Watching the Marriage (Same Sex
Couples) Bill being voted on at Second Reading in the House of Commons on 5
February 2013, one thing in particular that stood out was the inefficiency of
the whole process. ‘Division’ was called at a few seconds past 7pm, but it was
not until after 8pm that the final results of the associated motions were
announced.
Having over 600 MPs walk
through the lobbies as the method of recording votes may be a relatively
indisputable way of ascertaining who exactly has voted, but it wastes 12-15
minutes of every MP’s time, and therefore taxpayers’
money, every time a
division is called.
Now, it is all very well
criticising, but what is the alternative? Many councils across the UK have a
simple show of hands, although this is probably unwieldy for a chamber of
hundreds. The US Senate uses a roll call, while in Austria standing is ‘for’
and remaining seated is ‘against’. In Australia, representatives huddle at
either end of the chamber to indicate their preference. None of these
alternatives seem scientific enough for something as important as accurately
recording representatives’ votes – particularly in a tight vote, or a hung
chamber.
Which brings us to the use of
electronic voting mechanisms. In a 2010 report by Caroline Lucas entitled ‘The
Case for Parliamentary Reform’, she outlines the cost benefits of such a
system:
If the Commons chose a pre-existing electronic voting keypad
system, the keypads and related software and hardware would cost in the region
of £400k, less than 0.1% of the £434million cost of running the Commons in the
last financial year.
However, the value for money that such a system would bring would
quickly justify a one-off cost on this scale. If, through a more efficient voting method, MPs are saved even half an hour a day,
over a week this would free up hours for more effective scrutiny of legislation
and so provide the taxpayer with considerably better value for the money paid
for MPs salaries. For example if a voting process takes 15 minutes using the
current snail’s pace division system, it costs the taxpayer £5136 for MPs
salaries for each vote under the current system. The proposal would also be
likely to reduce staffing and other associated costs.
Indeed, the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, European
Parliament, US House of Representatives, Israeli Knesset, Turkish parliament
and numerous European assemblies all use electronic systems to provide a speedy
and accurate result.
Electronic voting at the Strasbourg chamber of the European Parliament
Some opponents of electronic voting argue that the lobby system
allows just that – MPs can be lobbied and cajoled, particularly by the whips.
Perhaps some MPs need to be instructed which way to vote, but as voting would still
take place physically in the same room, they can still take their lead from the
front bench. The Parliament website offers another ‘advantage’:
Physically congregating in the
voting lobbies gives the Members a good opportunity to talk and conduct
business with each other in an informal setting.
There is a whole parliamentary estate for talking and conducting
business in an informal setting; why wait until the middle of a vote to start?
Members do not have to participate in a debate
to be able to vote, and may be elsewhere in the Parliamentary estate. To notify
Members that a division is taking place, division bells located throughout the
Parliamentary estate and surrounding premises ring and TV screens with a
specialised feed (called the 'annunciator service') display that a division is
taking place. There are different division bells for the Commons and Lords, and
Members only vote in the divisions specific to their House. When the division
bells ring Members have eight minutes to vote before the doors to the division
lobbies are locked.
The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill vote brought
up another recurring issue which electronic voting could potentially address:
the ability to formally register an abstention. At present, MPs wishing to
abstain simply don’t walk through the lobby, which is then not recorded and can
be confused for being absent rather than choosing not to vote. Alternatively, they can walk through both lobbies,
effectively ‘cancelling out’ their vote, but this runs the risk of only making
it through one lobby in time and thereby casting an undesired vote.
Five Conservative MPs chose to vote this way and they will no
doubt be interpreted, rightly, as formal abstentions. The press, however, have
a habit of portraying this as ‘indecisive’ or worse, ‘senile’. Due to a lack of
understanding over whether the declared vote totals include the tellers and
without checking every name on two long lists for these double votes, this can
often lead to confusion as to the actual voting numbers: the number of
Conservative ‘against’ votes was variously described as 134, 136, 139 and 141 by
the press in the hours after the vote. With electronic voting, it would be very
easy to have 3 buttons: for, against and abstain, leading to a clear voting
total.
To conclude, most countries use either an ID card or a
fingerprint/password recognition system, usually built into the desks of the
chamber. In the House of Commons, there are no desks and not enough spaces to
sit (the chamber is not fit for purpose, but that is another article!); instead
portable handheld devices may be necessary. So, if it saves time and money,
improves accuracy, and increases transparency, what are we waiting for?
