Senedd election reforms ‘sub-optimal’ committee told
Chris Haines, ICNN Senedd reporter
Plans to reform future Senedd elections are sub-optimal and a step back on Wales’ current system, a committee heard.
The reform bill committee continued taking evidence on the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) bill which proposes changes to the electoral system and an increase in the number of politicians from 60 to 96.
Under the plans, the 32 constituencies that will be used in the next general election will be paired to create 16 for the 2026 Senedd poll – with each returning six members.
Alistair Clark, a professor of political science at Newcastle University, cautioned that voters could be confused about which representative to approach with constituency problems.
d’Hondt
Prof Clark also warned that the d’Hondt method, which is currently used to translate votes into the number of seats allocated in the Senedd, prioritises the bigger parties.
In 2017, an expert panel recommended the Sainte-Laguë method – which reduces this bias – but the bill proposes keeping d’Hondt.
Jac Larner, a lecturer in politics at Cardiff University, said the rationale for using the d’Hondt method is that people are already familiar with it but “from the evidence we have that’s not the case at all”.
He explained that the minimum threshold to be elected under d’Hondt in almost every constituency would be 12-13% of the vote.
Dr Larner said he is not aware of any other parliament that sets such a high bar.
“That’s quite high for the smaller parties to hit – very high,” he told MSs.
“The vast, vast majority of seats would go to the big three parties…. If you were to choose Sainte-Laguë, smaller parties would be in with a better chance.”
‘Sub-optimal’
Witnesses also raised concerns about the proposed “closed-list” proportional electoral system, which will see people vote for parties rather than individual candidates.
Prof Clark told the MSs there is no ideal electoral system, saying: “Ultimately, they all represent some form of compromise between different aims and objectives.”
However, he warned that the closed-list system tends to downplay geographical links and prioritise the interests of political parties over those of voters.
Prof Clark said: “My general assessment is that this is probably a sub-optimal system – it probably represents a step back from the additional member system.”
He said the single transferable vote – which was recommended in the expert panel’s report – provides for proportionality, a degree of localism and a greater choice for voters.
Dr Larner added that the closed-list system is out of step with the general trend in developed democracies where there has been a shift to giving voters more choice, not less.
He said the first-past-the-post system that’s used for Westminster elections has proved popular with the public.
Voter choice
Jess Blair, director of the Electoral Reform Society Cymru, said: “We do have some serious concerns about the closed-list system proposed … primarily around the lack of voter choice that’s associated with it.”
She raised the risk that the public will disengage or feel disenfranchised, saying one election under a closed-list system is too many.
She told MSs: “I think it is extremely concerning that a small number of party members could potentially decide … who gets elected – there’s a massive issue with that.”
Dr Larner told the meeting on Thursday November 9: “The idea that there is an ability to choose individuals is highly valued by people in all kinds of public attitudes research.
“And so, the proposal of a closed-list system, I agree, is potentially a step back from the system we have now where there is that element where people can pick their own individual in the constituency ballot.”
Alberto Smith, of Make Votes Matter, called for a flexible list system, saying: “Voter choice is very important for building trust and accountability within the system.”
Support our Nation today
For the price of a cup of coffee a month you can help us create an independent, not-for-profit, national news service for the people of Wales, by the people of Wales.
If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.
“It is enough that the people know there was an election.
The people who cast the votes decide nothing.
The people who count the votes decide everything.”
Joseph Stalin
We must get this right ✔️
keep it simple and fair✔️
Free from the party fixers✔️
inclusive and representative ✔️
I loved this comment:
“The vast, vast majority of seats would go to the big three parties…. If you were to choose [a different system], smaller parties would be in with a better chance.”
That’s the whole reason they’ve chosen it!
We must have one vote per electorate (Person) . No more block votes (6 votes for 6 vacancies). Block votes distorts the election and is biased towards parties. The small man deserves a chance of being elected. If a Party wants to put 6 names forward then that,s fine. Their choice and their risk. No guaranties and no list.
Awful, awful electoral system. Here is an opportunity to rid ourselves of a system that returns members such as the deplorable Andrew RT Davies. This is Labour’s demand and a compromise Plaid should never agree to. Yes we need a Senedd fit for purpose (preferably a sovereign one) but this move tips the balance in favour of the parties. It means that the electorate will have a very hard time in removing unpopular members at the ballot box. Once again, dealing with Labour on constitutional matters feels like wading through treacle. Hugely frustrating!
Plaid Cymru should NEVER agree to the d’Hondt system being adapted for our Senedd. If is a damaging proposal and if a Lab/Con stitch-up brings this system then Plaid MUST Withdraw from the Co-operation agreement. I am a member of Plaid Cymru and I tell you right now – DO NOT go down the same road of selling out our own liberal democrat principles or you will do the same damage to Plaid as Nick Clegg did to the Liberal democrats with a compromise that the Tories (in coalition) didn’t even support. The Tories (red or blue) don’t want changes… Read more »
First-past-the-post is despised by everyone I know and some form of proportional representation is very much desired, especially for westminster elections. (The referendum in 2014 was for AV, which isn’t PR).
The proposal put forward for future elections to the senedd aren’t perfect but they are certainly much better than the status quo!
The lack of choice for those not members of parties is frightening. We’ve all seen how deranged members of the Tory party can be, for example. Does this mean the end of any “moderate” Tories making it into the Senedd?
Whatever system you have the party membership will chose the candidate. In FPTP the party choses the only candidate on the ballot. Which ever system is used eventually, the selection of bad candidates is always a problem.
What happens if say Pembrokeshire and Ceredigion merge into one constituency, and all of the elected candidates happen to come from the Aberystwyth area, because of thats where they are based, or because the parties had to adapt to the gender quota system? Thats not going to go down well in Haverfordwest or Pembroke Dock, who are still guaranteed a seat in Westminster. I can see this easily playing into the hands of the anti-devolutionists. Furthermore (this is a legitimate question, not an argument), how does an individual candidate from say Milford Haven stand for a election on a singe… Read more »
I forgot to add that the quota system based on constituencies that I was advocating, would be a much better system than basing it on gender.
The system we have now is much better and fairer than the d’Hondt system proposed which is party lists drawn up by party committees. We already have a proportional representation system now of sorts. However, It would be worth changing to the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system which is the preferred system recommended by the Electoral Reform Society (ERS), Plaid Cymru, Liberal Democrats and the Green party. Where did this central bureaucratic d’Hondt system come from ? We the people want to choose our own candidates by ordered priority, we don’t want candidates chosen for us by small groups of… Read more »
“The system we have now is much better and fairer than the d’Hondt system proposed which is party lists drawn up by party committees.”
The system we have at the moment is the closed list d’Hondt system. And the closed list FPTP.
The proposed system is better in so far as it removes the FPTP, but equal in terms of ability to select desired candidates.
We in Wales are well use voting but getting another government. Vote Labour get the Conservatives. The Welsh, Scottish & Northern Irish could vote for one party and be swamped by those voters in England due to English block vote having a superior population. The lie often told by the right-wing is that both Wales and Scotland gave England a Labour government in 1997, when in fact it was England after Conservative & Liberal voters chose to vote for Tony Blair after 18 years of Tory rule believing that “things can only get better” when in reality Blair was a… Read more »
If they want 96 members then most of those elected should be there on the strength of their individual appeal to the electorate not by virtue of some party mechanism. 16 X 6 will be awful anyway but factor in the party list element and it will be seriously defective.
this is a major change within our electoral system this MUST be put to the people of Wales and allow them to vote yes or no for it
There are a few things I don’t get about opposition to closed lists.
1) That is the currently system. If it was so bad why was it created that way.
2) FPTP is also, in effect, a closed list system. If you want to support a party you must accept the only candidate they offer. And people deem that to be acceptable.
As for the comment that it would be too difficult for small parties to get elected. Would it be easier or harder for small parties to get a seat under the proposed system compared to the current system?