Wednesday, August 21, 2019

Is the Holyrood voting system a unionist conspiracy?

One thing that has become clear in the discussions/arguments of recent days is that there is a real degree of paranoia among some independence supporters about how we ended up with the voting system for the Scottish Parliament, ie. "it was designed to shaft us, so we should use it to shaft them".  This is quite odd on the face of it, because by any objective measure the Additional Member System has so far worked out beautifully for both the SNP and the combined pro-indy forces.  There have been five elections since devolution in 1999, and three of them have produced SNP governments.  Two of them produced outright pro-indy majorities.  And in the two elections in which the SNP didn't come out on top, the list element of the system gave us far more pro-indy MSPs than we would have had under first-past-the-post.  For example, either 27.9% or 28.7% of the MSPs elected in 1999 were in favour of independence (depending on how you classify Robin Harper), but it would have been just 9.6% without list MSPs.

As far as I can see, a lot of the paranoia seems to derive from a single-word answer that a young Jack McConnell once gave at a press conference when a journalist asked him whether proportional representation was introduced specifically to stop the SNP ever getting a majority.  He said "correct".  But we wouldn't regard Jack McConnell as a reliable witness about anything else, so why we treat that particular answer as gospel is rather unclear.  What we do know for sure is that at the outset of discussions in the Scottish Constitutional Convention in 1989, the Liberal Democrats (then known as "the Democrats") were insisting upon some form of proportional representation for the Scottish Parliament, and in complete contrast to their attitude in coalition negotiations with the Tories twenty-one years later, they were actually treating electoral reform as a genuine deal-breaker.  The chances of a cross-party agreement appeared remote, because it was so obviously in the narrow interests of the Labour party to hold the line on first-past-the-post - if they did, they looked set for indefinite majority rule in Edinburgh.

But, of course, Labour eventually made the seemingly irrational decision to give way.  Why?  I can think of three plausible explanations, and it may well have been a combination of all three.  Firstly, Labour did have some enthusiasts for electoral reform in their own ranks, so those people may have made their presence felt.  Secondly, given that the Thatcher/Major government seemed firmly entrenched in power at Westminster, Labour may have felt that a common front with the Lib Dems was essential to build the moral pressure for devolution.  And thirdly, it may have occurred to the likes of Donald Dewar that however dominant Labour appeared to be in Scotland, the SNP would only need a relatively short burst of popularity at some point in the future to win an outright majority under first-past-the-post - and just one SNP majority might be enough to make Scotland an independent country.  So proportional representation may have been partly an insurance policy against that distant eventuality.

But even if that was the reasoning, we have to bear in mind that once Labour had conceded the principle of proportional representation, they then hedged their bets by trying to limit how proportional the system would be in practice.  They brought in a regional list system rather than a national list, which effectively gives a dominant party a "winner's bonus" in its strongest regions.  They refused the possibility of German-style levelling seats which could have more or less guaranteed full proportionality.  And they insisted on there being fewer list seats than constituency seats, which makes proportionality even less likely to be properly achieved.  In fact, at one stage Labour were openly pushing for a ratio of just 40 list seats to the 73 constituency seats, which would have made single-party majority government very easily attainable, as has proved to be the case under a similar ratio in Wales.

All of these things were done to put Labour in command of the Scottish Parliament, but Dewar and co must have known that a somewhat less proportional system was bound to start working in favour of independence if the SNP ever became the most popular party.  And so it has proved.  Labour's greed for short-term power led them to effectively downgrade their own insurance policy, and in the long run they paid the price for it.

It's also worth making the point that the insurance policy was proportional representation as a general concept - the selection of an exact type of proportional representation wasn't so important.  There's nothing about a mixed system of constituency and list MSPs that in itself constitutes a conspiracy against independence.  In 1999, exactly half of the list seats were won by the SNP, and those SNP list members then proceeded to set up "shadow constituency surgeries" in Labour-held constituency seats across the central belt.  Unsurprisingly, that infuriated Labour activists, who demanded that the 'unelected' list MSPs should know their place.  SNP supporters were entirely guilt-free about the whole thing: the list seats had merely given their party something closer to its fair share of representation, and it was about time that Labour got used to not having a completely free run on a minority vote.

The only thing that's changed since then is that the boot is on the other foot because the SNP have replaced Labour as the dominant party in the constituencies.  There's nothing unfair or crooked about the fact that the list seats are now mostly held by unionists - that's the case simply because the list seats are there to make the overall composition of parliament roughly proportional to how people cast their votes.  If one side of the constitutional debate is under-represented in the constituencies, they'll be automatically compensated for that on the list.  The pro-independence side has benefited from that process in the past, and may well benefit from it again in future.

We would be foolish to casually throw away a system that is infinitely fairer to all sides than first-past-the-post.  However, it could certainly be improved - scrapping the regional lists in favour of a national list would increase proportionality at a stroke, and having a single vote to elect both constituency and list members would put an end to all the interminable nonsense about "tactical voting on the list", which - for the reasons that have been rehearsed on this blog a million times - is practically a contradiction in terms.

35 comments:

  1. James,

    As I have been reading your blog for yonks, I kind of understand your point. I am not at all sure that the general public has any understanding whatsoever of the valid points that you are making.

    The simplistic concept that 'winner takes all' is probably imprinted on their psyche as how elections work. It is, after all, the headlines - SNP win at Hollyrood!, Torys win at Westminster! That is what people consume. Not the nuance.

    Perhaps there needs to be 'Modern Studies' classes for you to explain that it is a lot more complicated than that?

    And what of referenda? They cut across the whole idea of proportionality. We vote yes or no on a single issue and the decision is made, at least until we have another on the same subject. I have never seen a referendum about independence - correct me if I am wrong - with a third way?

    If I want to know stuff about polling and direction of travel, this is where I come. You are a huge asset both to reason and to the independence movement generally.

    There is no 'but' about that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The above post was written by douglas clark, just so's you all know where to direct your ire.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You forgot 'And labour just want to be in power (so they can pick up the fat pay cheques and ascend the greasy party pole), but not with the responsibility of affecting any real meaningful change in Scotland that would differentiate it from the rUK', so PR giving them strong minorities only would be perfect.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Voting them out makes no sense. We vote FOR in a representative democracy. We vote SNP or Green and get our representatives, it's not our business to vote "Ruth out": if enough folk vote Tory across the Lothians then they get their representative. That's it.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. As things stand, anyone who gets to the top of a regional list for the big parties is almost guaranteed to become an MSP, and there's effectively nothing the public can do to vote them out.

      Except voting for another party?

      Delete
  5. Stephen, one improvement that would remedy that would be to introduce the list system used in Finland, whereby it's the voters who rank the candidates, not the parties. It very effectively weeds out the dross and gives more power to the electorate rather than the party bosses.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Is there really a need for each voter to have two votes? The temptation to game the system would vanish if the constituency vote was then used to calculate the outcome of the list.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hardly a Unionist conspiracy when you you have a right wing Tartan Tory bunch running Scotland. The establishment have nothing to fear from that lot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You really are a Idiot! in any case Labour no longer run the Scottish Government so your post makes no sense!

      Delete
    2. It makes sense inasmuch as you are on the defensive mode Nat si boy.

      Delete
    3. God are you still here? Sad little man. I've not been on the comments for this blog for literally years but one wee glance and there you are still making an arse of yourself. Give over.

      Delete
    4. Who is God! You silly sad person.

      Delete
  8. The one thing that irks about the list is the fact that MSP's whom hardly anyone votes for get elected. MSP's who continually lose in the Constituency vote get in anyway under the list people like Murdo Frazer rejected eight times by the electorate yet still becomes a MSP that should change a MSP should only be allowed to stand on one or the other.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It was a system that the Unionist Parties thought would give them endless control of the Parliament.

    Who in their wildest dreams would expect a single marginal party to gain dominance against the "big" three to the point were their combined power was not enough to exclude the SNP from govenance.

    This was the consiracy... an assumpion that the system would always give the three unionist parties hegemony.

    It is in many ways a good system, one that allows the views of the minority to be heard.

    I think when the parties are no longer fractured down Unionist and Indy lines then the Parliament will function better than it has for a decade. The endless hunting for failings by the opposition and a supine press will cease and solutions for problems will be found on a more cross party manner.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thanks for a yet another clear explanation of how things work in Scotland. If only the mainstream media could be bothered to inform the public so concisely.
    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yougov UK Scottish sample:
    47% SNP
    20% Con
    13% Lib
    11% Lab
    8% Brex
    2% Green

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Skier, EU migration to the UK underestimated by 16%. Your comments about migrants leaving in droves were exaggerated.

      Delete
    2. Erm, the underestimation was prior to 2016 you dumb ass.

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49420730

      the level of migration from the EU to the UK has been underestimated by the Office for National Statistics from the mid-2000s to 2016.

      Delete
    3. And non-EU migration has been overestimated

      Which suggests the UK may be even less popular for global talent post 2016 than we thought.

      Delete
    4. That got you going Skier. Intae statistics an awe that.

      Delete
  12. James,

    I'm struggling to really get your critique of the Wing's proposal. As I understand it the system is 'blind' to the unionist/independence split in the parties, it 'sees' individual political parties. So if I voted SNP with my constituency vote (and every SNPer did too) and Wings with my list vote along with say 200,000 others this would have no effect on the SNP constituency vote but would effect its list vote. With 200,000 votes the (pro indy) Wings party would take MSPS from other parties (including the SNP). Is this correct? If it is why do you see this a 'threat' or a danger to a proindy majority in HR?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because you have absolutely no idea whatsoever at the moment you're casting your vote whether the SNP are winning enough constituency seats, or whether the other 199,999 people are doing what you need them to be doing on the list.

      Delete
    2. So if the SNP are polling strongly the risk is less. OK, that's very clear, got it, thank you.

      Delete
  13. The best explanation yet of this system thank you James.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Your last paragraph is an excellent summary of how the existing AMS system could easily be fixed to improve it significantly, not least in the continuing confusion of voters to the purpose of the "second vote" and its paramount influence on the shareout of seats in Parliament.

    What it doesn't do is remove the dire influence of party lists. For that an entirely different PR system is needed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All that is needed is open lists, where the candidates are ranked within thrir oarty's oropirtional allocation according to the number of votes each candidate receives.

      Delete
  15. ...their party's proportional allocation...

    ReplyDelete
  16. Voting predictions are becoming more and more accurate. It is reasonable to infer when a very strong SNP performance is about to be delivered. Armed with that data a SNP voter can assign his second vote to a Wings Party.
    A site such as this would be in a position to give that very advice!

    ReplyDelete
  17. lovely explanation. Thanks very much. We were promised by the Liberals that the last general election in Canada would be the last using FPTP. The Liberals won but Trudeau chickened out on PR before the discussion ever really got started. Wish I'd been reading your blog three years ago James.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The Act calls for a 'degree of proportionality' and what we have is not bad. It would, however have been very difficult to get Holyrood accepted as a governing body with the EU without having a reasonably democratic electoral system

    ReplyDelete
  19. In the 2007 Holyrood election Labour won an outright majority of the constuency seats (37/73) but only won 9 list seats giving then a total of 46 seats. The SNP won only 21 consituency seats (just under 30%) but won 26 list seats to get a total of 47 seats - and so form a minority government. Without the list seats the SNP would not have had the opportunity to demonstrate their competence as a government and thus would almost certainly have not won an outright majority in 2011. In that case there would have been no Independence Referendum in 2014.

    The only certain way to get a pro-indy majority in Holyrood is to get a comfortable pro-indy majority of voters in the country. This is what we should put our efforts to.

    In the unlikely event that gaming the list system did somehow succeed in giving a pro-indy majority in Holyrood without there being a clear pro-indy majority of the electorate, then Westmister and unionists could argue with reasonable justification that the result was undemocratic and an other referendum should not be allowed. Also other countries may also take a similar view, so we could be engineering our own failure to be recognised as an independent nation.
    Geoff

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see.

      So, two pro-Indy parties perform strongly and one of them does so while standing on the list. All the countries will say "they are cheating bastards and so should not be allowed what they want ever". That's scenario A.

      Three other parties, who are pro-Union, do well enough between them to have enough support to form a coalition. Their vote is made up of lots of people who voted Tory and Labour in the constituency vote (in different parts of the country) and lots of them vote Lib Dem as their second vote to "stop the Nats". The Lib Dems just scrape enough list seats to make the coalition viable, and for it to say "that means there's nae indyref 2!!". The pool of voters isn't any larger, but they can cobble together a coalition just due to the way the list vote falls. Other countries go, "aye right enough, you can see that they've managed to get a coalition due to how the vote's landed".

      Is that how it works? Unionist parties could vote "tactically" and fluke enough list seats for what they want but Yes parties are not allowed? FUCK. OFF.

      If any combination of parties can make up the numbers to form a coalition (where it's needed) then that's good enough. You start adding asterisks (*"wrong sort of party", ("only stood on list") and the game will never end with people finding reasons why the parties who had enough seats from the vote should not be allowed to form a government (or a confidence and supply arrangement, whatever).

      I'll say it again. FUCK OFF. If the parties have the MSP numbers to do it, that's the end of the fucking story.

      Delete