What does an independent commission on electoral reform need to succeed?

The idea of an independent commission on electoral reform has been gaining traction lately, with nearly 200 MPs calling for one. But with a prime minister who understands the need for a fair voting system, do we still need one? Our new Prime Minister has set out his view on the path to introducing proportional representation, saying in an interview in July, “I am a strong supporter of electoral reform, partly because I believe it will enable the change to a more collaborative politics, and one that is less about point-scoring and more about problem-solving. I will seek to persuade my own Party of the need for a manifesto commitment to it in the next manifesto.”

So, how might you go about preparing for that manifesto?

That’s where the nearly two hundred MPs who have signed a parliamentary amendment calling for a National Commission on Electoral Reform come in. The Commission would be an independent review of the voting system bringing together experts and the public to build consensus on what the system should be in future. Our Board member Dame Joan Ruddock, has created a parliamentary petition in support of this process.

In choosing a voting system, legitimacy is key.

There are many guides to process and real examples from around the globe of how electoral reforms are introduced such as the processes in New Zealand which began with a Royal Commission, and in British Columbia which began with a citizens’ assembly. Recently the Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD) produced a framework for electoral reform, reviewing reform processes around the world. Whilst these independent processes might seem different at face value, they share much common ground.

To create a change that lasts, the process needs to be trusted, so here are some of the key ingredients for a quality process:

An independent and fair process for choosing a new voting system

Whilst complete cross-party agreement is rarely achieved on reforms of any type, change needs to sit above partisan interests. The WFD point to consensus as being a valuable principle but one that should not sit above other principles such as transparency, inclusivity and evidence – all of which can lead to greater consensus. Most important however, is that any process is seen as independent and fair. Deliberative processes such a citizen assembly also create a space for issues to be considered outside of partisan concerns.

Bringing in expertise

There is a wealth of research knowledge about the operation of electoral systems in theory and practice which can reveal the relative strengths of different systems. In Wales, the Expert Panel on Electoral Reform, comprised of academics and parliamentary specialists, considered the different systems against a set of principles which included accountability, proportionality and voter choice. Commissions typically create the space for independent expertise to consider issues informed by the evidence and consider which principles are most important.

Ensuring voter’s voices are heard

Bringing in the experience of those using a system is good advice for policy-making and no less so when it comes to the electoral system. In particular, it is important to give people the chance to get to understand the different systems and trade-offs before making those choices. The British Columbia citizens assembly comprised of 160 randomly selected citizens, assessed different systems and made a recommendation on whether to retain the current system or adopt a different one. Later Ontario took the same approach. The WFD recommends including deliberative principles alongside evidence and a long-term vision.

These three key ingredients are common to many reform processes and provide a basis to build a trusted process for reform of the electoral system, such as the National Commission on Electoral Reform.