Save PR-STV

Posted on November 30, 2009 at 11:10 PM

I have just emailed my submission to the Joint Committee on the Constitution in relation to their Review of the Electoral System for the Election of Members to Dail Éireann and I am posting here it in full.

Review of the Electoral System for the Election of Members to Dail Éireann

Article 16 of the Constitution

Submission by Joanna Tuffy T.D. Dublin Mid West constituency

I am making this submission as an individual T.D. If there are hearings about the submissions to the Committee I would appreciate an opportunity to speak at the hearings about my submission.

The debate about whether Proportional Representation by means of a single transferable vote in multi seat constituencies (PR-STV) is the best system to elect our Dail is a recurrent debate.  We have had two referendums and many committee reports on whether to change our system and up until now common sense prevailed and we retained our PR-STV system.  There are political parties and politicians that would never have been elected to the Dail if we as a people had voted for the abolition of PR-STV in the referendums that have been held. On both occasions the electorate wisely chose to retain our very democratic system of PR-STV.

The backdrop to the debate this time is one of extreme economic downturn, a growth in cynicism about politics, and facile contributions from some commentators that the answer to our political problems is to change how we elect people to the Dail. I worry that, with this backdrop, proposals, that will in practice undermine the role of the voter in choosing who represents them in the Dail, are gaining momentum.  Now is not in fact the time to change our system. A decision could be taken to move away from our PR-STV system for all the wrong reasons because of the apparent promise of a quick political fix for problems that have nothing to do with the method of electing the Dail.

I feel a responsibility as a T.D. elected under PR-STV in a multi seat constituency to stand up for my constituents and their role in the electoral system. I outline below why I believe our PR-STV system should be retained and why our present electoral system can tackle head on the growth of cynicism about politics that has been exacerbated by our present economic situation.

1)The relationship between constituents and each of their Dail deputies that arises from the election of the T.D.s by PR-STV in Multi Seat constituencies enhances our democracy. 

It is a privilege to be elected under our political system because the combination of PR-STV and our multi seat constituencies  gives the voter the primary role in deciding who gets elected.  The voter gets to influence not just the party that wins the seat but to decide which individual candidates get elected. They get to have a say in the outcome of the election right down to their last preference and there is a strong possibility that they will have given a preference to at least one of their T.D.s. This is a feature of our system that is precious and we would be foolhardy to tinker with it.  When you are elected under this system you feel beholden to every last constituent in your constituency, whether they gave you their number one, a preference or no vote.  You are directly accountable to the voters in your constituency.  Our system has meant that there are diverse political voices in our Dail and smaller parties and independents have been able to contribute to political decisions.

Our electoral system gives added impetus to the common tradition (in many countries) of politicians keeping in contact with their constituents.  This is a virtue of our system, not a problem.  Those that argue that our system does not elect true legislators miss the point of a legislator. Legislators are not legal draftspersons. Our role as legislators is defined and enhanced by the fact that we are directly elected public representatives and that we are expected to keep in touch with our constituents.  We are supposed to bring to the making of legislation what we learn from representing our constituents.

Speaking from my experience as a legislator I believe that my engagement with constituents makes me a better legislator. A good elected representative empathises with the variety of people they represent and engaging with constituents helps you to empathise. We can use this empathy to inform our role as legislators. Our job is to decide what improvements to legislation will make things better for communities, families and individuals. We can make better decisions the more we engage with our constituents and keep in touch with them.  Dail deputies do things in different ways and not all of them hold clinics for example.  But whether it is clinics or going to meetings of local groups or taking calls from constituents and following up their queries, any method of keeping in touch informs a T.D. about the lives of his or her constituents and that information can enhance the contribution he or she makes to the Dail. If we stop listening to constituents we will be legislating for ourselves in an ivory tower and this will give rise to increased apathy about elections and cynicism about politics.

2) Any alternatives to the Multi Seat PRSTV mode of electing our Dail will involve less say for the voter in who will be elected and this will be bad for our democracy. 

Why are some people arguing for change now? From what I have read and heard, many are putting forward changes to our electoral system as a response to our economic downturn. They are blaming the way T.Ds are elected for our economic problems. They apparently want a different class of T.D. elected or to force the electorate to choose between parties instead of individuals. They want to stop T.Ds from feeling so reliant on their constituents for their election so that they will spend less time keeping in touch with them. They argue that less time with your constituents means more time legislating.

What all this points to is a patronising attitude to the voter.  Those that want to change the system don’t like the way the voter is voting under the current system. They therefore want to restrict the choices the voters can make. All of the alternatives to our PRSTV and multi seat constituencies that have been suggested involve less say for the voter and more say for party organisations. Some alternatives would have less democratic outcomes, for example first past the post elections and single seat constituencies. The evidence is that under such elections the bigger parties would get a disproportionate amount of Dail seats.  A list system would mean that party members, and potentially party leaders and spin doctors, would have the only say as to which individuals would be elected from party lists to our Dail. Some have suggested that some of our T.Ds should be appointed rather than elected. These super politicians would be appointed on the basis of being experts on some subject or another. It has to be said that such a proposal is the most profoundly undemocratic and elitist of all.

It is worth noting that in Britain there is a momentum behind campaigns for election to the Parliament by PR.  These campaigns started before the recent Westminster expenses scandal, but have gained momentum since. In Israel recently I spoke to two Knesset members that want their system changed as they believe the list system in Israel is undemocratic because individual Knesset members are not accountable to the electorate. The pure PR list system in Israel has meant an extremely fragmented Knesset.  Very often those that would have us emulate countries where key political positions are made by appointment rather than election, will on the other hand dismiss the Seanad’s role in our political system because of the manner in which Senators are elected or appointed.

I am aware that the point has been made to the Committee in recent presentations that even if we changed our system the electorate would still expect to be able to contact T.D.s because that is the tradition. What if voters did persist in contacting T.Ds? What do those that want our system changed think T.Ds should do if contacted by voters in the traditional way but under a new electoral system? For example if T.D.s were elected under a list system voters might contact a T.D. that lived in a local area about an issue.

For example, what if a parents association of a primary school with a leaking roof contacted local T.D.s and asked them to attend a public meeting about this issue?  Should we expect the T.D.s to decline to attend because they are legislators and no longer rely on those voters to be elected? How would the local people feel about the Dail if its members no longer made an effort to attend local meetings such as this? You could argue that attending to a meeting such as this was acceptable because it is to do with education, a Government responsibility. But often at local meetings the subject involves issues that have both a local and a national dimension.

In the recent floods local representatives including local T.D.s have been doing what they traditionally do, calling to constituents that were affected by the floods. Would it really be better for our political system if politicians did not feel that such visits were part of their role? How would the people in areas that were flooded feel about politicians from the area that took no interest in talking to anyone in person that had been caused hardship by the floods?

What if a person had suffered loss in the recent flooding and was experiencing difficulties in accessing assistance and that person phones a local T.D.  Should the T.D simply refer that person to the Citizens Information Bureau or some other agency or should they try and help the person in whatever way they could? Does it really interfere with the T.D’s work to make representations and enquiries on behalf of such a person?  Would it not be the case that the discussions that a T.D. would have with the constituent about their experience of the flooding would inform the T.D. so that he or she could make a better contribution when the flooding was debated in the Dail?  How would that person feel if the T.D. felt under no obligation to return his calls or help him in any way?

Going to meetings organised by local parents, visiting residents when there is a local crisis, following up issues on behalf of individual constituents, all take time but it is time well spent for any legislator that believes that politics is about improving the lives of the people. Doing constituency work such as this keeps you grounded.

3) Not only is the engagement between constituents and Dail deputies a virtue of our system, in the times that are in it we need to enhance this aspect of our role, because this will help defeat cynicism about politics. 

The feature of our political system that our system of PR-STV encourages, and reformers wish to eliminate, is the very feature of our political system that we can use to defeat cynicism and apathy about politics.  Politics is about ideas and you cannot beat one to one engagement with voters in local constituencies as a way to persuade the voters about your ideas and as a means to learn from the voters about whether your ideas will work. In this 90^th year of our Dail we mustn’t forget that the Dail has made a difference for the better in this country and it has done so because of the work and ideas of T.Ds. that were elected under our PR-STV electoral system. That is not to say mistakes have not been made.  But elected representatives and voters can learn from mistakes and vote for change under our present electoral system.  As politicians, now more then ever, we need to be on the ground, listening to our constituents, using our powers of political persuasion, letting our constituents have their say.  Rather than change our electoral system in order to stop T.Ds doing constituency work we should enable and enhance this role of our T.Ds.

Permanent link | Comments (0) |