Multi-Member Electoral Areas: as simple as 1, 2, 3...

Written by David Ford MLA and published in Democracy: The Missing Element, published by Dagger 2008 on Tue 18th Nov 2008

Democracy: the Missing Element, is available from Dagger.

One of the most pervasive myths about the crude Simple Plurality (First Past the Post) electoral system beloved of so many politicians in the United Kingdom is that there is a unique link between an MP and his (its rarely her) constituents. The MP, we learn, is so dedicated to his constituents' welfare that he is capable of working on behalf of each one of them, regardless of their political opinions, or lack of them. Regardless, even of the issue that concerns them. Indeed, many urban MPs would claim this special one-to-one relationship even though their constituents are divided into wards which largely return three Councillors (mostly from the same party).

This line of argument is pervasive. To many politicians it is persuasive. It is also perverse.

Not only is there a logic deficit in the comparison of single- and multi-member FPTP. The whole premise is nonsense. Politics is about taking difficult decisions on the allocation of resources and the provision of services. Frequently, neighbours will have different priorities. No single representative can fully put the views of two groups of parents who each want a playground in their estate when there is only money for one. Or consider the two groups of pensioners each fighting to retain the sub-post office in their adjacent neighbourhoods.

Many issues are more complex than that. It will not be a case of 'where do we build the playground' but a decision reflecting a higher level of party policy or personal belief. In such circumstances, it is unrealistic to suggest that a Councillor or Parliamentarian can honestly represent every individual and every interest group in their ward or Constituency.

This is not to suggest that the great majority of representatives do anything but their best in what we can describe as individual casework. That, however, is very different from other aspects of representation.

The idea of 'personal representation' of all - or the great majority - of voters cannot be achieved in single seat areas, or areas where a single party is likely to monopolise representation under FPTP. It is not generally regarded as important under list systems, which may help to explain why list systems are not highly regarded in any part of these islands - or most of the English-speaking world. However, the Single Transferable Vote is proof in practice not only that there can be personal representation is superior. Consider my own position.

I have been elected three times to both my local Council (Antrim Borough) and the Northern Ireland Assembly. All these elections were by STV. In Antrim Town electoral area, there are three DUP Councillors, two from the UUP, and one each from the SDLP and Alliance, seven in total. In South Antrim, where the parliamentary constituency elects six MLAs to Stormont, representation is shared among all five main parties: two from the DUP, with one each from Sinn Féin, UUP, SDLP and Alliance. In contrast, at Westminster, the sole representative is the DUP MP. (I should add that I have failed to be elected to Westminster four times.)

On some issues, local representatives will work as a team in support of local people, but there are clearly many exceptions. These cover both issues where parties differ on policy and geographical areas where parties feel they have so little support as to not be worthwhile their participating in joint actions.

The key point is that members of minorities, whether individuals or groups, can generally find someone who will fully and enthusiastically take up their cause and represent them in the appropriate forum. In a five party system, even the largest part is a minority.

If there is any disadvantage, it is that hard-working representatives may have more people calling on their services. However, this is no disadvantage to the ordinary citizen, who can choose which representative or representatives to seek help. Parties with more than one representative in an area will often have an informal sharing system, each looking after a particular patch. This cuts their workload - something which might cause jealousy on the part of 'sole' Councillors or MLAs if they didn't persuade themselves that assiduous work is essential to building up their personal vote.

Having only ever been a sole representative of Alliance, I am quite used to attending meetings with different community groups in every part of my patch. My party claims to be the only one that attracts support right across the community; the evidence for this is in ballot box tallies at every election count. I therefore feel that I develop as strong a contact with every part of South Antrim as would a single member serving the constituency. (In fact, there are parts of the constituency where I know that I am most unlikely to meet the MP or any member of his party.) This means that local people know that they can contact me if they wish, either on my own or with other representatives.

I believe that political systems should be construed to meet the needs of the citizen and not the professional politician. Claims made by politicians (including this writer) on the merits of particular systems should be examined carefully to see if the evidence is actually there. Experience in Ireland, North and South, suggest to me that the average system is content with the use of STV and has no difficulty in finding one or more public representatives to work on their behalf on any particular task.

The reality is that having a range of representatives, at least one of whom is likely to be sympathetic, is of far more to the citizen than the myths perpetrated by politicians with vested interests of their unique concern for all their people.

Related Link:

[Contact details for DAGGER]