Thursday, May 05, 2005
Vote-swapping
An article in the New Scientist recently touched on the growing phenomena of ‘vote-swapping’. This doesn’t mean attending a party, throwing in your car keys and praying you get your neighbour’s vote, but rather arranging, generally through the internet, to swap your vote with someone in another constituency, where it is more likely to actually count for something.

It is suggested that in the UK 2001 general election, vote-swapping swung at least two seats away from the Tories.

For example, a left of centre, small ‘l’ liberal in New Forest West, who wishes to see a Labour government, would be wasting his time voting Labour, as the New Forest West seat will really be only contested between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. At the last election, the Labour candidate secured just 14.7% of the vote, compared to 29% for the Lib Dems and 59% for the Tories.

His best bet to keep the Tories out, would be to vote Liberal Democrat. In doing so, a popular vote for the Labour Party would not register.

The opposite will occur for a safe Labour seats, such as Hull or Southampton Test. A right of centre voter should vote Liberal Democrat as the best way to secure a Tory government. This is called tactical (or rational theory) voting.

The level of tactical voting is difficult to gauge, but studies have shown that nearly 9% of all votes cast in 1997 were of a tactical nature and that proportion is even higher when seats that were likely to be susceptible to such voting, are isolated. [see http://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/users/fisher/fishermw.pdf]

This level of tactical voting makes any popular vote count from elections meaningless. This year, the Tories and the Lib Dems have complained [though not advocated change] that the constituencies are stacked against them; even with a Tory popular vote majority, the party would not be able to unseat a Labour government. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/seatcalculator/html/default.stm]

But these complaints are made on projections based on flawed assumptions. The popular vote count at elections does not represent real electorate preference and never has done. And despite the Tories crying ‘foul’, it is the minor parties, such as the Greens and UKIP, that have suffered most.

Vote swapping is a grassroots movement which attempts to realign the level of popular vote with the number of seats won at election. Potentially ‘wasted’ votes are swapped across constituencies so that a New Forest West Labour supporter’s vote would be cast elsewhere, swapped for a Lib Dem vote. Both votes would then have a greater chance of making a difference to the election’s outcome.

The consequences of widespread vote-swapping would be a House of Commons more reflective of mass voter preference. This is also called proportional representation.

But what are the implications of such a scheme?

The electors of New Forest West would vote for a monkey, providing it was wearing a blue rosette; so the accepted wisdom goes. This suggests that people vote for the likely government ie. the leaders of the main parties, regardless of where they standing as candidates, rather than for an MP to represent their views in Parliament.

However, this ‘presidential model’ has been recently challenged and the local representative concept revived, with a number of independents (notably Martin Bell) winning seats since 1997 who have no chance of entering government.

The Lower House performs many functions, forming the government being just one. Direct representation is another; an age-old but important function.

Widespread vote swapping will tilt the pendulum back towards the presidential model. Electors will no longer be voting for a specific representative from their community and the constituency link with the MP – and the work they do, often with substantial vigour – will be lost. In fact, such a scheme would move representatives even further from their constituents than a PR system, based on party lists. Thus the red or blue rosetted monkey is even more likely to be returned as the Member of Parliament. Would this improve the quality of the legislature?

Secondly, the UK electoral system relies heavily on trust. When you walk into a polling booth, just uttering your name and address suffices to get you a ballot paper. Postal voting, though it stands accused of being vulnerable, for the most part is more secure. On the whole this trust is deserved and electors obey the rules; namely that they should vote just once.

Maybe electors appreciate just how lucky they are to live in a secure and relatively fair democracy. The institutions trust them, albeit with the threat of fines, and voters obey the rules.
Vote-swapping requires trust between two strangers, who probably never meet and may only tentatively correspond via e-mail. This leaves vote-swapping open to abuse from a dedicated interest group, not keeping their side of the bargain. With no fine or sense of civic duty keeping them in check, the mutual trust on which the electoral system relies, would be undermined.

The UK electoral system is deeply flawed, but the grassroots alternative – vote swapping – is no real substitute for proper institutional reform. It will only serve to fuel cynicism amongst the electorate and will continue to sweep the issue of unbalanced electoral system under the carpet.

The Australian model

Though not perfect, the Australian voting system for the Lower House reduces the sense of electors feeling their vote will be ‘wasted’.

Though still a ‘first-passed-the-post system’, a Member is not returned unless they have received a majority of the votes cast, through a process of elimination in a preference system.

This optional preferential vote allows a primary vote to be cast for the most preferred candidate, by marking ‘1’ against their name. The remaining candidates are ordered upwards accordingly. If the candidate with the most primary votes does not secure more than half the votes casts, the preferences of the last placed candidate are counted and the candidate drops out. Proportions are then recalculated.

Theoretically, this allows a candidate who comes second on the primary vote count to still win the seat if preferences eventually push their count over the 50% threshold.

There are many advantages to such a system. Firstly, the candidate returned is more likely to command the broader support of the electorate, if not being the first choice, then at least the second for most electors. And secondly, minor parties, though still unlikely to return a candidate, can at least watch their vote share grow over time.

Most likely a minor party supporter would cast their primary vote for their most favoured candidate. When this candidate is discounted, the ballot is not wasted, until the preferences are considered.

This has allowed the Australian Greens to regularly poll well, between 6-8% of the primary (popular) vote, in Australia [see: http://results.aec.gov.au/ResultsByDivision-12246-NAT.htm], compared to the paltry 1-2% in the UK, where a Green vote is wasted from the moment it is folded into the ballot box.

But the most important advantage is that although majority governments are still most likely to be returned, ie there is ‘strong government’, preference deals struck before the election and openly communicated to voters, ensure that the major parties’ policies are at least influenced by the minor parties.

For example in the 2004 Federal election, the Liberal-National Coalition struck a deal with the Family First Party to secure second preferences in return for introducing a ‘family-impact statement’ on all policy proposals. The Greens did the same with Labor, over forest policy in Tasmania.

Of course, the drawbacks are the flipside to the above points. In the end Family First polled poorly, but it was able to influence the Coalition’s program and to some extent, draw the coalition further to the right to reduce the number of likely defectors to Family First.: the party that would not support the Coalition in Brisbane, because the Liberal candidate, Ingrid Tall, was gay and therefore, presumably, ‘anti-family’.

Falling turnouts

It is likely that the turnout in the UK today will fall further than the already disgracefully low 59%. This malaise will only be broken when citizens are re-engaged with politics. And a big contributor to the current disaffection is the state of the electoral system.

---