« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
RENEWING LOCAL DEMOCRACY: THE NEXT STEPS
CHAPTER 3: ELECTORAL REFORM
Introduction
27. One of the key issues addressed in the Kerley Group's report was that of the electoral system used to elect Scotland's councillors. At present, local government elections, like elections to the Westminster Parliament, are conducted on the basis of First Past The Post (FPTP). However, there are supporters of alternative electoral systems, and, in particular, various forms of proportional representation (PR).
Recent Developments
28. Significant consideration has been given to the most appropriate voting system for elections to local government in recent years. In June 1999, the McIntosh Commission recommended that 'Proportional Representation should be introduced for local government elections. A review should be set up immediately, to identify the most appropriate voting system for Scottish local government.' The Commission also recommended that 'The criteria to be used in determining the system or systems of PR to be adopted for Scottish local government should be:
Proportionality;
The councillor-ward link;
Fair provision for independents;
Allowance for geographical diversity; and
A close fit between council wards and natural communities.'
29. The Commission also recommended that 3 systems of PR - Additional Member System (AMS), Single Transferable Vote (STV) and Alternative Vote (AV) top-up - be given particular consideration.
30. Ministers therefore asked the Kerley Group to advise on the most appropriate system of election, taking account of the criteria identified by McIntosh. The Group examined a number of electoral systems against these criteria, although they attached greatest importance to the first two. The Group rejected the Alternative Vote system (AV) because they believed it to be a majoritarian system and not a proportional system. The majority of the Group concluded that STV best met the requirements of their remit, but a minority disagreed, and had their views recorded separately in the Group's report which was published in June 2000. (Two members of the Group simply recorded their disagreement with the conclusion that STV best met the requirements of their remit, while a third member recorded her support for AMS, rather than STV.) The detailed conclusions on STV reached by the Kerley Group are included at Appendix B.
The Executive's Position
31. The Executive has consistently emphasised its commitment to making progress on electoral reform in line with the principles of the Kerley Group's report. The Partnership Agreement between Labour and the Liberal Democrats in 1999 stated that the Executive would bring forward a 'programme of change including progress on electoral reform.' In the second Programme for Government, published in 2001, the Executive stated that 'We are committed to continuing to make progress on electoral reform and the wider modernisation of local government.' This commitment was repeated in September and November 2001. In December 2001, the Executive published its timetable for progressing the Kerley recommendations, including electoral reform. That timetable can be found at Appendix A to this document.
32. As well as the Reports published by the McIntosh Commission, and the Kerley Group, Ministers have had regard to the views expressed by those who have commented on those reports and the wide body of literature published on electoral reform. Ministers have considered the arguments advanced on different systems and have concluded that the key factors of which they wish to take account in considering the introduction of a new electoral system are:
32.1 The extent to which a system retains the councillor-ward link. Ministers regard this as a key element of local democracy, and one which is vital to the crucial role of councillors and local authorities;
32.2 Any new system should ensure that voters' preferences are clearly reflected in the result of an election, should be capable of being used throughout Scotland, and would need to be responsive to the views of voters in both urban and rural council areas. A new system should not unduly favour either larger or smaller parties, nor unduly act for or against the interests of independent candidates;
32.3 Any new system must manifestly be seen to have clear support; and
32.4 Ministers are unconvinced of the need for a significant change in the number of councillors. The issues of councillor numbers and boundary changes are covered elsewhere in this document, but, in general, Ministers are not attracted to changes in the voting system which might imply significant changes in councillor numbers.
33. Ministers have therefore considered a number of electoral systems against both the criteria adopted by the Kerley Group, and the key factors identified above which build on those criteria.
The Current System
34. Since 1975, all councillors in Scotland have been elected on the basis of FPTP. Supporters of FPTP argue that it is easy for voters to understand. Parties put up one candidate in each ward or constituency, and the elector casts only one vote. The system also maintains a clear link between individual councillors and the wards they represent, and voters should be in no doubt as to the identity of their local councillor. Supporters of FPTP therefore argue that voters can easily express their dissatisfaction with a serving councillor by voting against them at the next election, thus ensuring that councillors are clearly accountable to their electorate. In some circumstances, FPTP gives the largest party an overall majority of seats which means that that party forms the administration. This is the case in more than half of Scotland's councils.
35. Opponents of FPTP emphasise, however, that the largest party and, on occasion, some of the other parties, often secure a larger proportion of the seats available to them than that to which their share of the votes would entitle them. Opponents of FPTP argue that in some cases a party with a minority of votes has a majority of seats thus enabling it to form the administration without a truly democratic mandate. This also means that a majority of the electorate has often voted against the winning candidate in any given ward. Opponents of FPTP argue that the candidate elected is not therefore representative of the electorate as a whole. There are relatively few marginal wards where seats regularly change hands, or where tactical voting may result in a change in incumbent. In most wards therefore people know that unless their vote is for the incumbent candidate, it is likely to be irrelevant. Opponents of FPTP believe that many people feel that the use of FPTP means that their votes do not count, and do not vote. This is said to contribute to the low turnout in local government elections. More generally, while FPTP can sometimes give a single party a majority, no single party has overall control of more than one third of Scotland's councils.
36. There are, of course, variations on FPTP. The Alternative Vote system (AV), which is described briefly in Appendix C, is used in Australia to elect the House of Representatives. Advocates of AV argue that it has similar features to FPTP, while supporters of proportional electoral systems oppose AV for the same reason. The Kerley Group rejected AV because it was a majoritarian, rather than a proportional, system.
Proportional Representation
37. The Scottish electorate is already familiar with two forms of PR. First, elections to the Scottish Parliament are conducted on the basis of the Additional Member System (AMS); and second, elections to the European Parliament are conducted on the basis of a closed party list. There are, however, numerous forms of PR in use elsewhere in the democratic world.
38. The main argument advanced in favour of PR by its supporters is that under those systems the number of seats secured by a party reflects more accurately the number of votes cast. Supporters argue that councils elected using PR are more likely to represent the full spectrum of views expressed by their electorate and every vote is felt to count for the purposes of determining who should be elected. Supporters of PR also maintain that the councillor-ward link can be maintained by particular PR systems, and that any complexities resulting from the introduction of, say, multi-member wards are more than compensated for by the fact that the members are more likely to represent the full spectrum of opinion within individual wards. The case they make is that PR can, therefore, be seen to offer voters more choice and more flexibility.
39. Opponents of PR argue that, unlike FPTP, PR systems can prevent the party with the largest number of votes forming a single-party administration and delivering its full manifesto. They also have concerns that some systems of PR can weaken the member-ward link.
40. As significant work has already been carried out on PR systems, Ministers have limited their consideration of possible options for change to those recommended by the McIntosh Commission and considered by the Kerley Group (STV, AMS and AV top-up). This document does not set out to define in exact detail how individual models would operate, although a brief description of each of the options under consideration is set out in Appendix C. There are, of course, variations on all of these - the appendix simply sets out the common understanding of each basic scheme. The arguments for and against each option have also been rehearsed elsewhere but the factors which Ministers have concluded are key to their consideration of a new electoral system are summarised below.
Additional Member System (AMS)
41. AMS offers a high degree of proportionality. It was used for the first elections to the Scottish Parliament in 1999. AMS also retains the councillor-ward link by ensuring that every elector has a single councillor who represents the ward. These wards would though become significantly larger as, in addition, each elector would have a number of other councillors representing the wider area in which they live. This would increase the probability that those voters whose preferred candidate was not elected as the single ward member should have at least one councillor available to represent them with whom they felt some rapport. There is a possibility, however, that voters would be unclear about the roles and status of the 2 different types of councillor, though this could be counteracted by a voter education campaign and effective publicity, and there is little evidence of such confusion in relation to the Scottish Parliament elections. Research following those elections found that 90% of voters described the new system as "not very difficult" or "not at all difficult" to understand.
Alternative Vote+ or Alternative Vote Top-up (AV+ or AV Top-up)
42. AV+ or AV top-up is, in effect, a variant of AMS, and the arguments for and against the system are exactly the same as those for AMS set out above. The number of top-up seats can be determined to bring about the degree of proportionality sought.
Single Transferable Vote (STV)
43. Supporters of STV, which is used for local government elections in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, claim that it maximises the use made of each vote cast, and therefore ensures that those elected represent the spread of opinion within a ward. The number of seats per ward, however, affects the extent to which that holds true. The greater the number of seats per ward, the more accurately it reflects voting patterns. STV also retains the councillor-ward link but, instead of a single ward councillor (as under FPTP or AV) or a single ward councillor plus wider area members (as under AMS or AV+), STV would create multi-member wards where the members would be elected under the same system. This would avoid the risk of confusion about the status and role of different councillors. Multi-member systems using FPTP existed in Scotland prior to 1975, and are still used in parts of England.
Ministers would therefore be grateful to know:
respondents' views on the issues raised in this chapter.
whether respondents agree with the principles recommended by the McIntosh Commission and adopted by the Kerley Group?
whether respondents agree with the priority which the Kerley Group attached to the first 2 principles?
whether respondents agree with the Kerley recommendation of STV?
« Previous | Contents | Next »