Public Elections: Single Transferable Voting System (STV) and an Alternative Voting System (AV).

STATES OF JERSEY

PUBLIC ELECTIONS – SINGLE TRANSFERABLE

VOTING SYSTEM (STV) AND AN ALTERNATIVE VOTING SYSTEM (AV)

Lodged au Greffe on 17th July 2013 by Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade

STATES GREFFE

2013   Price code: A  P.86

PROPOSITION

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion

to bring forward plans for the implementation of a single transferable voting system (STV) for multi-member constituencies and an alternative voting (AV) system for single member constituencies in time for the 2014 elections.

DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE

REPORT

During their work on electoral reform, the Electoral Commission employed the expert advice  of  Dr.  Alan  Renwick,  University  of  Reading.  Dr. Renwick  is  a  reader  in comparative politics and Director of Postgraduate Research Studies in Politics at the University of Reading.

Part of his work for the Commission was to look into voting systems and to compare Jersey's  current  system  of  first-past-the-post  in  both  single  and  multi-member constituencies with alternative methods of voting. The full papers will be circulated separately as a companion document to this proposition; however, I will be quoting his key findings in this report.

Dr. Renwick was remarkably clear in his advice on the changes that needed to be made –

There  can  be  no  justification  for  maintaining  multi-member  plurality  in Jersey in preference to STV. It is rarely possible for an electoral system expert to  give  such  a  definite  judgement:  in  most  cases,  one  electoral  system performs better on some criteria, while another performs better on other criteria; the final decision then depends on which of these criteria one values more. In Jersey's case, however, all the plausible criteria point the same way: STV performs better on all criteria.'

Similarly, for single seat constituencies he says –

It would clearly be advantageous to introduce AV also for the elections in single-member districts.'

The  Electoral  Commission  was  obviously  convinced  by  these  findings  as  they recommended  on  page 37  of  their  final  report,  under  SUBSIDARY RECOMMENDATIONS that –

A Single Transferable Vote System should be introduced in elections for Deputy in 2018 and should the Constables remain as members of the States, an Alternative Vote System should be introduced in respect of their election.'

As things currently stand, Islanders will be electing one Connétable , up to 4 Deputies and 8 Senators each. STV and AV are desirable anyway, but they become even more necessary when choosing 8 Senators if we are to stop it becoming a complete lottery', as some members have quite correctly called it.

The  answer  given  by  the  Electoral  Commission  as  to  why,  in  the  face  of  such seemingly compelling expert advice, they would wait until 2018 to adopt the new voting model was that it would be too confusing to the public to bring in this changes this quickly, especially when coupled with other changes.

I do not agree with this logic, personally. There is a strong case to suggest that it is an appropriate change to bring it with all the other reforms. Currently, it is unclear whether there will be any reforms for 2014, other than those already agreed.

However, on the subject of complexity¸ Dr. Renwick gives the following advice – Page - 3

P.86/2013

The only credible criticism of STV in the Jersey context is that it is complex. There is no doubt that the process of counting votes under STV is often complex. But ordinary voters do not need to understand that complexity in order to understand how to exercise their vote and why the election result is as it is.'

Finally,  Dr. Renwick  highlights  3  important  disadvantages  of  our  current  system (multi-member plurality), whilst making the case for STV.

First, it can seriously misrepresent opinion. If groups of voters tend to vote for  the  same  set  of  candidates,  the  largest  group  can  secure  all  the representation even if is in the minority of the population as a whole. The groups here might be partisan, but need not be: for example, they could be ideological or geographical.

Second, as a corollary of the first point, multi-member plurality can lead to large numbers of wasted votes, an effect that is likely to depress electoral turnout. There is clear evidence that greater proportionality in elections leads to  higher  turnout.  In  non-partisan  Jersey,  standard  measures  of proportionality have little meaning. But wasted votes are strongly associated with  non-proportionality.  Thus,  it  is  safe  to  surmise  that  Jersey's  non- proportional voting system harms electoral turnout.

Third, multi-member plurality can do a bad job of choosing the most popular candidates, as vote-splitting between candidates with similar constituencies can allow a less popular candidate through. Such problems are more likely to arise than under single-member plurality because of the greater number of candidates.

STV would significantly reduce each of these difficulties. It would be wholly compatible  with  Jersey's  non-partisan  politics:  it  is  used  in  many  non- partisan elections, such as trade union elections and elections within the Church of England.'

Given the clear and compelling evidence, I would argue that there is no valid reason not to change from our current system of voting to the suggested AV and STV systems.

I would add that it will be necessary to educate the public, the counters and members on the exact workings of the new system. I would envisage that we would invite Dr. Renwick to come and speak to members prior to the debate so members can ask him questions.

Financial and manpower implications

There will be consequential work for both the States Greffe and Law Draftsman's Office if this proposition is adopted. It is envisaged that these costs would be met from pre-existing budgets. It is also worth noting that there was also a £59,863 under-spend from the Electoral Commission Budget. This may be able to be redirected towards the implementation of this proposition.