What is a National Commission on Electoral Reform?

The Prime Minister made history last week announcing that he intends to fight the next election with a manifesto commitment on electoral reform and that he will set up a national commission on electoral reform in this parliament.

But what is a National Commission?

Commissions are typically one-off committees set up by government to consider a specific issue. They usually involve experts and specialists, rather than politicians, and they sit independently of government. They will often take evidence and call witnesses before making a final report and recommendations. Past commissions have taken the form of Royal Commissions, which consider broad issues, or independent commissions (reviews) which are typically smaller and more specific. These differ from parliamentary commissions which are set up by parliament and made up of MPs and Peers.

MPs in the APPG on fair elections have set out how they think a national commission on electoral reform should operate, suggesting a model that involves experts, as in the traditional commission model, but includes a larger role for citizens in the process via a voter panel. This is a very welcome addition.

And there are plenty of examples of other countries looking to independent processes as part of their move towards electoral reform. In New Zealand this took the form of a Royal Commission, and in British Columbia a citizens’ assembly was convened. And of course, the Jenkins Commission, set up in 1997, considered voting reform for Westminster.

What would a Commission do?

As we have detailed previously, there are very good reasons for setting up this type of process. Legitimacy is crucial, and a well-designed and independent process can be highly valuable in securing that.

Having a process that sits outside of partisan interests creates space for the issues to be considered away from immediate political concerns. This also creates the opportunity to reach across party lines – the Prime Minister has already set out his intention for other parties to be involved. Whilst complete cross-party agreement is rarely achieved on reforms of any type, a transparent process that is inclusive helps build consensus where possible.

This type of process can also draw upon independent expertise to consider the issues, informed by the evidence. For instance, 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.

Proportional systems have been used in the UK for over two decades meaning there is a wealth of evidence on which the commission could draw.

And finally, and most importantly, by starting a conversation, voters’ voices are brought into the debate. It is important to give people the chance to get to understand the different systems and their trade-offs. Often deliberative processes are used for this. The British Columbia citizens assembly comprised of 160 randomly selected citizens, assessed different electoral systems and made a recommendation on whether to retain the current system or adopt a different one.

What happens next?

Creating an independent process with expert advice and voters’ views will help build the foundations for change.

Add your name to back the plan and show the government how many people are watching and waiting for it to deliver.