INTRODUCTION

  1.1  When it was decided, about a year ago, to set up this conference, it was said that the intention was to examine the reasons for low voter turnout in elections for the UK Parliament, and consider how turnout could be improved.

  1.2  The terms of reference as now stated do not specifically refer to voter turnout, but concentrate on increasing representation of women, ethnic minorities and disabled people in Parliament. However, the terms of reference allow for consideration of other matters and I submit that:

(a) in view of its importance in a democratic society, ways of improving voter turnout should be examined (as originally promised); and

(b) there is a relationship between voter turnout and voting systems on the one hand, and representation of the groups mentioned specifically on the other; and consideration of the latter without consideration of the former would fail to do justice to the issues, and a great opportunity for improvement would be lost.

  1.3  Improving the representation of these under-represented groups is a laudable aim. I fully support it. I have no doubt at all that furtherance of that aim would be greatly assisted by improvements to our electoral system and the enhancement of voter turnout, and it is that point which I propose to concentrate on in this submission.

Why is voter turnout so low?

  2.1  I attach, as Appendix A, a submission I made in 2005 which shows that voter turnout varies enormously between marginal constituencies and non-marginals. An important part of the explanation, I suggest, is that many people will not vote if they know their vote will be a "wasted vote".

  2.2  There are other factors involved, of course, for example the lower propensity of younger people to vote, so that the age profile in a constituency will be likely to have an effect. In order to keep my submission reasonably succinct I will do no more than acknowledge those other factors, and concentrate on the question of "making votes count".

  2.3  A change to a proportional representational (PR) voting system for the UK Parliament would undoubtedly increase voter turnout. Since I made that point in 2005 the government's own analysis of voting systems published in January 2008 included the point that voter turnout is higher where PR is used, by around 5% on average.

  2.4  A change to a PR system would improve the public's perception of the significance of voting and would be more democratic than our present system. It is indefensible that a party may get 35% of the votes cast in the country but secure 55% of the seats in the House of Commons (that was the example of the 2005 election, which was not unique but mirrors voting outcomes in earlier years). This is not democracy. It is dictatorship by a minority. It is hardly surprising that there is so much disaffection and cynicism amongst voters about MPs, Parliament and everything which goes with it. A proper democratic approach would be that the composition of the House of Commons reflects the wishes of the voters.

  2.5  The very great majority of voters at present know that they are powerless and their vote can do nothing whatsoever to affect the question of who forms the government. That question is determined by a small minority of voters in marginal constituencies—commonly reckoned to be well below one million voters (as reflected in the government's own report of Jan 2008). So something like 97% of people eligible to vote can have no influence whatsoever on who forms the government: they are effectively disenfranchised. That is a shocking indictment.

  2.6  Abandonment of our antiquated First Past The Post (FPTP) voting system and the introduction of a PR system would do much to improve voter turnout and the regard which the public have for Parliament and everyone associated with it.

  2.7  The UK is now the only country in Europe which still uses FPTP for elections to Parliament. And within the UK of course, PR systems are already in use (European Parliament; Welsh Assembly; Scottish local council elections, and Northern Ireland Assembly). Surely the time has come for us to modernise and for the House of Commons to be elected on a PR basis; or at least for the public to be given the opportunity to decide whether that change should be made (as was firmly promised by the Labour Party in 1997).

The need for a referendum

  3.1  Whether or not the voting system for the House of Commons should be changed—I think most people agree—should be a matter for the public to decide.

  3.2  There would be more than one way to arrange such a referendum, and many commentators have suggested (as did the Jenkins Commission) that the public should be given the choice between keeping FPTP or changing to a specified PR system. I submit that such an approach would be unsatisfactory and undemocratic. My own proposal is that it should be for the voters to decide not only whether they wish to change to a PR system, but also which PR system should be brought in. I have devised a way of doing this, and that is described in my paper "Towards a Referendum".[186]

The relationship between voting systems and representation of women, ethnic minorities and disabled people in Parliament

  4.1  The introduction of PR would present a significant opportunity to improve representation in the House of Commons of the groups mentioned in the terms of reference.

  4.2  It is well known that there are many countries in Europe where women for example have a much higher representation than in the UK ( eg Sweden 47%; Finland 42%; Netherlands 37%). Those countries do not use FPTP—they use PR.

  4.3  Some kinds of PR system present particularly significant opportunities to improve representation of currently under-represented groups. For example in the system of Single Transferable Vote (STV) there would be two major helpful factors. The first is that there would be larger constituencies, typically electing five MPs, and political parties in many if not most cases would put forward a number of candidates, not just one; and in those circumstances they would be much more likely to put forward a group of candidates which was not for example exclusively male but which provided a mixture of candidates. The second factor is that the voters would be presented with a list of candidates which enabled them—if they so wished—to vote for a woman or for an ethnic minority candidate and so on. So the practical outcome would be a significant improvement in the mix of MPs.

CONCLUSION

  5.1  The fact that I myself am convinced of the merits of PR is of no consequence—I am only one voter. What I am asking for is that all voters should urgently be given the opportunity to register their view. Eleven years of procrastination is far too long and shames those responsible for it.

  5.2  I respectfully submit that it is vital and urgent for the health of democracy in the UK that the promised referendum should now be held on whether to retain FPTP or change to a PR system for elections to the House of Commons.