Good evening! This week's edition of the In Common newsletter comes from Craig Dalzell, head of policy and research at Common Weal. To receive the newsletter direct to your inbox every week click here.
GOOD evening! This week's edition of the In Common newsletter comes from Craig Dalzell, head of policy and research at Common Weal.
Remember, you can join The National for just £1 for three months with our exclusive offer for newsletter subscribers.
Given the audience likely to read this column, the statement “UK democracy is broken” isn’t going to feel uncontroversial or even particularly objectionable, but it is one that is being forced into sharp relief by the ongoing UK General Election campaign.
READ MORE: Labour ditch pledge to abolish Lords despite huge popular support
We’re all, regardless of our political leanings, being ill-served by it. In the First Past the Post voting system, all of us come last.
This column started by considering the claims that the UK Labour Party are eyeing the potential of winning a “supermajority” after next Thursday with the loudest complainants of such a result being those in conservative circles.
Understandably so, as it would mean Labour winning a majority so large that they can’t possibly be challenged by the opposition – so large that they don’t even need to worry about a rebellion on the back benches or the inevitable trickle of by-elections triggered by scandal, illness and the march of time threatening to flip the balance of power.
But this is the level of power enjoyed by all majority governments in the UK Parliament. Having just a single vote above 50% of the House of Commons grants 100% of the power and nothing, not even opposition in the House of Lords, can stop them doing what they want.
Unlike countries with written constitutions that require a higher level of scrutiny to change, even laws that require a “supermajority” can be overridden or repealed with a simple 50% 1 majority. One seat is as good as 100.
But if the Conservatives in particular are concerned that absolute power might be held by someone who isn’t them, they’ll be campaigning to change it won’t they?
Not a chance. In fact, their manifesto contains a commitment to upholding the First Past The Post voting system that creates this inequality. No, they don’t want Labour to have absolute power, but the only thing worse is the idea that a future Conservative government wouldn't have absolute power.
Not that many of the other parties are much better here. Both the Liberal Democrats and Labour themselves are silent on the matter of voting reform (beyond a few tweaks around the rules governing who can vote in these broken elections). Absolute power would suit them just fine too.
To their credit, the SNP do support change, but they support a shift to the Single Transferable Vote system we currently use in council elections.
READ MORE: Why branding Yessers as 'extremists' threatens Scotland's democracy
This, too, is a play for power in its own way. STV is better than FPTP (which is a low bar since FPTP is the least fair of all electoral methods that retain the concept of being able to freely choose between multiple electable candidates).
However, it still tends to result in concentration of power between the largest parties – if FPTP tends to create a system of two “main” parties plus a few exceptions, STV tends to create a number of parties equal to the number of candidates in each “ward” (usually three to five) and since the SNP can be reasonably expected to place at least third in most wards in Scotland, yes I can see why this suits them fine too.
The UK should take inspiration from Germany and how their voting system works in the Bundestag.
Voters in Scotland will already be relatively familiar with the German system as it is very similar to the Scottish Additional Member System.
The differences lie in the technical details but it’s notable that at almost every point of difference, the German system made a choice that favoured more and smaller parties while Scotland chose to favour fewer and larger parties.
READ MORE: Craig Dalzell: Our concerns with the plans for Scotland's 'natural capital'
Does Parliament start with the same number constituency seats compared to list seats, or more? Can the Parliament expand to maintain proportionality, or are the number of seats fixed? In the case of a close result, will the final list seat tend to go to the smallest party in the running, or the largest?
People who object to proportional representation tend to point at a small party they don’t like (left or right wing, could be either) and say that we need to lock them out of power forever. But in addition to being the very antithesis of democracy, this simply doesn’t work.
What happens instead of a parliament of multiple small parties working in coalitions is that we see factions within the parties hiding in plain sight, doing the same jockeying and sometimes purging the other factions when they can.
The insidious difference is that you, as a voter, will be claimed by all of those factions if you vote for the broader party. If your local candidate is of the left faction and you vote for them but the right faction of the party holds the power, you’ve given them your vote too.
So where should you place your vote in this broken democratic system? Well, this isn’t the column for that I’m afraid, other than to say that I have little personal affection for “tactical voting”. One of the consequences of FPTP is that so many voters have been convinced that their vote doesn’t matter so don’t bother.
But if “didn’t vote” was a political party, it would have won 226 seats in 2019. Rather than voting for someone you don’t believe in, vote for someone you do believe in and try to bring a non-voter with you to the polls to do the same.
Change will only come when we make the status quo impossible, no matter how hard those who benefit from it try to keep things just the way they are.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here