article on electoral reform

Electoral reform: Why I’m agreeing with AV for the commons and recommending STV for the House of Lords within the current UK constitution and as part of achieving an English Parliament and a federal UK.James A. WareThe election of May this year brought the first formal peacetime coalition government since 1945 against a background of potential economic uncertainty and reforming the constitution following the 1997 referendums on devolution, the Good Friday agreement and devolution to Greater London. It brought two parties together to work in the national interest. As part of that agreement a referendum on electoral reform is scheduled for May this year and options for House of Lords reform are due to be published soon. This article seeks to explain why I think AV for the Commons and STV for the elected part of the second house would be good for democracy especially given the recent 2009 European Election result in which in terms of seats won UKIP came second and as such can claim a mandate to keep the UK together democratically and other elections where the elected mayors have also come from minor parties.AV is a majoritarian system rather than wholly proportionate (such as STV or dehondt). The voter votes for the candidates in order of preference. If after the first prefferences are counted no single candidate gets 50% of the vote the candidate with the least votes gets their second preferences counted and then each candidate with the least votes gets the same until a candidate has over 50% of the votes cast and is declared the winner. In the proposed system candidates still stand in single member constituencies but the number will be reduced to 600 from 650 MPs for the House of Commons.Advocates of AV agree that the current system is flawed and see that the new system will build a coalition based government but based on the majority will of the voting population in more elections than now.Opponents of AV see that it could let in more extreme parties or disturb the two party system. I disagree with that as that can be dealt with by ensuring that there is an election threshold of 5-10% of the total votes cast or voting population in the constituency depending on advice from psephologists and election lawyers. Then politicians standing from minor parties would be encouraged to be councillors or elected mayors locally or in city / county / devolved governance to get more votes and experience first. Thus someone like the Mayor of Doncaster or Ray Mallon could conceivably become an MP or at least not lose their deposit and accou7ntable and representative governance at the ballot box would receive representation in the Governing House of Commons in line with the traditions of the UK Parliamentary democracy from which the government drawn from it advises the monarch and she it and there are two established churches of which the Church of England advisesThis will force local parties to have clear guidelines on selecting candidates and reduce the chances for MPs expenses or similar scandals which will reduce the hurt to them and their families without the need for continental style privacy laws and a one law for them and one for the rest of us culture emerging. Instead a simple British Bill of Rights enforced by the Supreme Court would ensure equality before the law.And to aid the process and provide clear legal advice in line with the workings of the UKs historic Common Law system, Supreme Court Justices could sit ex officio in the second chamber as part of its appointed 20% (agreed cross party in a Commons vote in the 2005-10 parliament) and advise on legalities and precedence in line with a codified written constitution.STV is the system I think would work for the Senate / Reformed Lords based on the National / English Regional boundaries used for European Parliamentary Constituencies. Like AV constituents vote in order of preference. However the constituencies would be multi member and as such there would be a threshold of that number of seats of the total votes cast as the threshold for election. Those candidates who secure the first preference totals above that are elected and then the candidate with the least number of votes has their votes reallocated on the basis of second preferences. If the total number of seats elected past the threshold is reached counting ceases, if not the next candidate has their second preferences counted and so on until the seats are elected. If necessary if there is a lot of minor party candidates and as such a lot of candidates whose votes are reallocated, third and subsequent preferences are counted in subsequent rounds of counting.The advantages of this system is that it builds on the Northern Irish and Republic of Ireland system for electing MEPs and the new system for electing Scottish Local government secured by the 2007-11 Scottish Parliament Government after consultations by previous ones. As such it is not an alien system to the UK and until the principle of one person per vote per constituency was established for the Commons in 1948, was used for the university seats of Oxford and Cambridge for the House of Commons. STV would allow parties to select by open primary within a region / Nation of the whole population (or its members depending on how democratic the party wants to be in its candidate selection) and as such would facilitate the following:-Regional support and resource and expertise sharing both between MEPs of the same party and between parties on matters that are important (such as energy and infrastructure development) which will keep the cost of the second chamber down-Regional Grand Cttes to use any residual powers from the 1997-2010 New Labour Governments experiment with regional assemblies for England democratically and in consultation with County / Devolved city (West Midlands, Greater London and Manchester) and Borough / District governance democratically- Perhaps the elected component in time becoming The MEPs or vice versa institutionally or individually depending on how streamlined the European Union becomes in times of Economic austerity or institutional reform.This could aid those who have been successful in previous careers becoming politicians and advising legislation from a ‘real world’ perspective. They are the 26 Lords Spiritual of the Church of England consisting of the Archbishops of the two provinces of Canterbury and York, The Bishop of London as the third most senior and 23 other in order of longest time consecrated a Bishop, possibly to that see. Further the other church and faith leaders as defined by appropriate registration and laws under the principles established for religious toleration in Cromwells Commonwealth, the 1688 Invitation to William Of Orange and Mary Stuart to replace James II and the Act of Union between England and Scotland for Religious toleration within Judeau Christian relations and between the churches which with common law in other Imperial then Commonwealth jurisdictions and legislation introduced in the post second world war period applies to other faiths who have settled in the UK could be part of the appointed element as well as Supreme Court Justices (Outlined above)This would leave the anomalous position of crossbenchers and Gordon Browns government of all the talents idea whereby appointed Peers for doing a matter of importance to the government by virtue of expertise would be appointed to be resolved. If this continues it should be term limited to one parliamentary term of five years, with the option of renewal as occurs with other public figures (such as the Governor of the Bank of England and the heads of some government departments and agencies such as the BBC). Under the new system these Appointed senators should be paid the same as the rest of the elected ones unless they are supreme court justices who as members of a professional body may need to have their wages checked as should all peers / senators against outside and offshore earnings to ensure no more expenses scandals and due parliamentary process. This would ensure that Parliament could once again advise the monarch and also stand up for their faith or none if the first in line to the throne still wishes to disestablish the church of England in favour of defending all faiths or whether that was just being weasel worded in the 1990s when he was breaking up with his first wife.The position of the position of Monarch as head of state should be decided by the federal parliament on the basis of the election manifesto of the majority party in the House of Commons and ratified by constitutional referenda by the whole UK. How this is resolved with other states that have the same head of state is not something I am privy to. There is no such thing and nor should there be as the English Republican Army as if Sinn Fein, The SNP, Plaid and Merbyn Kernow can stand in elections, then so should other people that have republican opinions according to the rule of law. The line of succession is currently decided by Parliamentary guidelines and the Act of Settlement.The anomaly with this system is that currently there is no English Parliament within the UK equal to the Scottish and Northern Irish ones and the Welsh and Greater London Assemblies currently have less powers as they come from a differing legislative settlement and history of union with England. In my opinion with the status of Monmothshire now resolved at the last Welsh Assembly (2007) election and Berwick by academic test referenda, it is time for their to be an English parliament. That should be achieved by online debate, public meeting and persuasion on the media according to the rule of law.