Fair voting system and successful government (UK)

Prime Minister David Cameron,




You have shown little concern for the fairness of the electoral system of the United Kingdom, as shown by the support for the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system in the Conservative Election Manifesto (page 67).

Even if it looks as if your position would be motivated by electoral greed, the skewed results and wasted votes of FPTP have usually been defended by the need for stable government.



In order to secure a majority in Parliament, you have now, grudgingly, accepted a referendum on moving to the Alternative Vote system, without actually engaging yourself to achieve greater fairness.



If the greater fairness of proportional representation does not sway you, how about spending some time contemplating the ”national interest” of stable – and even more to the point – successful government?



Competitiveness


At least some aspects of Britain’s competitiveness seem to be a major concern for the Conservative Party.



The World Economic Forum has just published its final ranking of the competitiveness of member states of the European Union according to the criteria of the Lisbon Strategy, with the top ten positions going to:



1. Sweden
2. Finland
3. Denmark
4. The Netherlands
5. Luxembourg
6. Germany
7. Austria
8. France
9. The United Kingdom
10. Belgium


If fairness is of little concern to you, how about outcomes?


You may notice that the top five rankings go to countries ─ Sweden, Finland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Luxembourg ─ with proportional voting systems.

Only after Germany, with a mixed member proportional system, and Austria with a proportional electoral system, come two countries with single candidates being elected from each constituency: France with two-round runoff voting and the United Kingdom with first-past-the-post.

The competitiveness ranking almost exactly mirrors the proportionality and fairness of the system.

Quite a coincidence, wouldn’t you say?

If you want to move from mere party leader into the ranks of statesmen, you might actually opt for more than you have promised this far.





Ralf Grahn

Governing Council of the European Central Bank: Voting rights

Slovakia became the 16th Eurozone country from the beginning of 2009. This forced the European Central Bank (ECB) to address the issue of voting rights. When we last wrote about this issue concerning the ECB Rules of Procedure, the matter was still under consideration.


Postponement

Before the end of 2008 the ECB decided to postpone the move to a new voting system, by Decision of the European Central Bank ECB/2008/29 of 18 December 2008 to postpone the start of the rotation system in the Governing Council of the European Central Bank, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 7.1.2009 L 3/4. The postponement entered into force on 1 January 2009. The new voting system for governors of national central banks takes effect when two more countries adopt the euro.



An explanatory press release was issued 18 December 2008.



***

Future voting system

The future voting system has now been elaborated, by amending the ECB’s Rules of Procedure.

Decision of the European Central Bank ECB/2009/5 of 19 March 2009 amending Decision ECB/2004/2 of 19 February 2004 adopting the Rules of Procedure of the European Central Bank was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 18.4.2008 L 100/10.



The decision is based on monthly rotation between governors.



Ralf Grahn