An Evaluation of the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Bill

A consideration of policy options for how Welsh local democracy can be reinvigorated by the voting system used in Welsh local elections.

Executive Summary

This paper is aimed towards academics, stakeholders and Welsh Assembly Members to invite them to consider in detail potenital policy options for the electoral system.

Welsh local democracy is failing. Turnout, proportionality, engagement and diversity remain low. In this paper, the provisions of the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Bill and two other policy options on electoral systems will be considered concerning their capacity to reinvigorating Welsh local democracy.

Recommendations

This paper will conclude that the provisions of the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Bill do not go far enough. The best electoral system for Welsh local elections is Single Transferable Vote because of its high degrees of proportionality, ability to limit the number of wasted votes and potential to increase the demographic diversity of councillors. Wales needs to follow Scotland’s successful example, and use Single Transferable Vote to help reinvigorate local democracy.

1. Local Government and Elections (Wales) Bill

1.1 The Local Government and Elections (Wales) Bill (LGE(W)B) is a new piece of legislation currently passing through the Welsh Assembly, introduced on the 18th of November 2019. The Bill will be the “biggest change” in the Welsh electoral system for 50 years” (Eichler, 2019) including reforms surrounding changing the voting system, running electoral pilots and lowering the voting age. The Bill “aims to reinvigorate local democracy in Wales.” (Welsh Government, 2019)

1.2 Turnout in Welsh Local elections has historically been low, with the 42.4% voter turnout in the 2017 Welsh Local Elections being representative of the norm (Electoral Commission, 2017). Results are incredibly disproportionate; in the 2017 Welsh Local Elections Labour received 30% of votes yet won 37% of the seats (The Elections Centre, 2017) showing a disconnect between the electorate and the results. Finally, gender and ethnic diversity is lacking; 28% of councillors are women (BBC, 2017) and ERS research shows that as many as 90.6 % of councillors are from a White British background (Blair & Mathias, 2018). Progress on this has been incredibly slow with the proportion of female councillors only increasing by 6% in the 13 years preceding 2017 (Stirbu, Arner & McAllister, 2017). Voting reform needs to encourage engagement with local democracy and ensure fair local representation in terms of demographics and the views of the electorate.

1.3 This policy paper will be focusing on the voting system rather than the broader electoral reform included in the Bill for local elections in Wales. Three potential policy options will be considered: maintaining the First Past The Post (FPTP) electoral system; adopting a permissive system where local councils can choose between FPTP and STV; and universally adopting STV across Wales.

1.4 A consultation done by the Welsh government on the reforms of the local election electoral system has been met with 82% of respondents disagreeing with the proposed permissive system which is discussed in detail in section 3 of this paper. (Welsh Government, 2018). In response to public consultation on the White Paper of the Bill, 45% of respondents were in favour of the current voting system whereas 55% of respondents were in favour of a change to Single Transferable Vote (STV). (Welsh Government, 2017)

2. Maintaining First Past the Post

2.1 The first option for us to consider would be rejecting the proposals in the LGE(W)B and continuing to use FPTP for local elections in Wales.

2.2 FPTP has been used widely in the UK for several different elections, most significantly for general elections in its current form since the 1950s (Cowan, 2019). Since the late 1990’s we have seen the introduction of many new elected positions, none of which have used the FPTP voting system. Today, FPTP is only used in the UK for local elections in England and Wales and General Elections nationwide.

2.3 General discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of FPTP can be found in the Expert Panel’s Report on Assembly Electoral Reform chaired by Professor Laura McAllister (2017). The advantages of this system primarily rest within its “familiarity and simplicity” (Kelly, 2011). It’s incredibly easy to explain to first-time voters and the electorate is familiar with how it operates. This keeps the number of spoiled ballot papers low and prevents voters from being disenfranchised by complicated systems resulting in lower turnouts.

2.4 FPTP ensures localised representation; the most popular candidate within a given local area is the winner ensuring a direct link between candidate and voters. This provides “accountability and balance” (Norton, 1997) allowing a community to remove their current councillor from power if they don’t provide adequate representation.

2.5 The majoritarian nature of FPTP also ensures that councils tend to have a party in control of them. This allows the council to carry out effective decision making rather than all the parties having to negotiate different policy commitments to form a coalition (Norton, 1997). 

2.6 However, it is not a system without flaws. Arguably, the biggest flaw is that it can easily create disproportionate and sometimes bizarre results. In the local elections in May 2019, there were 17 councils across England and Wales in which the party which had the most votes did not have the most councillors (Cowburn, 2019). Vote share and seats can in the 2017 election can be seen compared in Figure 1.

2.7 Voter expression lacks flexibility; a voter may only express approval for one candidate and if their candidate does not succeed their voice is discounted resulting in large numbers of votes which do not contribute to the result. In so-called ‘safe seats’, voters who do not support the candidate that wins every election lack any form of representation on their council.

2.8 FPTP does nothing to further gender or minority representation. There is limited scope to integrate quotas into the system without affecting voter choice as each party only has one candidate.

3. Local Voting System Choice 

3.1 The second option for us to consider for local election electoral system is the current proposal in the LGE(W)B.

3.2 Part 1 of the LGE(W)B provides for the introduction of two available voting systems for local councillors: FPTP and STV. Put simply this represents a choice between a majoritarian system and a proportional representation system. The mechanics of STV are explained and discussed on the Electoral Reform Society website (2017). Included in the Bill are requirements for public consultation but no requirement or power to call a local referendum on the issue.

3.3. A permissive system where local councils have the power to choose rather than being mandated to switch to STV is more palatable to people who aren’t in favour of STV. This means the Bill can be perceived as less controversial, making it more likely to gain cross-party support and pass through the Senedd with ease. 

3.4 This model for the introduction of STV is not unprecedented. The Local Electoral Act 2001 (New Zealand) introduced a similar model where local councils were given the power to decide between STV and FPTP. However, a two-thirds majority of members was not required to make the change and citizens were able to demand a referendum on the issue by getting 5% of the electorate to sign a petition. Six local elections later and only 16.4% local councils have chosen to use STV (DIA, 2019).

3.5 The argument in favour of using this model in New Zealand was that it would “foster local choice giving concrete expression to the notion of local democracy” (Cheyne & Comrie, 2007). Before the first local election in 2004, 18 councils held referendums, with only three being required to switch to STV. Seven local councils decided to change without holding a referendum (Zvulun, 2012). However, some councils failed to consult the public at all, some provided ineffective public information and some offered no way for citizens to meaningfully engage with the process. The result was the low adoption of STV. Cheyne and Comrie (2007) conclude in their study of how councils exercised the option between STV and FPTP, that the Act had two competing goals: local flexibility and fair representation. The bill placed too much emphasis on local flexibility meaning we have failed to obtain fair representation.  

3.6 In-depth national statistics for local elections in New Zealand are non-existent, likely due to there being significantly less emphasis on party politics for these elections. However, if we take one council as an example we can unpack how this system operates on a local level. Tauranga City Council changed from FPTP to STV in the 2019 election. The reasons they cited for this change are both “STV reduced the number of wasted votes and is more equitable for minority representation” (Tauranga City Council, 2017). The council switched without extensive public consultation or a local referendum with the local mayor arguing that the change came out of nowhere (Cousins, 2017). This means the only way that local people could have prevented the change would have been petitioning for a referendum.

3.7 Turnout in 2019 for the council rose from 38.07% to 40.28% showing no significant change (Tauranga City Council, 2019). We can draw little in the way of meaningful conclusion from this change apart from that voters weren’t deterred by the new system. Next, we shall consider the council’s goal to reduce the number of wasted votes. A wasted vote can be defined as one which simply did not contribute to the result. By this definition, as seen in Figure 2 below, in 2016 under FPTP 50.6% of the votes were wasted whereas in 2019 the figure dramatically dropped to 29.01%. This is due to the redistribution of votes if your vote is not for a winning candidate.

3.8 This discussion of New Zealand presents both the advantages and disadvantages of the model currently being proposed by the Welsh Government. The system’s flexibility is a double-edged sword that means the reforms may do nothing to improve turnout, gender diversity or representation because it is possible for not a single council to adopt STV. However, this proposal does have the potential to begin to introduce STV into Welsh local elections whilst still gaining the cross-party support required to pass the legislation in the first place.

4. Mandated Single Transferable Vote

4.1 The final option to consider is the rollout of STV for local elections, thereby replacing FPTP completely.

4.2 STV is a proportional representation voting system that uses preferential voting and multi-member wards to produce an outcome with less wasted votes and a higher degree of proportionality. John Stuart Mill, an early advocate for the system, believed that STV was the best voting system to provide accurate and localised representation for voters (Zvulun, 2012).

4.3 STV as a system can be used to tackle a lack of diversity in our local politics. Whilst STV itself “may do nothing to promote the election of women” or minorities (Hirczy, 1995), the system can be used in combination with quotas to bring about effective change. Having an increased choice and number of candidates gives scope to adding quotas; as parties usually field multiple candidates under STV in each ward, legislation can be put in place to ensure that one or more of these candidates is female (Buckley, 2012). The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (2019) have put together an interactive website to show how STV can effectively interact with quotas.

4.4 In 2002, the Sunderland Commission concluded in their report of Local Electoral Arrangements in Wales that STV should be used for local elections. They argued for councillors to be effective community leaders, the “make up of the council chamber must more broadly reflect the community” (Sunderland, 2002).

4.5 One of the key advantages of STV which makes it appropriate for local elections is that “it doesn't remove a local link” (Blair, 2019). Constituencies can still be relatively small, the only difference being that citizens now have multiple councillors representing their interests. The system existed in a “pre-party era” meaning it can easily function with both parties political and independent candidates: a vital feature for local elections (Farrell & Katz, 2014).

4.6. The Local Governance (Scotland) Act 2004 replaced FPTP with STV in Scottish Local Elections in 2007. The premise of this electoral reform in Scotland was that “better democracy leads to better governance” (Steven, 2010).

4.7 One of the biggest criticisms of STV is that it is overcomplicated and hard for voters to understand. In the 2007 Scottish Local Elections, the number of spoiled ballot papers rose from 0.64% in 2003 to 1.83% in 2007. However, an independent review of this election by the Electoral Commission (2007) found that this was not because voters did not understand STV, but due to running Scottish Parliament elections on the same day. The review concluded that voters were “treated as an afterthought” and that confusion caused could have easily been avoided. The number of spoiled ballots decreased in 2012 from 38,851 to 27,046 furthering the idea that voters can easily understand STV (SPICe, 2012).

4.8 Scottish Voters in 2007 did manage to use STV in sophisticated ways with 78% casting a second preference and 54% offering a third preference (Denver & Bochel, 2007). This pattern continued in the 2012 elections with 81.3% of voters marking a second preference and 52.6% marking a third (Clark, 2013).  

4.9 Turnout in Scottish Local Elections has not suffered nor has it significantly increased since the introduction of STV. This shows that the voting system won’t necessarily help the problem of disengagement in local politics.

4.10  The outcome of the 2007 election was also “considerably more proportional than previous contests held under first-past-the-post conditions” (Clark & Bennie, 2008) which can be seen represented in the comparison of the 2003 and 2007 elections in Figure 3 and 4 below. In 2003, for example, in Glasgow City Council Labour won 71 out of 79 available seats with only 47.6% of the vote (Bochel & Dever, 2004). In 2007 this reduced to 45 seats with 43.31% of first preference allowing for other parties to be adequately represented on the council (Teale, 2007).

4.11 Moving away from the Scotland example, we must consider arguments for a complete rollout of STV instead of the currently proposed choice given to local councils. This argument rests on the goals of the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Bill which as previously discussed aims to reinvigorate local democracy and bring about electoral reform (Welsh Government, 2019b). If we accept the advantages of STV outweigh those of FPTP, and we also accept that councils may be resistant to changing voting system (as seen from the New Zealand example), the only way to bring about effective change is through the complete rollout of the system.

5. Recommendation & Implementation

5.1 Having considered three policy options, the most appropriate is for Wales to rollout STV across the country for local elections. The current voting system is failing to provide effective representation of the views of the electorate and is harming local democracy. The proposal to give councillors the choice of voting system is ineffective and flawed. The STV voting system puts more power in the hands of voters ensuring both a proportional outcome whilst maintaining local representation with potential to also increase demographic diversity of councillors.

5.2 Implementation of this rollout would need to involve an extensive educational campaign to inform voters of the change but it is clear from the Scottish example that voters can comprehend this system and use it to effectively represent their views.

Bibliography

BBC, (2017). Election ‘diversity crisis’ warning over women standing [online]. BBC News, [Viewed 8th January 2020]. Available from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-39721534

Blair, J, (2019). Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee 11/12/2019 [online]. Assembly.Wales, [Viewed 6th January 2020]. Available from: https://record.assembly.wales/Committee/5757

Blair J. & Mathias M., (2018). New Voices: How Welsh politics can begin to reflect Wales [online]. Electoral Reform Society Cymru. [Viewed 4th January 2020]. Available from: https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/New-Voices.pdf

Bochel, H & Denver, D., (2004). ‘The Last Post’ for First-Past-The-Post? The 2003 Scottish Council Elections. Scottish Affairs [online]. 47(1), 79-98. [Viewed 4th January 2020]. Available from: doi: 10.3366/scot.2004.0028

Buckley F., (2012). Ireland offers an exmaple of the way in which gender quotas can be implemented in national parliaments [online]. London School of Economics and Political Science. [Viewed 12th January 2020]. Available from: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2013/11/29/ireland-serves-as-an-example-for-the-way-in-which-gender-quotas-can-be-implemented-in-national-parliaments/

Cheyne C & Comrie M, (2007). Empowerment or Encumbrance? Exercising the STV Option for Local Authrotiy Elections in New Zealand. Local Government Studies [online]. Volume in 31(2), 185-204. [Viewed 4th January 2020]. Available from: doi: 10.1080/03003930500023064

Clark, A., (2013).Second time luck? The continuing adaption of voters and parties to the single transferable ote in Scotland. Journal of Representative Democracy [online]. 49(1), 55-68. [Viewed 8th January 2020]. Available from: doi: 10.1080/00344893.2012.742456

Clark, A. & Bennie, L., (2008). Electoral Reform and Party Adapatation: The Introduction of the Single Transferable Vote in Scotland. The Political Quarterly  [online]. 79(2), 241-251. [Viewed 12th January 2020]. Available from: doi: 10.1111/j.1468-923X.2008.00925.x

Cousins, J., (2017). Tick box voting system dropped for Tauranga council elections [online].Bay of Plenty Times. [Viewed 3rd January 2020]. Available from: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/bay-of-plenty-times/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503343&objectid=11905538

Cowan, D., (2019). How long have we used first past the post? [online]. Electoral Reform Society. [Viewed 3rd January 2020]. Available from: https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/how-long-have-we-used-first-past-the-post/

Cowburn, A., (2019). Uk’s ‘warped’ first-past-the-post system gave’wrong winners’ in 17 local authorirty elections, study finds [online]. Independent. [Viewed 5th January 2020]. Available from: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/elections-first-past-post-system-wrong-winners-may-2019-a9073116.html

Denver D. & Bochel H., (2007). A Quiet Revolution: STV and the Scottish Council Elections of 2007. Scottish Affairs [online]. 61(1), 1-17. [Viewed 9th January 2020]. Available from: doi: 10.3366/scot.2007.0050

DIA, (2019). Resource Material: STV Information [online]. Department of Internal Affairs. [Viewed 7th January 2020]. Available from: https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Resource-material-STV-Information-Index?OpenDocument#four

Eichler, W., (2019). Welsh teenagers set to get the vote in local government ‘overhaul’ [online]. LocalGov. [Viewed 2nd January 2020]. Available from: https://www.localgov.co.uk/Welsh-teenagers-set-to-get-the-vote-in-local-government-overhaul/48548

Elections Centre., (2017). Local Elections Summaries 2017 [online]. The Elections Centre. [Viewed 9th January 2020]. Available from: http://www.electionscentre.co.uk/?page_id=3755

Electoral Commission, (2007). Scottish elections 2007: The independent review of the Scottish Parliamentary and local government elections 3 May 2007 [online]. The Electoral Commission. [Viewed 9th January 2020]. Available from: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/sites/default/files/electoral_commission_pdf_file/Scottish-Election-Report-A-Final-For-Web.pdf

Electoral Commission., (2017). Results and turnout at the May 2017 Wales local elections [online]. The Electoral Commission. [Viewed 15th January 2020]. Available from: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/wales-local-council-elections/results-and-turnout-may-2017-wales-local-elections

ERS, (2017). Single Transferable Vote [online]. Electoral Reform Society. [Viewed 30th December 2019]. Available from: https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/single-transferable-vote/

Expert Panel on Electoral Reform, (2017). A Parliament that Works for Wales - The Report of the Expert Panel on Electoral Reform [online]. assembly.wales. [Viewed 21st October 2019]. Available from: https://www.assembly.wales/NAfW%20Documents/About%20the%20Assembly%20section%20documents/Expert%20Panel%20on%20Assembly%20Electoral%20Reform/A%20Parliament%20that%20Works%20for%20Wales.pdf

Farrell D. & Katz. R, (2014). Assessing the Proprtionality of the Single Transferable Vote. Journal of Representative Democracy [online]. 50(1), 13-26.[Viewed 3rd January 2020]. Available from: doi: 10.1080/00344893.2013.902212

Hitczy, W., (1995). STV and the Representation of Women. Political Science and Politics [online]. 28(4), 711-713. [Viewed 14th January 2020]. Available from: doi:10.2307/420523

International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance., (2019). Interactive Overview of Combinations of Electoral Systems & Quota Types [online]. Internationa Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistence. [Viewed 15th January 2020]. Available from: https://www.idea.int/data-tools/tools/interactive-electoral-systems-quota-types

Kelly, R., (2011). Nowhere to Run, Nowehere to Hide? The 2010 General Election and the Defence of First-past-the-post. The Political Quarterly [online]. 82(1), 42-49. [Viewed 4th January 2020]. Available from: doi: 10.1111/j.1467-923X.2011.02165.x.

New Zealand. Local Electoral Act 2001. 35 [online]. New Zealand: Parliamentary Counsel Office. [Viewed 10th January 2020]. Available from: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2001/0035/51.0/DLM93301.html

Norton, P., (1997). The case for First-Past-The-Post. Representation [online]. 34(2), 84-88. [Viewed 5th January 2020]. Available from: doi: 10.1080/0034489970852299.

SPICe The Information Centre, (2012). Local government elections 2012 [online]. The Scottish Parliament. [Viewed 4th January 2020]. Available from: http://www.parliament.scot/ResearchBriefingsAndFactsheets/S4/SB12-38.pdf

Sunderland Commission., (2002). Improving Local Democracy in Wales: Report of the Commission on Local Government Electoral Arrangements in Wales [online]. blogs.cardiff. [Viewed 8th January 2020]. Available from: http://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/electionsinwales/wp-content/uploads/sites/100/2013/11/Sundrland-Commission-Report.pdf

Stirbu D. Larner, J & McAllister L., Pitiful progress: women councillors in Wales after the 2017 local elections [online]. Athena Talks [Viewed 14th January 2020]. Available from: https://medium.com/athena-talks/pitiful-progress-women-councillors-in-wales-after-the-2017-local-elections-edbf39258c7

Steven, M., (2010). Working with STV: A Report for Parites and Councillors [online]. Electoral Reform Society. [Viewed 11th January 2020]. Available from: https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Working-with-STV.pdf

Tauranga City Council., (2017). New voting system for 2019 local elections [online]. Tauranga City Council. [Viewed 3rd January 2020]. Available from: https://www.tauranga.govt.nz/council/council-news-and-updates/latest-news/artmid/456/articleid/1682

Tauranga City Council, (2019). 2019 Triennial Electionst [online]. Tauranga City Council. [Viewed 4th January 2020]. Available from: https://www.tauranga.govt.nz/Portals/0/data/council/elections/files/final_result_report.pdf

Teale, A., (2007). Local Election Results [online]. Andrew Teale. [Viewed 5th January 2020]. Available from: http://www.andrewteale.me.uk/pdf/2007-scotland.pdf

Wales. Welsh Government, (2017). Reforming Local Government: Resilient and Renewed White Paper - Summary of Response, July 2017 [online]. Cardiff:Welsh Government. [Viewed 7th January 2020]. Available from: 

https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/consultations/2018-02/171122-summary-responses-en.pdf

Wales. Welsh Government, (2018). Electoral Reform in Local Government in Wales: Consultation - Summary of Responses, April 2018 [online]. Cardiff: Welsh Government. [Viewed 8th January 2020]. Available from: https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/consultations/2018-04/180526-summary-of-responses.pdf

Wales. Welsh Government, (2019). Local Government and Elections (Wales) Bill, [online] Cardiff: National Assembly for Wales. [Viewed 29th December 2019] Available from: http://senedd.assembly.wales/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=26688&Opt=0

Wales. Welsh Government, (2019). Local Government and Elections (Wales) Bill Explanatory Memorandum, 18th November 2019 [online]. Cardiff: Welsh Government. [Viewed 10th January 2020]. Available from: https://www.assembly.wales/laid%20documents/pri-ld12877-em/pri-ld12877-em-e.pdf

Wales. Welsh Government, (2019b). Local Government and Elections (Wales) Bill: Statement of policy Intent for SUbordinate Legilsation to be made under this Bill, November 2019 [online]. Cardiff: Welsh Government. [Viewed 30th December 2019]. Available from: http://senedd.assembly.wales/documents/s96017/Local%20Government%20and%20Elections%20Wales%20Bill%20Statement%20of%20Policy%20Intent.pdf

Zvulun, J., (2012). The Single Transferable Vote and Voter Turnout in the 2004 Local Elections. Journal of Political Marketing [online]. 11(3), 123-142. [Viewed 7th January 2020]. Available from: doi: 10.1080/15377857.2012.699392