Chapter 10 – Electoral Reform

#Context A severe economic recession has taken root. Economic inequality is growing, trust in politics has fallen sharply. Turnout at elections declined sharply in the first three years of the recession. A new government has been elected and it has promised a programme of democratic reform. The first item on its agenda is reform of the electoral system. Members of the new government are very critical of the current first past the post system (FPTP) which has delivered a party system with two large parties and a number of very small parties which play no role in the formation of government. There is a strong critique of the current system by small parties, civil society groups, journalists and academics who all argue that many voters are not represented in the current system. But there is no agreement about which system should replace FPTP. [[Scenario]]

#Scenario The government is keen to deliver on its mandate but early research has shown that several countries have rushed into referendums on electoral reform only for the proposals to fail and to end up right where they started after long acrimonious debates. The minister for internal affairs and democracy comes to the cabinet with three proposals. **Scenario one**: Cabinet makes a decision on a new electoral system and holds a referendum in the first year of government. **Scenario two**: A special committee should be established with members from both houses of parliament, and cross-party representation, to evaluate the electoral system options and recommend a decision. If a change is proposed, a referendum would be held to make the final decision. **Scenario three**: Convene a citizens’ assembly to discuss the options and if a change is recommended, a referendum would be held to make the final decision. [[Cabinet Discussions]]

#Cabinet Discussions There are mixed views in the cabinet. Some ministers oppose change and are keen to halt all discussion but a majority want to deliver on the manifesto promise, as does the Prime Minister (PM). The PM wants to have a wide debate on the issue before the referendum. He has been involved in many referendums and knows it is crucial that voters get a lot of information before the referendum. A parliamentary committee might help with this but then committees are often ignored by the media. The minister for internal affairs and democracy is a strong advocate of a citizens’ assembly. She heard all about them at an OSCE meeting in Russia recently. They have been used in Belgium, Finland and Ireland and have worked really well. [[What do you do?]]

#What do you do? [[Scenario one]]: Cabinet decision + referendum [[Scenario two]]: Parliamentary committee + referendum [[Scenario three]]: Citizens’ assembly + referendum

#Scenario one: Cabinet decision + referendum The PM is persuaded by the traditionalist members of his cabinet: the government is there to govern, there is a deep economic recession and voters won’t be impressed with money being wasted on parliamentary committees or strange experiments in deliberation. The PM sets aside two days for briefings by academic experts to the cabinet on different electoral systems. The briefings are comprehensive and the key features of each system are thoroughly debated ([[see the electoral system options]]). It comes down to a decision between the second ballot and the alternative vote. Proportional systems are dismissed as being too radical and unlikely to pass in a referendum. Cabinet is divided: the traditionalists want no change but there is a majority in favour of change. In the end, the second ballot system wins out ahead of the alternative vote (AV). This is the first big political reform decision for the government. It schedules a referendum for late October, giving a six week campaign. [[Second ballot referendum]]

#Scenario two: parliamentary committee + referendum The PM meets with the leader of the main opposition party and the leaders of the small parties in parliament. He notifies them that he is establishing a committee of the two houses with cross party membership to consider the thorny issue of electoral reform. The committee will have 15 members with a majority of members (8) including the chair drawn from the PM’s party. The main opposition party is offered 5 seats on the committee while 2 positions are reserved for the 5 small parties in parliament. The opposition party wants a greater say in the committee and the small parties resent the limited representation they get. The controversy is short lived and the committee is established. [[Parliamentary committee + referendum]]

#Scenario three: Citizens’ assembly + referendum The government decides to hold a citizens’ assembly to address electoral reform. The PM has a choice to make now: Does he allow the citizens’ assembly to set its own agenda and consider all electoral system options that arise or should he restrict the agenda. He is conscious that many citizens feel that their votes are wasted under the current system but at the same time, stable government is essential. He can allow all options to be considered or he can restrict the agenda to a set of options: the alternative vote and second ballot. What does he do? [[Restrict the agenda->Restrict the agenda 2]] [[Choose an open agenda->Choose an open agenda 2]]

#Electoral Systems: the options **Second ballot**: a majoritarian system with FPTP voting for single seat constituencies. To win in the 1st round, a candidate has to achieve an overall majority of votes. If no candidate achieves this, a second round run-off between the top 2 candidates is held. It broadens electoral choice for voters while usually delivering strong and stable government. It tends to disadvantage small parties. It is used in France, Russia (President) and Ukraine (President). **Alternative vote**: a system which uses preference voting (1,2,3) in single seat constituencies. The winning candidate must reach 50% of the votes cast in the 1st count of 1st preference votes. If not achieved, the lowest ranked candidate is eliminated and their votes transferred on the basis of their 2nd preferences and this process is repeated until 50% is achieved. The system is more proportional than FPTP but tends to favour bigger parties. Used in Australia (House of Representatives). **Closed list system**: Parties compile lists of candidates which compete in a national multi-seat constituency or in multi-seat regional constituencies. Parties are allocated seats in proportion to the votes they receive. In a closed list, the party decides the ordering of the candidates on the list. The system is highly proportional, makes it easier for women and minorities to be elected and many small parties can be elected broadening the basis of representation. However, the multitude of parties can lead to complications forming government and coalitions are common. Used in Argentina and Italy. **Open list system**: Parties compile lists of candidates which compete in national multi-seat constituency or in multi-seat regional constituencies. Parties are allocated seats in proportion to the votes they receive. In an open list, voters select a party and can also make choices among candidates giving voters a somewhat greater say than in a closed list system. The system is highly proportional, makes it easier for women and minorities to be elected and many small parties can be elected broadening the basis of representation in parliament. However, the multitude of parties can lead to complications forming government and coalitions are common. Used in Sweden and Belgium. [[Back to scenario->Scenario one]]

#Second Referendum Ballot The referendum is called and the electoral commission sends detailed information to every home in the country. But it becomes clear early on that voters are a bit confused. Some commentators are blatantly hostile to the proposal but even more challenging for the government, traditionalists in cabinet oppose the referendum. This causes a minor incident because of the principle of collective cabinet responsibility. The PM takes a pragmatic position and decides that cabinet members are entitled to a free vote. There is very little canvassing at the referendum and the debate takes place mostly on the airwaves. A few posters appear in the big cities the week before the vote. Some of the second ballot supporters don’t seem to understand the reasons why the second ballot might work better than FPTP and there is confusion in one of the televised debates. Many in civil society who advocated for electoral reform at the general election earlier in the year oppose the referendum on the basis that it is only a minor change and a second ballot system will continue to favour the two big parties. The referendum proposal is defeated. The PM is very annoyed and there is extensive criticism of the government for wasting 20 million dollars on a referendum which achieved nothing. **End of Scenario** [[Start Again]]

#Make a Choice The PM has a choice to make now: Does he allow the committee to set its own agenda and consider all electoral system options that arise or should he restrict the agenda. He is conscious that many citizens feel that their votes are wasted under the current system but at the same time, stable government is essential. He can allow all options to be considered or he can restrict the agenda to a set of options: AV and the second ballot system. **What does he do?** [[Restrict the agenda]] [[Choose an open agenda]]

#Parliamentary committee + referendum + restricted agenda The committee is made up of MPs and Senators. There is a lot of push back against the restricted agenda. Some members feel their efforts are already wasted as significant reform options are off the cards. There is quite a lot of negative comment in the media. The committee holds public hearings before the Summer recess. It gets some coverage of its debates in the broadsheet papers but is largely ignored by broadcast media. Experts deliver detailed evaluations of the two options ([[see the two options]]) but are quite critical of the fact that the remit of the committee is so narrow. The committee goes into private session during the Summer. Consensus cannot be found and eventually a vote is taken. The decision is tied and the chair casts in favour of AV. The decision is announced and there is huge controversy in the media. Electoral reformers and many citizens are irate: just one vote has determined the outcome of a critical decision for the future of the state. The PM is in a quandary. **He has two options**: [[Accept the decision of the committee]] on AV and proceed to a referendum. Accept that the approach taken has not delivered consensus and [[go back to the drawing board->What do you do?]].

#Parliamentary committee + referendum + open agenda The PM decides that an open agenda is best. He was elected on a reform platform and doesn’t want to be seen to renege on his campaign promises. The committee is made up of MPs and Senators. The committee holds public hearings before the Summer recess. It gets some coverage of its debates in the broadsheet papers but is largely ignored by broadcast media. Experts deliver detailed evaluations of four options [[see the options]] following agreement among the members that they want to evaluate proportional and majoritarian systems. The committee goes into private session during the summer. Consensus cannot be found. A significant minority want a list system with the rest of the committee split between the second ballot and AV. The PM agrees to a six week extension. There is extensive debate and AV emerges as the compromise after protracted negotiations. The omens are not good, the debates have been bitter, the PM decides to take some time before he makes a decision on how to proceed. **He has two options.** [[Accept the decision of the committee and proceed to a referendum->Accept the decision of the committee 2]] [[Decide more consensus is needed and start again->What do you do?]].

#Parliamentary committee + referendum + restricted agenda + accept committee decision The PM decides to accept the committee decision. There has been a rigorous process, a committee of parliament has made a recommendation and he feels that he should proceed. **Campaign**: The referendum is called and the electoral commission sends detailed information to every home in the country. But otherwise, the referendum gets off to a slow start. It develops momentum in the last two weeks. There are major disagreements in a televised debate between members of the parliamentary committee. Oddly, it is an opposition party member who is advocating for AV. The government is criticised for not doing enough to advocate for AV. The process by which the decision was arrived at emerges as a point of contention. The PM is spurred into action and goes on the campaign trail with MPs from across the party spectrum in the last week. The campaign group in favour of the proposal produces some very effective infographics which show how the system will work. Many of the civil society groups which had advocated for electoral reform were slow to come on board having favoured proportional options but some come out in favour of the change in the days before the vote. **Result**: The vote passes by a very narrow margin of just under 1%. The result is controversial because it’s so close. The PM addresses the country and promises an extensive voter information campaign before the new system is used at the next election and he promises deeper engagement on the precise operation of the system. He recalls the parliamentary committee. One of his own party members has become a minister and he appoints the new member from the opposition. **End of decision.** [[Start Again]]

#Parliamentary committee + referendum + open agenda + accept decision The PM decides to accept the committee decision. There has been a rigorous, albeit controversial process, a committee of parliament has made a recommendation and he feels that he should proceed. **Campaign**: The referendum is called and the electoral commission sends detailed information to every home. But otherwise, the referendum gets off to a slow start. It develops momentum in the last two weeks. There is a vigorous online debate with some academics advocating a No vote on the grounds that AV will make very little difference to the overall balance of representation. There are major disagreements at a televised debate between members of the parliamentary committee. The government is criticised for not doing enough to advocate for AV. Infographics with false information start to circulate online. No one knows who has paid for these advertisements. The government is concerned and the PM is spurred into action. He goes on the campaign trail with MPs from across the party spectrum. The campaign group in favour of the proposal produces some very effective infographics of their own which show. Many of the civil society groups which had advocated for electoral reform were slow to come on board having favoured proportional options but some come out in favour of the change in the days before the vote. **Result**: The vote passes by a very narrow margin of just under 1%. The result is controversial because it’s so close. The PM addresses the country and promises an extensive and reliable voter information campaign before the new system is used. He guarantees that those circulating disinformation online will be identified and he promises deeper engagement on the precise operation of AV. He recalls the parliamentary committee. One of his own party members has become a minister and he appoints the new member from the opposition. **End of scenario** [[Back to start->Start Again]]

#Citizens’ assembly + restricted agenda + referendum The Citizens’ Assembly is a new departure for the state and there is considerable trepidation among cabinet members about how it will work, even if the scope of their work has been limited to looking at just two options. The assembly is named the People’s Convention on Electoral Reform. It is made up of 150 citizens who have been randomly selected by a polling company. The Convention is mocked by some members of the media and some cabinet members are openly sceptical. But the Convention does get a lot of media attention partly because of its novelty, albeit that some coverage is critical because the limited agenda. The Convention decides to live stream its sessions on its own Youtube channel. The Convention meets one weekend a month for three months. It invites academic experts, election administrators, political party officials and members of a wide range of civil society groups. The sessions are thorough and there is detailed debate about the two electoral systems ([[see details of the two options->Electoral system options 3]]). There is widespread elite scepticism about the Convention but there is considerable public attention when the Convention holds its decisive vote. The second ballot system is chosen. The vote is tight (52 for second ballot; 46 for AV and 2 abstain). The PM had been sceptical at the outset but impressed by the way the Convention works, he now feels that he should honour his commitment to hold a referendum BUT the vote was tight. **What does he do?** [[Proceed to a referendum]]. [[Decide that consensus has not been achieved and a parliamentary phase is now required to also consider the two options->Restrict the agenda]]

#Citizens’ Assembly + open agenda + referendum The Citizens’ Assembly is a new departure for the state and there is considerable trepidation among cabinet members about how it will work. The assembly is named the People’s Convention on Electoral Reform. It is made up of 150 citizens who have been randomly selected by a polling company. The Convention is mocked by some members of the media and certain cabinet members are openly sceptical. But it gets a lot of media attention partly because of its novelty. The Convention decides to hold its main sessions in public and to live stream them on its own Youtube channel. It meets one weekend a month for six months. It invites academic experts, election administrators, political party officials and members of a wide range of civil society groups. The sessions are thorough and there is detailed debate about four electoral systems ([[see details of the electoral systems->Electoral systems options 4]]). There is widespread elite scepticism about the Convention but there is considerable public attention when the Convention holds its decisive vote. An open list system is chosen. The vote is decisive (58 choose open list, 22 close list with the remaining votes split on the majoritarian systems. Some members of the cabinet and traditional commentators are appalled, they declare the outcome far too radical and call on the PM to ignore the outcome and instate a parliamentary process. The PM had been sceptical at the outset but impressed by the way the Convention works, he now feels that he should honour his commitment to hold a referendum and he sets the date. [[Next]]

#Citizens’ assembly + restricted agenda + referendum **Campaign**: There is a long lead into the referendum. The electoral commission sends detailed information to every home in the country in January. A lively campaign begins which involves several of the citizens who participated in the Convention. They advocate strongly for the second ballot system and are extremely knowledgeable and informed. They are not politicians, and voters react very favourably towards them. They trust their judgement. Senior French politicians are invited to join the debate and explain how the system works for presidential and legislative elections in France. There are some concerns about turnout levels at future elections under this system but the minister for internal affairs and democracy joins the campaign and suggests that voting would take place on weekends instead of Fridays (as was traditional). She is a committed reformer and a persuasive communicator. Seeing how popular the proposal is, the PM also comes on board and joins a national election reform tour in the last week of the campaign. Civil society groups are reluctant supporters, they wanted a proportional system, they most stay quiet but they do not oppose the change. **Result**: The proposal passes on a Yes vote of 54%. The PM is pleased, congratulates all of the Convention members and awards them the highest national honour. He praises his internal affairs and democracy minister, promises an intensive voter information campaign before the new system is used and he praises the new deliberative method of doing politics. **End of decision.** [[Start Again]]

#Electoral Systems: the options Second ballot: a majoritarian system with FPTP voting for single seat constituencies. To win in the 1st round, a candidate has to achieve an overall majority of votes. If no candidate achieves this, a second round run-off between the top 2 candidates is held. It broadens electoral choice for voters while usually delivering strong and stable government. It tends to disadvantage small parties. It is used in France, Russia (President) and Ukraine (President). Alternative vote: a system which uses preference voting (1,2,3) in single seat constituencies. The winning candidate must reach 50% of the votes cast in the 1st count of 1st preference votes. If not achieved, the lowest ranked candidate is eliminated and their votes transferred on the basis of their 2nd preferences and this process is repeated until 50% is achieved. The system is more proportional than FPTP but tends to favour bigger parties. Used in Australia (House of Representatives). Closed list system: Parties compile lists of candidates which compete in a national multi-seat constituency or in multi-seat regional constituencies. Parties are allocated seats in proportion to the votes they receive. In a closed list, the party decides the ordering of the candidates on the list. The system is highly proportional, makes it easier for women and minorities to be elected and many small parties can be elected broadening the basis of representation. However, the multitude of parties can lead to complications forming government and coalitions are common. Used in Argentina and Italy. Open list system: Parties compile lists of candidates which compete in national multi-seat constituency or in multi-seat regional constituencies. Parties are allocated seats in proportion to the votes they receive. In an open list, voters select a party and can also make choices among candidates giving voters a somewhat greater say than in a closed list system. The system is highly proportional, makes it easier for women and minorities to be elected and many small parties can be elected broadening the basis of representation in parliament. However, the multitude of parties can lead to complications forming government and coalitions are common. Used in Sweden and Belgium. [[Back to scenario->Choose an open agenda 2]]

#Citizens’ Assembly + open agenda + referendum **Campaign**: There is a long lead into the referendum. The electoral commission sends detailed information to every home in the country in January. A lively campaign begins which involves several of the citizens who participated in the Convention. They advocate strongly for their chosen system and are extremely knowledgeable and informed. They are not politicians, and voters react very favourably towards them. They trust their judgement. The minister for internal affairs and democracy also joins the campaign. She is a committed reformer and a persuasive communicator. Seeing how popular the proposal is, the PM also comes on board and joins a national election reform tour in the last week of the campaign. Civil society groups predominantly support the change. **Result**: The proposal passes on a Yes vote of 64%. The PM is very pleased, congratulates all of the Convention members and awards them the highest national honour. He praises his internal affairs and democracy minister (thinks she might be the best candidate for the deputy PM post when that comes vacant next year), promises an intensive voter information campaign before the new system is used and he praises the new deliberative method of doing politics. **End of decision.** [[Start Again]]