Written evidence from Make Votes Matter (CDR 22)

Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee The Government’s Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission

Introduction and Summary: The Government’s manifesto declares, on page 48, that “making sure that every vote counts the same” is “a cornerstone of democracy”.1 We wholeheartedly agree. The Leader of the Opposition said this year that “we’ve got to address the fact that millions of people vote in safe seats and they feel their voice doesn’t count. That’s got to be addressed by electoral reform. We will never get full participation in our electoral system until we do that at every level”.2 We absolutely agree with this too.

We cannot rebuild trust in a system where not all votes, nor all voters, count equally. We all know that, in our current First Past the Post system, two identical voters will be treated vastly differently if one lives in a marginal constituency and the other in a safe seat, or if one of them votes Green (one MP per 865,715 voters) and the other votes SNP (one MP per 25,883 voters).3 This is no way to treat equal citizens of a modern society.

We need all votes to count the same no matter which postcode they are cast in or which candidates they are cast for. In other words, we need Proportional Representation. The proposed Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission will be unable to properly restore the public’s trust in our democracy unless it addresses this blazing inequality at the heart of our political system.

About us: Make Votes Matter is a cross-party single-issue campaign for Proportional Representation (PR) for the House of Commons: what we believe to be the single most important change to unlock a better democracy, politics and society.

We are grateful for the opportunity to share our thoughts on PACAC’s inquiry on the Government’s proposed Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission. We set out our responses to your questions below.

If you would like to question us on any aspect of this submission, we would be delighted to engage with the Committee or provide further detailed responses. Question 1. What form should the Commission take? a. How should it be composed? b. Should the Commission engage the public, and if so how? c. How should the Commission proceed in its work? Over what timescale?

1Conservative Party Manifesto 2019, page 48. 2https://labourlist.org/2020/02/exclusive-keir-starmer-vows-to-consult-labour-members-on-electoral-reform/ 3Vote totals from the House of Commons Library Briefing Paper CPB 8749. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8749/CBP-8749.pdf It should be noted that despite gaining a disproportionately large number of seats from First Past the Post, SNP policy is in favour of PR. The goal of the Commission (as noted in both the Government’s manifesto and this Committee’s call for evidence) is to “restore trust”. Many ordinary people look at Westminster and see another world and another age. They do not feel like their Parliament represents them.

Fundamentally, we believe that in order to craft proposals that will actually rebuild confidence among ordinary people, there is no better way to do that than by engaging with ordinary people. The Commission should convene a representative group of British people, give them the opportunity to hear from and cross-examine experts, and then facilitate them to deliberate and reach recommendations. In other words, the Commission should engage the public by convening a citizens’ assembly.

Previous select committees who have commissioned citizens’ assemblies have described them as “a deliberative event, where members of the public from across a range of ages and backgrounds from across the country learn about and consider a subject before reaching agreed conclusions”.4 The members would be selected in a similar way to a jury, but with extra care taken to ensure that they are representative of the population at large.

In the UK, Parliamentary select committees have commissioned citizens’ assemblies on long- term funding of social care (2018)5 and climate action (2020).6

Internationally, citizens’ assemblies have been used successfully to make reasoned and popular recommendations on a host of complex and controversial issues. Perhaps most prominent has been the Citizens’ Assembly in the Republic of Ireland, which has deliberated on heated social issues such as abortion, but also on “drier” constitutional issues such as fixed-term parliaments and the manner in which referendums are held.7

We are a single-issue campaign and do not take a position on issues other than the voting system. But it is interesting to note that the Irish Citizens’ Assembly came to radically different conclusions than expected, and were outside the window of what would have been considered politically feasible. Yet when their proposals in relation to abortion were put to referendum, it emerged that the Citizens’ Assembly recommendations were supported by a two-thirds majority of voters. The point is not whether the policy at issue was right or wrong, but that the assembly was able to deliberate and provide recommendations that were much more in keeping with actual public wishes than more partisan political forums would have done. If the Commission wants to rebuild trust among the general public, we believe that it would do well to consult a representative group of the public.

4Health and Social Care and Housing, Communities and Local Government Committees’ report on Long-term funding of adult social care (HC 768 2017-19), page 7. Available on https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcomloc/768/768.pdf 5Full report on https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcomloc/citizens-assembly- report.pdf 6Commissioned by six select committees. Report on https://www.climateassembly.uk/report/read/ 7More details available on the Citizens’ Assembly website, https://2016-2018.citizensassembly.ie/en/ Finally, it is worth remembering that the Irish Citizens’ Assembly dealt with topics such as fixed-term parliaments and referendum rules. It is clear that ordinary citizens were well able to examine, deliberate and form proposals on constitutional issues, and there’s no reason to think that British citizens wouldn’t also be up to the task.

Question 2. What should be the main purpose and output of the commission? a. How should the Commission report its findings?

We understand that the proposed purpose of the Commission is to restore public confidence in political institutions. For this to happen, members of the public need to feel like they have real influence and some level of control over how the state functions. As such, we believe that it would be clearly incompatible with this aim for the Commission to report in private. The Commission must report publicly, so that citizens can debate and respond to its findings.

As a single-issue campaign, we do not comment on the other constitutional issues which the Commission may look at. But we would emphasise that if the Commission’s purpose is to “restore trust in … how our democracy operates”, it will find itself unable to do that unless it addresses the elephant in the room - making sure that all British citizens have a vote that counts equally, regardless of where they vote and whom they vote for.

Question 3. Given the remit of the Commission to look at “the broader aspects of our constitution” and “come up with proposals to restore trust in our institutions and in how our democracy operates” are there issues not on the Government’s list that need to be examined?

Central to every question the Commission will consider is the question of whether citizens feel that their democratic institutions do a good job of representing them and their concerns. As long as casting a vote feels meaningless to many, people in every corner of the UK will not trust that their institutions truly aim to represent them.

Millions upon millions of UK citizens live in safe seats which have not changed hands in decades - or in some cases over a century. The last time East Devon, Maidenhead, or Epsom and Ewell changed parties, the House of Windsor had yet to ascend to the throne.8

In every election, voters in these seats are valued far less than those in marginal seats. In order to campaign effectively, political activists living in safe seats are forced to deprioritise their local communities that they know intimately, and instead travel to far-away marginal seats that they may have little connection to. The problem is that the system actively rewards any party which treats voters unequally and punishes anyone who attempts to treat all voters equally. All other things being equal, a political party that treated all voters in all constituencies equally would lose heavily to a party which placed the concerns of voters in

8The Conservative Party won them in 1835, 1857, and 1874 respectively. https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/latest-news-and-research/media-centre/press-releases/revealed-nearly-200- seats-havent-changed-hands-since-world-war-ii/ marginal seats above those in safe seats.

This is compounded when voters in safe seats see that resources are being funnelled away from their localities and given to those living in marginals, such as with the recent debate over the Towns Fund.9 Our voting system, and the incentives that it creates, does nothing to rebuild trust among the majority of voters who live in safe seats.

Furthermore, votes are highly unequal in value depending on which party they were cast for. It took 865,715 votes to elect a single Green MP, but 25,883 to elect each Scottish National MP. Voters can see that their votes are not fairly represented in Parliament, with the Conservatives taking 56% of seats on less than 44% of the votes, the Liberal Democrats winning less than 2% of seats with 11.5% of the votes, and the Brexit Party receiving over half a million votes and no seats.10

This glaring inequality contributes directly to widespread mistrust in our democracy, but First Past the Post also encourages the kind of divisive, confrontational and increasingly toxic politics that currently risks tearing apart communities in the UK (and the USA). It is well established that democracies with PR are far more likely to have a consensual, constructive and mature political culture. This is why satisfaction with democracy has plummeted in every single developed country with First Past the Post, while PR is used in every case that bucks this trend.11

By incentivising politicians and parties to build a consensus that commands the support of the broad public, PR allows democracies to form lasting policy solutions that are in the interests of society at large.

As a consequence, there is broad consensus amongst academics that countries with proportional voting systems produce significantly better outcomes than those with winner- takes-all systems:

● Countries with PR tend to have significantly lower levels of income inequality than those with majoritarian systems. ● Among the 36 OECD member countries, the 13 with the lowest levels of income inequality all use PR. The three that use FPTP come 20th (Canada), 31st (UK) and 33rd (USA). ● Countries with PR tend to have lower levels of poverty. In terms of the poverty gap, countries with FPTP come 19th (Canada), 32nd (UK) and 34th (USA) among 36 OECD countries. ● Countries with PR are better at long-term planning. Parties are incentivised to build

9https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/robert-jenrick-ignored-civil-servants-to-spend-towns-fund-millions-on-tory- marginals-9l50g32t8 10Vote totals from the House of Commons Library Briefing Paper CPB 8749. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8749/CBP-8749.pdf 11https://www.bennettinstitute.cam.ac.uk/media/uploads/files/DemocracyReport2020.pdf consensus and public support for proposals, rather than a series of governments constantly seeking to reverse what the previous government just did. ● Countries with PR are more likely to have good environmental protections than countries with FPTP. ● Countries with PR have better gender and ethnic diversity in their Parliaments than countries with FPTP. Countries with PR also have more young MPs than countries with FPTP.

For further discussion of the points set out above - including full academic references - we would be happy to provide the Committee with a copy of our report Peterloo 200: the path to Proportional Representation.12

Question 4. What areas should be a priority for the Commission and why?

The issue of equal votes is at the heart of every other issue that the Commission might address. As long as our political institutions are founded on inequality, the many hardworking ordinary people who are at the sharp end of this inequality will struggle to trust that the political system truly has their interests at heart.

That summarises our submission: addressing the voting system must be a priority or the Commission will fail in its primary goal of restoring trust. November 2020

12The report is also available online at https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/s/peterloo_web.pdf