Interest in Uniform Election Procedures
Great Britain faces serious pressure from
its European Union neighbors and from its own population to change Britain's
winner-take-all method of electing its members to the European Parliament. 1994 may be the
last time Britain elects its members to the European Parliament using winner-take-all.
Since 1958, the European Parliament has
been obliged to come forward with proposals for a "uniform procedure" for
elections. The Treaty of Rome and the Maastricht Treaty ratified most recently call upon
the Parliament to propose uniform voting procedures for European elections. And in 1976,
the nine members of the old European Economic Community (the "Common Market")
agreed that Europe's citizens should elect directly Members of the European Parliament
(MEPs). It was the first stage on the road towards the goal of "uniform
procedures" set out in the Treaty of Rome eighteen years earlier. Each of the nine
would choose the voting system for the first elections in 1979 as a transitional
arrangement.
Requirement for PR Passes European Parliament
Fifteen years later, Great Britain
continues to elect its members by the winner-take-all, First-Past-the-Post (FPP) voting
system. The rest of Europe elects their members by some form of proportional
representation (PR). However, the days of British insistence on the old voting system are
numbered. On March 10, on a wet afternoon in Strasbourg, the home of the European
Parliament's debating chamber, the MEPs voted for a new voting system based on PR for
elections to the European Parliament. The proposals brought to the Parliament by the
Belgian Liberal MEP Karel De Gucht said that, in future, elections of country delegations
should be on the basis of PR.
De Gucht's report, passed by 207-79, will
allow member states a large degree of choice. So long as the voting system is based on the
principle of PR, the Governments of Europe can pick and choose which system they want.
Most of the member states use some form of PR party list system, although some, like
Ireland, allow the voters to choose among candidates using the preference voting form of
PR. However, Britain's winner-take-all system is ruled out.
Growing Impatience with British Resistance
The proposals have yet to be discussed by
the Council of Ministers, the executive body. However, Britain's Minister for elections at
the Home Office, the Conservative MP Peter Lloyd, has been cautious. "We shall, of
course," said Mr. Lloyd last April, "study these proposals with great
care." The Minister is fairly skeptical about PR, and balks at the idea of greater
uniformity in the voting system for European Parliament elections.
It may be that Mr. Lloyd will veto the
Parliament's proposals, as the Treaty says that the Council of Ministers must act
"unanimously." However, further pressure is mounting. In a speech to a British
audience in April, Mr. De Gucht commented, "If Great Britain continues until 1999 to
block any decision in the Council of Ministers, this could be a breach of the Treaty of
Maastricht. I think we [the European parliament] should seriously consider bringing
Britain to court [the European Court of Justice]."
This is no empty threat. Earlier this
year, the Advocate General of the Court of Justice declared that the Parliament and the
Council of Ministers had failed to act on their Treaty commitments. However, Britain's
Liberal Democrat Party, which had brought the action to court, could not proceed with the
case as the ruling also declared that only member states or EC institutions could take
action on this matter.
Further pressure comes on Britain as a
result of the German Constitutional Court's declaration on the Maastricht Treaty. Their
ruling urges the German Government to make greater strides towards democratizing the
European Union. In particular, it urges the Germans to push the issue of greater
uniformity in the voting system. They will be a powerful ally for Mr. De Gucht.
Even the British Conservative Party's
allies in the European Parliament have grown impatient with British intransigence. They
see the British system creating instability in the European Parliament. At present, the
winner-take-all system massively over-represents the Labour Party and consequently gives
the left in the European Parliament an overall majority. (This current distortion in its
favor has not kept Labour from calling for adopting PR for future elections to the
European Parliament.) The Conservatives' allies on the right believe that a fair,
proportional result would bring the Parliament back into balance, and the right back into
power.
PR Very Popular with British Electorate
Among the British electorate, PR remains
popular in general and overwhelmingly popular for elections to the European parliament in
particular. Earlier in 1993, the Electoral Reform Society published an opinion poll by
MORI on voters' attitudes to PR for European elections. The survey showed that PR was
backed by over three-to-one, including a nearly two-to-one margin among supporters of the
Conservative party. The survey showed Major's approval ratings would rise 7% if he backed
PR for European elections -- not unimpressive, given that he remains one of Britain's most
unpopular prime ministers since polling began in Britain.
Although the British will vote for the
European parliament by FPP in 1994, Britons in 1999 may well be casting their votes by PR,
as they already do in Northern Ireland.
Simon Osborn is an officer of the
Electoral Reform Society of Great Britain, one of the world's oldest organizations
promoting proportional representation.