Democracy isn't complete without the ability to trigger a referendum
John Hackett | Jan 20, 2015 | in What should the constitution say about how we elect our representatives?
Regular elections are important, but what happens if we end up with more (or less!) than we bargained for?
We have never had the ability to select for or against parts of a governing party's policy programme, even at election time - most elections are won on a relatively small number of key issues. As it stands, we don't account for policy preferences or allow for the most basic democratic oversight - that of citizens themselves.
I would suggest three new powers for the electorate which would be supplementary to elections, which are:
The ability to trigger an election.
The ability to veto a bill passing through Westminster (or indeed, a regional parliament).
The ability to trigger a referendum on a bill put forward by any member of the public.
All these could be contingent on gathering sufficiently large numbers of signatures, with the numbers required reflecting the number of people affected by the change - eg, smaller requirements at a regional level, for instance.
This isn't an idea without precedent - Switzerland has a similar system that is worth studying.
I believe that in conjunction with proportional representation, this would restore a sense that people's views (and votes) count, and provide a rich avenue for participation in politics without having to be tied to a party - or perhaps as a precursor to a group becoming one.
The numbers are, as ever, made up; it's worth referring to the first phase to see the discussion I had about threshholds. They're very low in Switzerland, as a proportion of population. This makes me think that they should be even lower as a proportion in the UK, because the legwork involved in getting a million votes is (I believe) much more expensive and difficult than the legwork involved in getting one hundred thousand. That's as much up for debate as anything else here, though!
This is my first attempt, so obviously not everything should be just copied in from this. I'd be interested in people's thoughts about all of it, in particular how to set a threshhold. This is a surprisingly difficult one if we don't want to hamstring the idea, but if we also want to avoid the system getting 'filibustered' by vexatious contributors.
I've also tried to ensure that the right to participate in this process is protected, specifically I have in mind situations like legal aid, where a person is unable to protect their rights because they lack the funds to do so. A broad protection against this might seem a bit heavy handed, but there are lots of ways to break this system where really there ought to only be one - eg, a constitutional amendment ending it. Funding cuts should not be an issue for the vitality of participatory democracy, nor should choosing days to hold elections when the majority of people are unavailable due to work and the like.
I've noticed as I've gone along that I'm not exactly an excellent draftsman, so anyone who notices inadequate wording will be thanked for pointing it out!
"Regular elections are important, but what happens if we end up with more (or less!) than we bargained for?
We have never had the ability to select for or against parts of a governing party's policy programme, even at election time - most elections are won on a relatively small number of key issues. As it stands, we don't account for policy preferences or allow for the most basic democratic oversight - that of citizens themselves."
On this I am with you 100%. Of course I have a preference for Policy to be foremost, and for elections to become a 'Buyers Market', both these things concern pre-election though.
I also see a place/places here for Juries. I look forward to viewing your next draft.
Threshhold B is indeed quite low, under our current arrangements, which are not proportional. Keep in mind though, that we seem to have settled on proportional representation, judging by other proposals. This means that the absolute number of votes required to secure a seat may actually rise - keep in mind that PR systems may be specifically designed to keep a party out if they receive less than eg, 2% of the vote. In some places, that threshhold is 5%, I believe, but I'd like this system to say that if some percentage of the vote gets a group of people representation in parliament, it should also allow them access to direct democracy. This is based on the idea of the two systems having parity, and neither being a better avenue than the other for change. To me, that means the task of getting a referendum ought to be equal to the task of getting a representative.
It is worth pointing out that at the last election, roughly 28.6 million people voted. Divide by 650 seats, and you end up with 44,000 or so. That's more than most MPs ever receive; many end up in office with less than 25,000 votes. The Alliance Party actually won on Belfast East on 12,000 votes - which is not something that would have been possible under a proportional system, so not something we'd have to contend with if other proposed changes take place.
The threshhold would, in light of the above, vary - according to turnout at general elections. If people are not engaged in politics and are not voting, the threshhold drops. If turnout is extremely high, that makes it harder to call a referendum. This means the legitimacy of our representatives would become even more intimately tied to the number of votes cast for them.
As such, here is new wording:
"b) equal to the average number of votes cast per constituency, multiplied by seven.
Using the figure above, that would be just shy of 250,000 or so during this Parliamentary period. For reference: no political party in the UK has this many members.
To be clear, this means: the total number of votes cast at the last election, divided by the total number of constituencies, multiplied by seven.
"b) equal to the average number of votes cast per electoral district.
Note well: electoral districts under PR will be larger than constituencies - the more proportional the system we end up with is, the larger the number of votes will be required. This option could, depending on other outcomes, lead to a) being invoked more often, except in cases of extremely low turnout.
I think the more conservative amongst us will lean towards this option, and for the time being we should use the electoral districts defined for EU elections as a benchmark. I've only checked one district from the last election (Yorkshire and Humberside) but that had roughly 1.1 million votes cast in 2014. That would be a mountain to climb.
"b) equal to the average of the largest single party in each electoral district
This sets the bar lower than in option 2, but still quite high: judging by the last European election, that means 300,000 votes if the turnout is low (33%, as it was in Yorkshire and Humberside), but could be much higher.
"b) equal to the average number of votes required for the election of a single MP
This is my preference, but as I've indicated above, it puts the bar below 50,000 under normal circumstances and is contingent on us adopting PR wholeheartedly. That's likely too low for most people to agree with, although I'll keep it on the table because I'm self motivated like that! I've stated why I think this is good above, namely that it keeps parity between the two systems.
On balance, I think the healthiest compromise in lieu of option 4 is option 3. This assumes European-election style electoral districts though. Really it'd be nice to be able to decide this kind of thing after some details of the electoral system take shape, as it seems odd not to have the two interacting in some way.
That was quite long, so I'll keep the rest relatively short. The section on low threshholds is particularly salient if you wish to get to the point: I hope the (mercifully brief) argument I have made here will sway some opinions on the threshholds question above.
In defence of low threshholds:
I do believe that having a threshhold which is too high undermines the principle far more than having a threshhold which is too low. The system needs to cater for grassroots and community actions, but if we were to set the threshhold at (eg) half a million, then it'd take much larger organisations to get those kinds of numbers. Ad hoc, single issue campaigns would have to rely on either large donations (which is hardly democratic) or lots of press coverage (likewise undemocratic, especially given the state of our press and broadcast landscape).
In defence of referenda:
On the subject of representative democracy, it isn't an either/or - this is intended to blend the two. Elected officials can be challenged by direct democracy, but not replaced. That enables us to fix some of the shortcomings of representative democracy, and also some of the shortcomings of a party political system (eg, some policies will be popular but find it difficult to find a home). It also allows us to continue not having to think about every issue, but crucially, still allows us to collectively intervene if we deem it necessary.
Culturally, I don't think we'd be as hostile to regular (once every month or two) referendum days. It'd be good for participation as it'd build up not just the habit of voting, but the habit of opinion forming, all while not being too time consuming. While I have no hard evidence that we'd adapt, nor that it'd raise participation in politics, I suspect it would be a fertile route to increase voter turnouts (at elections, too), engagement, and trust in our politicians. At least part of this would be as a result of us having more power to oppose them.
Referendum fatigue is an interesting idea, principally because it suggests people don't want to participate. I think it likely comes from the length and scope of the campaign instead of the frequency of the votes - think about the Scottish referendum. If anyone was going to be tired out by that, it was because it went on for two years, not because they weren't intensely interested in the outcome.
In defence of the electorate:
While it hasn't come up for a while, there's also the issue of expertise. Many will say that the electorate isn't qualified to make some decisions - the "vote no if you don't know" approach gives some credence to this view. There has certainly been some allusion to this approach elsewhere in this discussion too - chiefly the idea of being "saved" from having to think about things.
It's worth pointing out a few things about these attitudes.
We shouldn't use sophistication or jargon as a reason to exclude people from politics. It's true that there's a minimum amount of knowledge required to participate, but the principles involved are unlikely to be beyond anyone's grasp. If we assume most people are unable to access either the technical or principled aspects of politics, we also throw people's competence into question for representative democracy.
Second, I recall in 2010 how engaged many people were by the emergence of a capable third force in British politics. It wasn't that a third group of voters magically appeared overnight (although some did come of age), it was that a third viable choice emerged because circumstances allowed it to do so. In other words, people could see their voice in politics as being relevant.
Likewise, in 2014 during the Scottish referendum, we saw incredible levels of engagement and turnout in an event which may have left the UK in tact, but which I think we'll soon see has changed it forever. More change is on the horizon as a result of that, and the reason why it mattered was because people could have their say about the kind of country they wanted to live in. This was the politics of principle and participation, and it allowed everyone to get involved - and when people care and engage, they learn.
In other words, if we are to argue the public is not capable of coping with a requirement for regular electoral engagement, it is, I believe, only because our political muscles have atrophied from enforced idleness. My prescription for this would be the regular excercise (of one's democratic rights) - which can't be had without this proposal.
In defence of spending money on democracy:
As I said in previous stages, with democracy, you get what you pay for. If it's worth it to have the strongest possible check against the power of our parliament (and government), then we should be happy to do so. There's also the fact that establishing regular polling means that we'd likely see efficiency gains - while we might end up having more polls, we'd end up spending less per-poll.
I'd agree with anyone that we shouldn't be profligate with our money, nor the next generation's (that's me, by the way), but spending money on democracy is the best investment money can buy, if I'm any judge. That we lose out on good policies because parties won't adopt them is a sad state of affairs: we can fix that and enhance people's opportunities for democratic expression
I should add, I'd like people's opinions on the options I've presented, and more input on any other wording used above. Also, I forgot to tag everyone, so I'm doing it here. Oops.
Power of Recall - the ability to sack 'wayward' MPs (in the Parliament section): 
Would it be worth concentrating here on issue-focused referendums and cover recall in one of the other proposals?
I'm happy to segment the two, as they are reasonably separate and I've mostly given focus to issue-focused referenda here. It's reasonable to say the two need separate treatment.
We should perhaps also keep in mind 'public protest', this is something that is more likely to be curtailed further - even with our newly envisaged Parliamentary system. As the 'sage' advice of our security service will be immune from Political considerations, and 'things' could go wrong that might result in 'protest' being outlawed altogether.
We should then tend to err upon the side ease-of-effect, in all matters 'referendum'.
Hi Nicholas,
Cheers for the input - I'm slightly wary of the numbers there, but you do make a compelling point about the existing (relatively pointless) petitions getting lots of signatures. There is, I suppose, some hope even with a higher threshold!
What do you think of the idea of relating the number of required votes for this to the 'natural' thresholds from the electoral system? Does it seem realistic to you?
As for whether or not to err on the side of caution, I have to disagree - I'd much rather we have the limit set too low at first and calibrate later. This way, if we have an absurd number of referenda, we can at least have another referenda where we amend the number of votes required. That's a bit harder to do the other way around!
The recall of MPs is an interesting one, because I'm still not entirely sure how it works under some of the forms of proportional representation discussed. It may be that it would be too complicated, but I suppose that's not necessarily a discussion for now. That being said, if we were to imagine option 4 under the current system (FPTP), I'd say it would end up being deeply unwise. It would destabilise marginal constituencies even further, and therefore draw even more attention to those places, at the expense of everywhere else. This mostly relates to constituencies where the winner receives less than 50% of the vote. In that case, or without PR, option 4 would be madness, surely?
"... the idea of being "saved" from having to think about things.
We shouldn't use sophistication or jargon as a reason to exclude people from politics ..."
For the record, when I commented about being saved from having to think about things, it was in response to Saeeda's comment that 'we technically can enable mass voting on all issues permanently'. I was thinking about the sheer volume of law-making and administrative decision-making which affect us indirectly and, speaking for myself, I don't want to have to keep an eye on everything going through Parliament. It wasn't a comment on your proposal, John, which I did in fact vote up in the previous phase.
That's noted, and thank you - it wasn't something I intended you to take personally, but I did think it was worth stressing some things first mentioned in the previous phase, including a response to the idea of 'inexpert' voters. I have to admit, I'd skimmed lightly before replying, so may have subconsciously picked up on your phrasing without acknowledging the context sufficiently. My bad, in that case!
It's fair to say that although not everybody wants to monitor everything that's going on all the time, but there are plenty of organisations that watch specific issues like hawks - be it the Open Rights Group checking for any lurking civil liberties horrors, or the Tax Justice Network shining a light on tax dodgers. Civil society already plays a valuable role here, and I would suspect it would play an even bigger role under this system. Deservedly so!
Saeeda's idea is quite interesting, but not really what's being discussed here. I think a system that might be of interest to Saeeda is "Liquid Democracy" or "delegative voting" - advances in technology such as smart cards and computers in general allow for many many more options than anyone has really explored to date. Among them is the idea of chains of delegation, with person A delegating to person B, then person B delegating to person C, and so on - with an unbroken chain of trust between A and Z, who might be the person with enough delegated votes to become an MP. That's an approach I like rather a lot, but not one that I put forward here, partly because people seem to think technology is so difficult to trust.
Anyway, thoughts of referendum fatigue aside, I've been on this site all day and appear to have begun to ramble. I'm out for today, but I'm very interested to hear any more on the subject that might be interesting or useful!