We can look to Europe for ideas to reform our democracy

By Hadleigh Roberts / @hadleighroberts

I have been working for our French colleagues in the Parti Socialiste for 6 months now, and though I don’t know what a Jedward is, I have been able to experience ‘continental democracy’.

The debate about electoral reform in Britain has always been “PR or not to PR”, with the third way of AV or AV+ and other complicated overhauls creeping in to the lexicon. The conclusion is always a very British paradox; FTPT is unfair, unrepresentative and needs reforming…but that’s the way we like it.

As a reaction, rather than a solution, to the expenses scandal when it broke a few months ago, there was a whole package of changes designed to restore a democracy in crisis. Fixed Term Parliaments were suggested and then forgotten about; meanwhile the Tories are determined to self-harm by reducing the number of MPs in the Commons as part of their ghoulish quest for cuts.

I have been looking at various democratic innovations we could import from other European countries, particularly France.

Both nations are suffering from a declining turnout, but for opposite reasons. The French tend to experience election fatigue, as they are required to vote for their MEP, the Président, their MP, then Regional, General and Municipal councillors, as well as their Mayor (no matter how small the town).

Britain, conversely, experiences election atrophy, creating the attitude “We only see you at election time” every four years, and there are generally only three levels of representation; the MEPs, MPs and Local Councillors, then depending on where you live there may be Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish Assembly members or the Mayor of London and the GLA.

Creating more levels of representation will not have any effect if it is impossible to justify introducing them. Regional Assemblies, for example, were piloted then abandoned, though there is still a vocal lobby for an English Parliament.

Instead, the main argument used against British First Past the Post is the fact we have ‘two horse races’ in a three party system, which leads to either tactical voting or ‘wasted’ votes.

To solve this, we could experiment with a two-round system. It’s quite simple to implement ‘two elections’; the French vote on a Sunday (weekend voting is something else we should consider) and the two candidates with the highest share of the vote go through to a second round the following week. Sometimes three candidates qualify, but it’s all in the detail.

The effect on Britain could be a great many more parties form, as well as more independent candidates standing (coalitions are very popular here) but voting for one of the weaker candidates wouldn’t necessarily exclude you from having a say in the final decision between the more successful candidates. In the local by-election we fought over the summer in Nice there were eleven different candidates, though predictably the PS and UMP (Labour and Conservative equivalents, broadly speaking) qualified. This also means that ‘the underdog’ can stage quite a miraculous recovery thanks to the ‘reserve votes’.

It could transform tactical voting and make safe seats less safe, but the downside is of course that it would make two-party constituencies even clearer. Currently, many constituencies are Labour/Conservative marginals with the Lib Dems trailing in third place, so Lib Dems have to choose whether to vote for their own party and ‘waste’ their vote or to vote for whichever party they see as the lesser of two evils. Under a two-round system, they would be free to show support for their party in the first instance but on the second round they could make a straight choice for whomever they prefer. Labour voters are in a similar situation in the south.

When the ‘left’ vote is split (this mainly depends on how you view the Lib Dems) the Tories get in. But voting twice will allow voters to keep to their principles and be realistic at the same time. This vote-splitting is prohibited and so safe seats become a lot less safe. It may even increase turnout because, in the second round at least, every vote will make a difference.

The time between first and second rounds could also be used effectively to sharpen and clarify dividing lines while having the advantage of making political events more practical. For the Leader’s debates, there is still the question of what to do with Nick Clegg. It seems silly to have him on between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, but unfair not to invite him as he is after all a party leader.

Similarly, during the London Mayoral election campaign in May 2008, Newsnight had to invite Brian Paddick along, despite the fact the campaign was so evidently a Johnson/Livingstone affair. Second preference votes are obviously weaker than First preference, but if even the most dedicated Lib Dem voters were posed a straight choice between Ken and Boris, Ken might have made it (or Boris may have had a bigger majority).

A key argument against PR and AV is that they are more confusing and complex than one vote, one winner elections. So when it comes to Electoral Reform, all I propose is that Britain looks beyond the same debate we have had for decades and starts to think about real changes we can make. To that end, it may be worth looking to Europe for ideas.