UK referendum on changing its voting system.

UK referendum on changing its voting system.

Abstract

After the general election of 2010, there was a Conservative Liberal Democratic Coalition Agreement that prompted the referendum on the alternative vote in the United Kingdom. This was a vote that was held nationwide on 5^th May 2011, on a Thursday which
was a date that coincided with the day of local elections in most of the areas about the method of choosing the MPs. The referendum was based on the people’s take as far as replacing the current simple plurality method with the method of ‘alternative vote’. However, the proposal of introducing the alternative vote was eventually rejected by the people. Notably, this was the second referendum that was held nationwide in the country following one in 1975 concerning EC. The difference was that the first was based on an issue that was post legislative whereas this second referendum gave the people the chance of voting on a domestic legislator in which the EC was not concerned. The referendum drew a large base of people who were allowed to make a decision on the matter in hand. These included all the Irish, British and the Commonwealth citizens who were above the age of eighteen and who lived in Britain. Those British citizens who lived outside Britain were also allowed to cast their vote. The members of the House of Lords, who under normal circumstances do not always vote, were also allowed to vote. The referendum attracted a 42.2 percent turnout, with 32 percent of the electorate voting for the change while 68 percent of the electorate voted against the alternative vote. In the counting districts, the yes votes above the 50 percent mark were achieved in just ten out of the 4400 counting districts. (Robinson, 200)

Introduction

The British referendum offered the electorate a chance to change the electoral system especially within the family of majoritarian. This move was to see a shift to the model of alternative vote from the current single member plurality. The factions that were in the ‘yes’ campaign included those organizations in the democracy sector as well as the small parties that were largely associates with the proportional representation advocacy in the United Kingdom. The turn of events can just be well explained by a relation to the social choice theory and in respect to the structures of political opportunity and the frame analysis that are interpersonally related. The Electoral Reform Society, Liberal Democrats and other factions who had in the earlier days criticized the introduction of the alternative vote changed their stance and were now campaigning in favor of the alternative vote. This behavior therefore led to the lack of direction and clarity in their objectives, which led to the ultimate failure. It was seen as a double standard on the part of the parties. (Felsenthal & Machover, 2012)

Details of the referendum

The referendum had to undergo various legal processes and legislative processes before the actual organization of the referendum, especially on the issues ranging from the legislation, the stands taken and the questions that were at hand. The shaping of the campaign process can best be related to the social choice theories. (Contiades, 2011)

A brief on the legislation

There was a provision for holding the referendum under the parliamentary voting system and constituencies act of 2011. Contained were also the changes that would have resulted from the adoption of the alternative vote system. The law had to be passed before the referendum took place, and Elizabeth II put the royal assent to the bill on the 16^th February the year 2011. The act made a provision for the referendum on the system of voting for the elections of the parliamentary seats. (Contiades, 202)

Question

The referendum was based on the question as to whether there should be a replacement of the First Past the Post model of elections to a new model of the Alternative Vote in the general elections. The referendum required a simple answer, yes or no and there was a simple majority requirement for either side to carry the day. The question was in English and in Wales; it appeared in the Welsh language. This was to ensure that the result of the referendum was an accurate one as given by the electorate. (LLC Books, 2010)

Campaign positions

The campaigns pitted the coalition partners on opposite sides, with the Conservatives opposing the alternative vote model while the Liberal Democrats were in support for it. Interestingly, the members who were aligned to the Conservative party ended up supporting the alternative vote in the referendum, going in contravention to the formal position of the Conservative Party. In the election of its leaders, the Conservative Party applies the successive ballots system which is referred to as another form of the alternative vote system, which they were supporting. In their elections, there is the process of eliminating the candidate with fewest votes in every round of elections.

There were debates that were elicited by the referendum, with the debate seeing an entry of the academic individuals. Many people and intellectuals contributed to the debate that preceded the referendum, with these engagements being done through social networking, blogs and through the mainstream networking. Several organizations added their voices to the debate, with two distinct factions rising; those in support of the fairer vote or alternative vote, and those who were against the introduction of the alternative vote. Celebrities like Billy Bragg threw their weight to the debate. Actors and actresses were also vocal in as far as the campaign for and against the bill were concerned. A number of bishops and churches were in support of the alternative vote with some of the bishops in England lie Rt. Rev Michael Langrish; Rev Colin Buchanan among others supported the yes campaign.

The social choice theory’s contribution to the debate

According to Flaschel(2012), the social choice theory bases on the fact that people are able to be hampered to reach a good decision that is best for them even when there seems to be no agreements that are enforceable. It is a more of a non cooperative game theory that is characterized by a decision theory in which agents agree are in an agreement to be bound by the outcome of any social process such as a voting process. The 2011 referendum in UK was an extension of this theory and the social theory played a vital role in the debate that preceded the referendum. The theory basically bases on the fact that people may have preferences that are asymmetric, with some who may have a preference for the status quo while others preferring the alternative, but at the end there is need for there to be an aggregation of everyone’s preference.

A hypothesis can be formed based on the debate that preceded the referendum. For instance, the collective choices as were observed are the alternatives that can be regarded as being the best for a sample perspective of an individual 1. A model can then be developed regarding hoe the preferences of the individuals were influenced hence prompting the individual to make a choice. These parameters that might have affected the choice of individual 1 may be his or her social and economic background, or the economic or income status. The models can be tested using various observables which include the parameter values and the choices that are realized. The positive political theory models are the premise that is basically applied as opposed to the preferences based on individuals. However, possessing the knowledge of how the preferences of the various individuals are determined by a number of parameters that are exogenous, there is still need for a theory that can explain how there is the difference and a conflict in the preferences of individuals being translated ultimately to choices on policies as was the case in the United Kingdom.  (Russell& Cohn, 2012)

Social choice algorithm

The collection of the ordinal preferences marks the starting point for the social choice algorithm, similar to what Arrow points to in the Arrow’s theorem. The situation that was presented to the British electorates in the referendum can be likened to a social choice problem, whose purpose is to give a map from the orders of preferences for every individual voter in the UK. This is used to produce n order of social preference through the use of some algorithm. This information can be used to do a variety of things. For instance, the initial ‘first past the post’ model that was used by the British in their electoral process can be used as a start to the ordinal preferences. Through this method, there is a count on the first place ranking for every option where the rank bearing the biggest count is counted first and there is a declaration on the indifferences to the rest of the options that are available. In the run up for the United Kingdom referendum, there were various advocacies for the representation proportions which have been conflicting and which have not been working in similar ways. The Conservatives supported the electoral system that involved the alternative vote which was also known as the Australian debate as it is a system that is used in the election of legislatures in Australia. (Barrington, 2012)

Debate based on social choice

There were debates that the alternative vote system was much more complex than the FPTP system of voting in which was done through voting for one’s second choice as a way of voting against the third choice. As Kelly(1988) observes, the strategic voting was seen as involving the knowledge of what the outcome was bound to be and being used as a way to change the vote that one wished to cast. It was argued that the system involved the knowledge of the actual percentages and using them to coordinate well with the others, ensuring that other people are made to switch. This mode was considered to be harder especially in cases where everyone else voted on a strategic basis and in disguise of the preferences that they truly have. This was seen as a theory of games which would complicate issues in the voting process by those who were against the alternative vote system. The debate preceding the referendum was characterized by arguments that strategic voting mattered less in the practice under the alternative vote mode. (Elster &  Hylland, 1989)

There were other debates that raged concerning the voting system as was proposed in the referendum. Some people had a view that any system of voting that selected single candidates with respect to the districts leaned towards promoting a state of two parties. The basis of this argument is on the law of Duverger which is a theorem and is based on a lot of assumptions. This elicits contention on whether the law is good or not hence illustrating the gap that exists between the conclusion and the analysis of the real issues on the ground. Much debate was based on the idea that two party systems was not good for the United Kingdom as it would eventually lead to the disenfranchisement of the people. This was seen to eventually lead to the people voting to the smaller parties. However, there are those who had a view that they are good as this would lead to the governing majority which would in turn create a lot of stability in the United Kingdom. Moreover, there were others like the Liberal Democrats who laid claims of creating stability through dramatic shifts in the entire way in which parties ruled as opposed to the ruling coalitions’ quantitative shifts. Based on the social choice theories, these claims cannot be fully backed especially with the solid analysis that is characterized by the strategic voting patterns. (Turpin, & Tomkins, 2011)

Social choice perspective

The fundamentals of the social choice theory are representative of the behaviorism and various psychologies of external control. The choice theory does not view individuals as having being shaped up by the punishments and rewards, but suggests the fact that people have some capacity of choice making and exercising the control of their lives. The debate preceding the referendum was overtly based on this argument. Those factions that were both campaigning for either side were basing their reasons on the social theory, where they were emphasizing the importance of choice and the fact that the electorate were presented by the chance to choose from two options. The intellectuals and politicians alike acknowledged the fact that the most important thing in the referendum was making choices by individuals which would eventually be taken as a collective decision by the electorate in the United Kingdom. (Loveland, 2012)Just like the choice theory indicates, the motivation of individuals is always gotten from what the individuals need or want at a particular moment. In this aspect, maintaining and building positive relationships especially with the people whom an individual shares with the same vision is vital. Those sharing the same dream and goal are usually motivated to work collaboratively. This was the case in the run up to the referendum. The debate was characterized by two sharply contrasting opinions, with one side being the ‘yes’ team and the other one against the alternative vote. These two factions each were arguing out their points and views differently. Throughout the discussions, those who shared the same view were alike and were connected in some manner to their policies. At that same time, all the leading campaigners were interested in appealing to the electorate that their views on the referendum were the correct ones and they were trying to influence the voting decisions by the electorate. (Riley, 1988)

The referendum was eventually to produce an analysis of the combined interests, welfares and preferences for the individuals in the electorate and term that as a collective decision of the people of the United Kingdom. This greatly shaped the way the debate on the referendum shaped up. The main interest of the parties which were campaigning was to influence individuals as it was clear that it was the individuals’ choices that were ultimately going to shape the collective results of the referendum process. (Bogdano, 1981)

Conclusion

The social choice theory is based on the analysis of the decisions that are made between the collections of the various alternatives that are made by collecting a given number of voters who bear different opinions. The choices from the entire groups should eventually reflect the individual voters’ desires to a possible extent. Throughout the debate before the referendum, individuals were expressing their reasons behind the choices of supporting the alternative vote model or rejecting it with a view of convincing various individuals throughout the electorate to vote their way in the referendum. The fact was that the side that was to gunner a simple majority was to carry the day. This meant that individuals were to make choice and the choices were to eventually determine the course of the referendum which ultimately would have to be considered as the collective choice of the electorate. (Rowley, 1993)

Work cited

Barrington, L. Comparative Politics: Structures and Choices. New York: Cengage Learning, 2012 

Bogdanor, V. The People and the Party System: The Referendum and Electoral Reform in British Politics. Great Britain: CUP Archive, 1981

Contiades, X. Comparative Constitutional Amendment. New York: Routledge, 2012

Contiades, X. Engineering Constitutional Change: A Comparative Perspective on Europe, Canada and the USA. New York: Routledge, 2012

Elster, J. & Hylland, A. Foundations of Social Choice Theory. New York: CUP Archive, 1989

Felsenthal, D. & Machover, M. Electoral Systems: Paradoxes, Assumptions, and Procedures. New York: Springer, 2012

Flaschel, P. Roads to Social Capitalism: Theory, Evidence, and Policy. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2012

Kelly, J. Social choice theory: an introduction. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1988 

LLC Books. Electoral Reform in the United Kingdom: Representation of the People Acts, Reform Act 1832, Representation of the People Act 1948. General Books LLC, 2010 – 9

Loveland, I. Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, and Human Rights: A Critical Introduction. UK: Oxford University Press, 2012

Riley, J. Liberal Utilitarianism: Social Choice Theory and J.S. Mill's Philosophy.  New York: CUP Archive, 1988

Robinson, C. Electoral Systems and Voting in the United Kingdom. Great Britain: Edinburgh University Press, 2010

Rowley, C. Social Choice Theory: The aggregation of preferences. Edward Elgar, 1993

Russell, J, & Cohn, R. Results of the United Kingdom Alternative Vote Referendum 2011. Tbilisi State University, 2012

Turpin, C. & Tomkins, A. British Government and the Constitution: Text and Materials. UK: Cambridge University Press, 2011