There has been much talk about whether a general election will or should take place before 2020, the key arguments behind it being that Theresa May has no mandate to carry out her programme, while also having no mandate to negotiate the exact terms of Brexit. Calling an early election would therefore be a single-topic vote. Yossi Nehushtan explains why such an outcome would be anti-democratic.
Many have argued for a general election ‘about the EU’. The common assumptions are that an election will allow ‘the people’ to express their updated and informed views about the exact way to leave the EU; accord democratic legitimacy to the new PM; and shift the balance back from ‘direct democracy’ to ‘representative democracy’.
The truth is, however, that having a general election ‘about the EU’ is an exceptionally bad way of achieving the above. First, it is anti-democratic to have a general election about a single topic. Second, it is not at all clear what this single topic could be. Third, the result will not reflect the majority will because the first past the post system constantly fails to reflect the majority will.
A One-Topic General Election is Anti-Democratic
The main purpose of having democratic elections is (or should be) to allow ‘the people’ to express their political preferences by casting their vote to the candidate or party which is more likely to realize them. Political preferences are normally complex. Also, not all voters care about each issue to an equal extent. An opinion poll by YouGov showed, for example, that in three points in time during 2015, an average of no more than 25 per cent thought that ’Europe’ was one of the three ‘most important issues facing the country at this time’.
It is true that we can expect a different answer today; it is also true that leaving the EU will affect other areas such as immigration and the economy. But this does not affect my main argument: general elections should not reduce the complex preferences of voters regarding numerous issues to one narrow question about one specific issue.
Many voters may prefer that the UK would leave the EU – but for many other valid reasons they may also prefer to vote for a political party that happens to support ‘Remain’. It will be unwise to assume that all those who would vote for a party that supports ‘Brexit’, in fact support ‘Brexit’. If it is made clear for voters that any vote for a party that supports ‘Brexit’ is in fact a vote for ‘Brexit’ and nothing more, voters may be forced to vote for parties which do not reflect any of their other preferences – or to vote for a party which does not represent their preference about the EU, rendering the election almost meaningless.
Forcing voters to ignore their political views and preferences, and perceiving these voters as one-dimensional political persons who only care about ‘Leave’ or ‘Remain’ diminishes their political personality and makes any such election anti-democratic.
A one-topic General Election – about what exactly?
A referendum is a dreadful way of making conclusive political decisions but it does put forward one agreed question. If we have a general election soon, we can reasonably assume that it will be ‘about the EU’. But what does it mean? Will the election be about whether to Leave or Remain? About who has the authority to trigger Article 50? About the necessary conditions that must be met before we decide to leave the EU? Or perhaps about trusting Theresa May and Boris Johnson to make the right decision?
Having a general election about ‘leaving the EU’ without knowing what the election is really about is a recipe for confusion and superficial public debate. Ultimately, it will not solve any ‘democratic legitimacy’ problems and will add very little to the barely legitimate referendum’s result. Since we can’t really have an election about one specific and agreed issue, any other decision that will be made by the new elected government will be exposed to arguments regarding its own democratic legitimacy. And then what? A second referendum? Yet another PM resignation and a new general election?
We went through this unfortunate exercise before. We know that the referendum’s result is not legally binding and we also know that we should accord the result limited political-moral weight. The current government – or better yet, Parliament – should make the decision and face harsh popular criticism for making it because that would be the case with or without more elections and referendums. And if there are doubts regarding the new PM’s democratic legitimacy then nothing has changed: David Cameron was also not elected by the majority of voters. Twice. And he was still the PM. Twice.
A Bonus: Why the UK is Not a Democracy
Even if ‘the people’ were happy to have an election about a single issue; even if the ‘question’ was specific and clear; and even if all voters knew what they are voting for – the result will not reflect the majority will, because UK general elections almost never do.
Non-proportional voting systems, such as majoritarian voting systems, completely fail to reflect the majority will. In the UK, for example, in almost all cases in the 20th century in which one political party won more than 50 per cent of seats in parliament, this party did not receive more than 50 per cent of the people’s votes.
In non-proportional voting systems there is normally no correlation between the percentage of votes a political party gets and the number of seats to which it is entitled. This has always been the case in the UK, but in the 2015 election, the gap between UK’s self-perception as a representative democracy and the facts was truly astonishing. To take a few examples: the SNP got 4.7 per cent of votes and 56 seats. The Liberal-Democrats got 7.9 per cent of votes but only 8 seats. UKIP got 12.6 per cent of the votes but only 1 seat. The Conservative party got 36.9 per cent of votes and a majority of seats. Together we have 49.5% for center-right-wing parties. All other parties combined got 50.5 per cent of votes – parties that could have formed a center-left coalition government if the UK voting system made any attempt to reflect the majority will
Only an anti-democratic and unfair voting system as we have can take these results and transform them to the Conservative party having the majority of seats in Parliament.
In light of these facts, perceiving British democracy as a ‘representative democracy’ would be too much even for George Orwell to take. Here we should be careful not to equate free election and public legitimacy with democracy. Voters may be happy with the current system (as the 2011 AV referendum perhaps showed). The current system may enjoy public legitimacy – but it is not democratic in any meaningful sense. For a voting system to be democratic it is not sufficient for it to enjoy public legitimacy, but its results should also reflect as accurately as possible the genuine preferences of voters.
Also within the context of the EU debate, two different and insightful projections, by Appelgate and Phillips and Hanretty, showed that because of the our electoral system, if the EU referendum was not a referendum but rather a ‘one topic general election’, pro-Brexit political parties would have won more than 65 per cent of seats in parliament. This means that it is very likely that a general election about the EU will result in yet another win for the ‘Leave’ camp even if most voters vote for ‘Remain parties’.
So much for (representative) democracy.
______
Note: the author would like to thank Adam Davidson for commenting on a previous version of this post.
Yossi Nehushtan is Senior Lecturer at the School of Law, Keele University.
Sorry to upset most of what has been said before, but suggest people look up a 2010 Act which Cameron pushed through to get the Brexiteers off his back.
That before any new treaty or treaty change with the EU it should be subject of a Referendum.
The basic premise therefore is that before the UK can end the present treaty it has to be subject of a Referendum.
May et al have been trying to bypass this with the Withdrawl Bill
But GE to decide NO. It is clear that Brexit is a decision by the Sovereign Parliament. MPs have allowed this to happen they should carry out their Primary Duty as MPs and protect the people and that includes from the excesses of the Executive.
Whatever future voting system we have, and whatever issues future elections and referendums are fought about, we have to do something about the lies and distortions which have become stock-in-trade of politicians.
I propose a law similar to slander/libel to protect facts. The courts have shown themselves well able to determine “truth” in libel cases, and to award damages to any who have incurred losses as a result of lies. To allow cases to be brought by anyone harmed by others’ incorrect statements of “fact” seems a natural extension.
We might also give the courts the power to declare null and void any vote where distortions by the winning side could be shown to have had a material effect on the outcome.
Incidental to the main theme, but someone has to point it out.
Yossi makes a good case for electoral reform in arguing that a General election cannot reasonably be said to be an accurate expression of public opinion, but the casual statement that “the SNP got 4.7 per cent of votes and 56 seats” is hardly reasonable – and as such is becoming a throwaway line from politicians in England.
The SNP only contests seats in Scotland – unsurprisingly. At the 2015 GE it got 48.5%of the popular vote so yes, 56 seats out of 59 is a good example of the distortions created by FPTP, but it not as distorted as Yossi implies. Remember too that in 30 seats, the SNP got over 50% of the vote. Had the election been held under AV, in these seats there would not have been any need to redistribute votes at all.
A pity, as this is a thought-provoking piece. How do major issues get debated if elections give such unclear outcomes and referenda can be swayed by disinformation? No easy answer.
“UKIP got 12.6 per cent of the votes but only 1 seat. The Conservative party got 36.9 per cent of votes and a majority of seats. Together we have 49.5% for center-right-wing parties. ” However, you’ve omitted the three Ulster Unionist parties which add another 1% or so to the centre right. So over 50%.Basic maths always helps.
In any event, taking votes when in so many constituencies there is more or less a certain outcome is misleading. If I’m a Labour supporter in Camden and know that it’s a nailed on Labour seat, my failure to register a vote doesn’t mean I’m unhappy with the outcome. Or vice versa.
If there was any evidence of a groundswell of support for PR in the UK you might have a case. You haven’t even tried to make the argument that coalition governments in some way embed democracy, when in fact they embed compromises and privilege minority obstructionism.
Yoshi Nehushtan is trying to stand the British constitution on its head! It’s true Parliament is very imperfect but it is still the repository of power. As Yoshi says it’s impossible for a general election to be about a single issue in practice. The Referendum asked voters just, “do you want Brexit, yes or no?” A General Election, it seems to me, will be constitutionally essential to validate such as major decision as Brexit. The question to voters will be, “taking all things into account, who do you want to represent you in Parliament?” Leavers may well decide that all things considered they want a Remainer to represent them. Representative democracy will allow a much more measured judgement than a one-off, either-or vote.
I for one will not accept Britain leaving the EU as being constitutionally legitimate on the basis of a single advisory vote. The basic decision – and if possible the actual deal – must be validated by a General Election. If that leads to a Brexit Parliament, then fair enough, I will accept it and make the best of it. Which incidentally, even speaking as a LibDem, means a second referendum would be a waste of time too.
Its not really fair to state that the UK system is undemocratic, it is simply based on the idea of electing representatives for local areas rather that the political party of government. We elect an MP as our representative in parliament to fight for our issues, sometimes these are local rather than national. MPs do not always follow their party line and only get to keep their jobs if the electorate approve of their actions. Independent candidates often stand on local issues, rarely they win but often their candidacy forces concessions from the more mainstream candidates. Its true that the political party of those standing has a huge effect on voting but that local connection remains and I would argue that it is vital for a proper functioning democracy.
From this perspective the UK system is perfectly democratic, 100% of constituencies are represented by the candidate they most wanted. It is by no means perfect but every alternate system has its own flaws. It also encourages a healthy independence of MPs from the official party line as Theresa May with her plans for grammar schools is about to discover.
There is no clear cut way of getting out of the mess we are in.
FPTP is a rotten anti-democratic voting system but it is much better when deciding binary issues with only two candidates in each constituency.
A General Election is necessary because the Prime Minister does not have a mandate to trigger Article 50, and doesn’t have a parliamentary majority sufficient to pass the necessary legislation that will be necessary to implement any Brexit plan.
The Government should put forward their plan for Brexit. It should be debated in parliament before the next General Election. If the Government is defeated, a General Election could and should be the way forward.
This could work if all parties agreed to suspend party politics for the election and the following five year parliament with the intention to elect a Government of national unity.
A Government of National Unity would be justified in the circumstances and a five year parliament would be needed to deal with the resulting legislation.
The contest would be fought between ‘Brexit’ (ie according to the Government plan) and ‘Remain’ groups on the basis of ‘for’ or ‘against’ the Plan. The campaign for the Plan, and the ‘Remain’ criticism of the Plan, will give a much clearer picture of our possible future than was possible during the Referendum campaign.
Brexit and Remain groups would select their candidates for each constituency. There would be a presumption that sitting MPs who have declared for one camp or the other would be selected as candidates.
It may not be possible to prevent other candidates from standing, but in most cases their intervention would clearly be counter productive to their own cause by splitting the vote, so this would act as a major disincentive to ‘rogue’ candidates.
A clear result with one group having both a majority of Votes and MPs is most likely. The group would be in a position to form a Government. The ‘Brexit’ group would implement the plan, the ‘Remain’ group would rebuild our position in Europe.
If the result was not clear there would be no mandate for implementing the Plan.
Perhaps the experience of MPs working across parties in government would revitalise our democracy.
Major issues such as.
Wars. {crime’s}
Law.
Banking.
Taxation.
Corruption and accountability. {councils-housing-education-social care-policing/government and private enterprise}
Trade.
Health.
Transport.
Energy.
Education and National Welfare.
Technical Science’s an Innovation.
Prejudice, bigotry and intolerance, freedom of speech.
Housing.
Land right ownership, mining and resources.
Foreign investment interests, immigration, borders, and freedom of movements {to an from}.
National Operating System {pc-home and business user}
Film-theater, arts, sport and entertainment.
Aeronautic industries.
Armed forces and committees
Lobbyists.
National security.
Media and global representation.
Most of above has been stolen by people from the country that swear allegiance to foreign interests, so it all needs taking back..
Now you may shake~#
An~ there should be referendums for all major policy’s…
Modern era calls it, future also calls upon it.
So its inevitable.
Yossi is right, here is a crisis of democratic legitimacy. It is, though, less about the voting system per se and more about the crisis of ideas and alternatives on offer, and the growing sense over the last 30 years that politics is a technocratic process rather than about the wishes of the demos.
In that context the Brexit vote was very positive, in that it expressed a desire from many who feel effectively disenfranchised to have more of a say over their lives, and that it challenged the thoroughly technocratic and anti-democratic EU.
Yossi argues that: ‘We know that the referendum’s result is not legally binding and we also know that we should accord the result limited political-moral weight.’, suggesting that he’d be happy enough for it to be overridden. That would, more than anything else, deepen the profound crisis of democratic legitimacy that he refers to. If the government, (or the EU for that matter, who have themselves ignored such votes in the past), can simply cancel a vote (voters were told that the result of the vote would be implemented, period, and no one questioned that) then can we expect people to put their faith in democratic politics?
Thank you Jim for this, but I have to disagree with the argument that acting contrary to the referendum’s result would be anti-democratic.
This is so because the referendum’s result doesn’t reflect the majority will.
Many ‘leave voters’ based their decision on promises that will not and can’t be kept. Therefore, ‘leave’ does not really mean ‘leave’. It means ‘leave’ under certain assumptions (more money for the NHS; staying in the single market but having our own policy about immigration, etc.) but if we now know that these are false assumptions (as admitted by Brexit leaders!) then perceiving the referendum as morally or legally binding will in fact result in acting against the true will of the majority.
For more on this see: http://wp.me/p1cVqo-1aV