Is the Labour leadership contest democratic?

By Robert Peaty

At the moment, I am eagerly awaiting my ballot paper so I can vote in the Labour leadership election. Or should I say ballot papers.

I get two votes; one through my membership of the Labour Party, another through my membership of Labour Students. If I wanted I could join LGBT Labour, the UNITE union (membership of which has been offered various times at work) and the Socialist Health Association, which would give me five votes in the contest. It seems a tad unfair that some members get more votes than others. It seems even more unfair that LGBT people and ethnic minorities are entitled (if they choose) to one more vote than white or heterosexual people.

However, it is my belief that the contest is still democratic (even if it needs a few tweaks).

Firstly the contest offers a broad range of candidates. This is in contrast to the Conservative leadership contest where the membership have the choice of two candidates selected by MPs. Secondly the Labour leadership contest uses the alternative vote method which means that cannot win with 26% of the vote. They must secure 50% with second, third and fourth preferences. Many would argue that the contest would be had a simple one-man-one-vote system. However, I believe something would be lost if we did that.

The MP and MEP vote makes up a third of the balance. I think this is right; these are the guys who have to work with the leader after all. Another third is made up by Trade Unions and socialist societies. It is this that allows people multiple votes. It could be argued that scrapping this would make the contest more democratic. However, by scrapping the Union and Society vote you are breaking the link between the party and its foundation. If we do this we are ending what makes the Labour Party a true ‘labour’ party. Instead it would be much more sensible to cap the amount of times one can vote in the contest at two. This would end people exercising multiple votes and encourage people to involve themselves in the grassroots to maximise there voting power. Our voting system could do with reform – but keep the balance of power as it is.