It is correct that no councillor and no MP is elected as a representative of their party. That is not the nature of either the STV (Scottish local councils) or FPTP (Westminster) systems. Candidates are elected as individuals; their party is solely a description. There have been several cases over the years of MPs 'crossing the floor' (and the Lib Dems or Liberals have been beneficiaries of that more often than not!).

There is some concern that this official position does not reflect the real world fact that most people these days vote on the basis of political party. Candidate centred systems like STV and FPTP are, however, seen as more British, and many people resent the formalising of the role of political parties in an election to the extent that party based systems like AMS (Scottish Parliament) or lists (European Parliament) entail.

So, in this case, of defection from one party to another, there is nothing in current rules that can be done, and from ERS's point of view, nor should there be - STV is a candidate-, not a party-, centred system. The proportionality is between the views if the voters on the merits of different candidates, not necessarily party proportionality, and that is deliberate.

(Incidentally, even when someone elected from a list defects rather than resigns, they remain in office and the party they have left does not get someone to make up their original numbers. For example, one of our MEPs in the north west of England defected to Labour about a year before the euro elections. And Brian Monteith defected from the Tories to Independent after becoming embroiled in the David McLetchie leadership resignation, but he remained a regional MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife.)

The question of by-elections in the event of resignation is different. At the moment, as you are aware, if a councillor resigns then there is a by-election to fill the vacancy, using STV. (As only one person is being elected, that essentially means AV.) This can have, has had, and in the circumstances you describe could well here possibly have, the effect of distorting the proportionality achieved at the original election. This can be seen as problematic, but it could also be argued that it is up to the voters, and if they want to change their minds, so be it.

The solution of all councillors being up for re-election in the event of the resignation of one of their number has been mooted and considered but rejected on the grounds that it was too open to political manipulation: a councillor could resign tactically, to try and win more seats in a ward for their party than they had previously.

In Northern Ireland, there is a system of co-option, where in the event if a resignation, the party nominates someone to fill the vacancy. This was rejected here on the grounds that it would give parties, rather than voters, too much power, and would bring us too close to having a party list system rather than STV. (In Northern Ireland, retaining a delicate balance of representation that includes the views of minorities is seen to be of such importance that it is felt that is a price worth paying).

One last solution, that is favoured by many in the ERS, is a system of 'count-backs'. With this, the original election would be recounted, excluding the resigned/died candidate, and with all previously elected candidates protected. The first other candidate not previously elected to reach quota would fill the vacancy. This is probably technically the fairest solution ( and also incentivises parties to stand more than one candidate, thus boosting voter choice, which is a good thing in ERS's book). It is, however, somewhat techie and hard to explain to voters, and while the idea is gaining traction in some key quarters, the idea of filling a democratic vacancy without any sort of election seems counter-intuitive to many people.

All voting systems are a compromise, to a greater or lesser extent, balancing competing priorities. Party proportionality is only one criterion - an important one, of course, but for those of us who advocate STV rather than party lists, we recognise that there are other things that it is important that a voting system also achieves.