I was pleased to read Alan Johnson’s comments on our internal voting system today having read many articles recently on why Labour should lead the campaign for ‘Fairer Votes’. Alan Johnson has been one of those leading the charge on AV from the Labour ranks and in fact campaigned for the referendum to offer more in terms of choice to the electorate. This is something which earned him great praise from many ‘progressives’, but today’s calls for fairer voting have been condemned as anti-union by some. Fairer votes are something a society should strive for. But before we start throwing stones at the national electoral system we should look to waterproof our own glass house.
It is ironic that until today the calls for fairer voting in the county have been increasing in volume but voice for fairer internal elections remained shockingly silent. While in government, Labour took huge steps to improve fairness and equality: civil partnerships, the Human Rights Act and minimum wage are just a few of Labour’s achievements in this area. Yet our internal democracy lagged behind.
How democratic is a system where one person, who isn’t necessarily a member of the Labour party, has a number of votes, depending on how many trade unions or socialist societies they are members of? Yet a Labour party member of 60 years’ standing receives only one? How fair is it that 9 per cent of the membership of affiliated trade unions carries the same electoral weight as 72 per cent of Labour party individual membership? How fair is it that some people are allowed to vote on the basis of being ‘Labour party supporters’ but all L5s aren’t allowed to? The answer is it is not very fair at all.
One solution to the unfairness in our voting system would be to bring One Member One Vote down to its purest form, with the emphasis placed on the word ‘member.’ Nothing says ‘Labour party supporter’ quite like joining the Labour party, and with the reduced rate already offered to members of affiliated trade unions there really are no financial obstacles preventing people from joining. This reduced rate is £19.50 annually which equates to £1.63 monthly or 40p per week. This will not only remove the possibility of some members receiving multiple votes but will also prevent a situation similar to the last leadership election where over 30,000 votes were spoiled for not ticking a box stating support of the Labour party.
That said, this isn’t a solution I’d like to see introduced – the party relies heavily on support from the trade unions and their members have played a huge role in the development of Labour. Excluding them from our ‘democratic’ process would be fundamentally wrong. The fact that union members have paid the political levy entitles them to a say in the governance of our party, but clearly a system which entitles people to have multiple votes is undemocratic and hard to explain to people unfamiliar with the intricacies of how the present system was arrived at.
One way of ensuring people don’t get more than one vote is to compile a database of the membership of all the unions and socialist societies which are affiliated to us. This could be costly but would ultimately eliminate the issue of multiple votes. Each individual would receive just one ballot paper whether they were members of one affiliated organisation or 10. Labour members also only receive one ballot, whether or not they are members of affiliated organisations and their vote would count in the party electoral college.
This, however, doesn’t remove the current issues with the weighting system, which is currently highly unfair and potentially gives one person the same say as the total membership of one section. Of course this isn’t likely to happen as it would require only one person to vote in any given section for their votes to equate to one third of the total vote but the fact that 9 per cent turnout in one section has the same weight as 72 per cent in another is unacceptable and totally undermines the logic behind a weighted system. The simple way to resolve this is to proportionately weigh the votes.
Each of the three groups eligible to vote should be worth 33.33 per cent of the total vote based on 100 per cent turnout in that particular section. In the situation where there isn’t 100 per cent turnout and there is, for example, 28 per cent turnout, the weight carried by that particular group would be 28 per cent of the 33.33 per cent. In this case the 28 per cent would be worth 9.33 per cent overall. This is the easiest way to ensure that the weight carried by any given college is proportional to the number of people in that college who chose to exercise their right to vote.
This would not alter the fact that a candidate would need over 50 per cent of the vote to win; it would simply mean that the total vote (100 per cent) would be made up of a more proportionate electorate. Of course there will be issues raised with this, many will argue the fact that it has the potential to give the MPs an even greater say than they have currently – which, I must add, isn’t something which I am opposed to. My answer to anybody who does view this as an issue is: exercise your right to vote. If everybody does this won’t be an issue. I appreciate that no democratic system will be perfect but that isn’t an excuse to stick with one which is highly flawed and archaic.
Under Ed Miliband’s leadership we have the capacity to develop and grow, not just as a party but as a movement but we will find it very hard to change the future if we’re stuck in the past. The fact that the Liberal Democrats have now abandoned any progressive agenda which they may have had once upon a time, leaves the door open for us to shift the centre ground of British politics to the left. This includes introducing AV but I believe that until we truly demonstrate that we are a vehicle for progress on the issue of voting reform, any efforts to campaign for fairer votes nationally may appear insincere. Let’s do what we do best and lead by example.
What has been shocking about this debate has been the abuse handed out to Alan Johnson and others for merely raising the issue. Comments have included accusations of ‘Blairite whining’ to suggesting that those who don’t like the status quo leave and join the Lib Dems. Very democratic comrade! If a country wishing to join the EU, elected their government with a voting system that gave some people multiple votes and making the votes of some worth more than others, we would be telling them to get their house in order. It’s time for us to bring fair votes to our party.
I think this issue is obviously tied up with the failure of Progress to get their man in as leader. As such I dont think its helpful to speculate on changes and propose reform until we’ve had a period of reflection – we musnt rush towards another system without careful consideration. The present systsem isnt perfect but it is better than a lot of other systems we could have And the issue of votes for affiliated organisations? – My concern would be whats the point of having an affililiated organisation if they get not input into the selection of the leader of the Labour movement. Why is it wrong that I get four votes -through membership of the Labour Party, a union and other bodies such as the Fabians?
We seem to hear more from Alan Johnson than we do from our leader and he is absolutely right our internal democracy does need some major alterations. I would suggest that full party members should have just one vote irrespective of their other affiliated memberships, but in an age when party affiliation does not mean what it used to mean (Labour is for life not just for Christmas) perhaps we need to have a supporter registration scheme that might include memberships of the various societies and TUs where people can have some input into some party matters, like policy formulation but certainly not a vote for our leader or deputy leader. It is daft when my sister who has no particular interest or commitment to our party had as much influence over our leaders election as I had. We similarly have a problem with affiliated members holding additional sway at our constituenciy parties – this also needs to be sorted out. A bit of judicious pruning here wouldn’t go a miss.
We seem to hear more from Alan Johnson than we do from our leader and he is absolutely right our internal democracy does need some major alterations. I would suggest that full party members should have just one vote irrespective of their other affiliated memberships, but in an age when party affiliation does not mean what it used to mean (Labour is for life not just for Christmas) perhaps we need to have a supporter registration scheme that might include memberships of the various societies and TUs where people can have some input into some party matters, like policy formulation but certainly not a vote for our leader or deputy leader. It is daft when my sister who has no particular interest or commitment to our party had as much influence over our leaders election as I had. We similarly have a problem with affiliated members holding additional sway at our constituenciy parties – this also needs to be sorted out. A bit of judicious pruning here wouldn’t go a miss.
I do not support AV yet I had come close to changing my mind before the election. However from what I have seen of AV, with Labours leadership contest I am now firmly against it. I will also not do anything that rewards Nick Clegg and shall vote no for the referendum. Labour has a chance to bring the government down. It may be a small chance but it’s far more important than arguing for the merits of AV at this moment in time. I was also greatly disappointed that the Labour party members were unable to choose its own leader due to how the process was run with AV. There has to be a more fair balance to ensure those that are members of the party have the biggest say. Using AV has shown that it throws up results that do not have full support at the time. If we are to be a strong party we must have a system the members can feel confident in. Affiliates and other organisations are important and will continue to be so. Yet it should not be at the expense of party members. Reform is needed in how we elect our leaders as the current party voting system should not be used again.
An interesting idea, although it would have the consequence of the vote shifting very heavily in favour of MPs. If I understand what you’re proposing correctly, then it would work something like this on the basis of the last leadership election: Affiliated organisations – 9% turnout x 33.33% = 3% Members – 72% turnout = 24% MPs and MEPs – 100% turnout = 33% and so each section would actually be weighted as follows: Affiliated societies – 5% of total Members – 40% of total MPs/MEPs – 55% of total
Well said Gary!
Lucy, I agree it’s better than some systems, a dictatorship for instance, but people are still entitled to multiple votes and the balance of the colleges is still unfair. Did you read the article? It concludes that affiliated organisations are still entitled to a say, but that say is much fairer, democratic and progressive than it is currently. Why is it wrong with you casting four votes? Does that question even need a response? So you’re proposing that everybody is equal but if you can afford it then you get to be a little bit more equal that everybody else. Nobody is calling for voting reform to undermine Ed’s mandate to govern, I personally am delighted with the Leader we have, but the fact remains that our system is wrong.
Lucy – Why is it wrong that you get 4 votes because you’re a paid member of four organisations? Sounds a bit like major donors should get more votes based on the amount of money they can put in.
Great article Teddy!