Power to the people through 'real power and true elections'? The power report and revitalising British democracy

Parliamentary Affairs

Volumn 60, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 253-278

  Pattie, Charles ^a   Johnston, Ron ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 51249146775     PISSN: 00312290     EISSN: 14602482     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/pa/gsm005     Document Type: Review

References (79)

1. We are very grateful to the editors and to two referees for their constructive and helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Some of the ideas discussed here were reported as part of a panel on Power in the PSA Elections, Public Opinion and Parties research group annual conference, held at the University of Nottingham in September 2006: we are in debt to the other discussants and to the audience members for their comments.
2. G.A. Almond and S. Verba, The Civic Culture: Political attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations, Princeton University Press, 1963, p 315.
3. Turnout has always tended to be lower in national elections than in local elections, but as with the national case, local turnout was higher in the 1960s than in the 2000s.
4. Power Commission, Power to the People: The Report of Power - An Independent Inquiry into Britain's Democracy, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2006.
5. Ibid.
6. Our own expertise is largely confined to this part of the political process, and we leave critiques of both how and where power is exercised by elected representatives and public engagement in that exercise to others: see, for instance, Bale et al. in T. Bale, P. Taggart and P. Webb, 'You can't always get what you want: populism and the Power Inquiry', The Political Quarterly, 77, 2006, 195-203.
7. One Commissioner, Barbara Gill, died before the Commission had completed its deliberations.
8. H.D. Clarke, D. Sanders, M.C. Stewart and P. Whiteley, Political Choice in Britain, Oxford University Press, 2004, 284ff.
9. C.J. Pattie, P. Seyd and P. Whiteley, Citizenship in Britain: Values, Participation and Democracy, Cambridge University Press, 2004;
10. S. Verba, K.L. Schlozman and H.E. Brady, Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics, Harvard University Press, 1995.
11. Loc. cit. no. 4.
12. R. Layard, Happiness: Lessons from a New Science, Penguin Books, 2006.
13. In the early 1960s, a satirical BBC show, That Was The Week That Was, scored a notable hit when it poked fun at a number of long-serving backbenchers who had never taken part in a Commons debate. When the MPs raised the issue in the Commons as a breach of privilege, the response from their peers was laughter.
14. P. Cowley, The Rebels: How Blair Mislaid His Majority, Politico's, 2005.
15. J.K. Galbraith, The Culture of Contentment, Sinclair-Stevenson, 1992.
16. A. Heath and B. Taylor, 'New sources of abstention?' in G. Evans and P. Norris (eds.), Critical Elections: British Parties and Voters in Long Term Perspective, Sage, 1999, 164-80;
17. C.J. Pattie and R.J. Johnston, 'A low turnout landslide: abstention at the British General Election of 1997', Political Studies, 49, 2001, 286-305;
18. P. Whiteley, H. Clarke, D. Sanders, and M. Stewart, 'Turnout' in P. Norris (ed.), Britain Votes 2001, Oxford University Press, 2001, 211-24;
19. J. Curtice, 'Turnout: electors stay home - again' in P. Norris and C. Wlezien (eds.), Britain Votes 2005, Oxford University Press, 2005;
20. H.D. Clarke, D. Sanders, M.C. Stewart and P. Whiteley, 'Taking the bloom off New Labour's rose: party choice and voter turnout in Britain, 2005', Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties, 16, 2006, 2-36.
21. D. Denver, 'Non-voting in Britain' in J. Font and R. Virós (eds.), Electoral Abstention in Europe, Institut de Ciènces Politiques i Sociale, 1995, 181-98;
22. D. Denver, 'The Results: How Britain Voted' in A. Geddes and J. Tonge (eds.), Britain Decides: The UK General Election of 2005, Palgrave Macmillan, 2005, 6-25;
23. D. Denver and G. Hands, 'Marginality and Turnout in General Elections', British Journal of Political Science, 4, 1974, 17-35;
24. D. Denver and G. Hands, 'Marginality and Turnout in General Elections in the 1970s', British Journal of Political Science, 15, 1985, 381-8;
25. R.J. Johnston and C.J. Pattie, 'Where's the Difference? Decomposing the Impact of Local Election Campaigns in Great Britain', Electoral Studies, 16, 1997, 165-174.
26. K. Reif and H. Schmitt, 'Nine Second-Order Elections: a Conceptual Framework for the Analysis of European Election Results', European Journal of Political Research, 31, 1980, 115-24;
27. A. Heath, I. McLean, B. Taylor and J. Curtice, 'Between First and Second Order: a Comparison of Voting Behaviour in European and Local Elections in Britain', European Journal of Political Research, 35, 1999, 389-414;
28. C. Rallings and M. Thrasher, 'Not All 'Second-Order' Contests Are the Same: Turnout and Party Choice at the Concurrent 2004 Local and European Parliament Elections in England', British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 7, 2005, 584-97.
29. Power does not define what counts as a marginal or a safe seat in this context.
30. D.J. Cutts, 'Continuous Campaigning and Electoral Outcomes: the Liberal Democrats in Bath', Political Geography, 25, 2006, 72-88.
31. Pattie and Johnston, loc. cit. no. 15.
32. D. Denver and G. Hands, 'Labour's Targeted Constituency Campaigning: Nationally Directed or Locally Produced?', Electoral Studies, 23, 2004, 709-726;
33. C.J. Pattie and R.J. Johnston, 'Local Battles in a National Landslide: Constituency Campaigning at the 2001 British General Election', Political Geography, 22, 2003, 381-414.
34. D. Butler, A. Adonis and T. Travers, Failure in British Government: The Politics of the Poll Tax, Oxford University Press, 1994.
35. Data from the 2005 British Election Study.
36. Electoral Commission, Delivering Democracy? The Future of Postal Voting, Electoral Commission, 2004.
37. C.J. Pattie and R.J. Johnston, 'Voter Turnout at the British General Election of 1992: Rational Choice, Social Standing or Political Efficacy?', European Journal of Political Research, 33, 1998, 263-83;
38. R.J. Johnston and C.J. Pattie, 'Great Britain: Twentieth Century Parties Operating Under Nineteenth Century Regulations' in A.B. Gunlicks (ed.), Campaign and Party Finance in North America and Western Europe, Westview Press, 2003;
39. R.J. Johnston and C.J. Pattie, 'The Growing Problem of Electoral Turnout in Britain? Voluntary and Involuntary Non-voters in 2001', Representation, 40(1), 2003, 30-43.
40. J.A. Karp and S.A. Banducci, 'Going Postal: How All-Mail Elections Influence Turnout', Political Behavior, 2000, 22, 223-39;
41. A.J. Berinsky, N. Burns and M.W. Traugott, 'Who Votes by Mail? A Dynamic Model of the Individual-Level Consequences of Voting-by-Mail Systems', Public Opinion Quarterly, 65, 2001, 178-97.
42. P. Norris, Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing Political Activism, Cambridge University Press, 2002.
43. M. Duverger, Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State, Methuen, 1954.
44. G. Evans (ed.), The Decline of Class Politics, Oxford University Press, 1999.
45. P. Whiteley and P. Seyd, High Intensity Participation: The Dynamics of Party Activism in Britain, University of Michigan Press, 2002.
46. E. Shaw, The Labour Party Since 1979: Crisis and Transformation, Routledge, 1994;
47. A. Heath, R. Jowell and J. Curtice, The Rise of New Labour: Party Policies and Voter Choices, Oxford University Press, 2001.
48. R.J. Johnston, C.J. Pattie, D. Dorling and D. Rossiter, From Votes to Seats: The Operation of the UK Electoral System Since 1945, Manchester University Press, 2001.
49. Power Commission, 2006, p. 21-5, 32.
50. D. Rossiter, R.J. Johnston and C.J. Pattie, The Boundary Commissions: Redrawing the UK's Map of Parliamentary Constituencies, Manchester University Press, 1999.
51. R.J. Johnston, D.J. Rossiter and C.J. Pattie, 'Disproportionality and Bias in the Results of the 2005 General Election in Great Britain: Evaluating the Electoral System's Impact', Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties, 2, 2006, 37-54.
52. R. Gibson, 'Elections Online: Assessing Internet Voting in Light of the Arizona Democratic Primary'. Political Science Quarterly, 116, 2001, 561-83;
53. D. Jefferson, A.D. Rubin, B. Simons and D. Wagner, A Security Analysis of the Secure Electronic and Voting Experiment (SERVE), available at http://servesecurityreport.org/, 2004.
54. M. Pinto-Duschinsky, British Political Finance 1830-1980, American Enterprise Institute, 1981;
55. R.J. Johnston and C.J. Pattie, 'Great Britain: twentieth century parties operating under nineteenth century rules' in A.B. Gunlicks (ed.), Campaign and Party Finance in North America and Western Europe, Westview Press, 1993.
56. J. Fisher, 'The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000', Representation, 38(1), 2001, 11-19;
57. J. Fisher, 'Campaign Finance' in A. Geddes and J. Tonge (eds.), Britain Decides: The UK General Election of 2005, Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.
58. With an electorate of some 45 million, if 60% were to turn out at the next general election and all ticked that a party should receive a donation of £3-as proposed by Power - the total allocation would then be £81 million (which they recognise - p. 212 - is a maximum, assuming that all those who vote tick the relevant box indicating support for state funding - at the next election), little more than spent by the country's three main parties at the 2005 general election alone, let alone their spending elsewhere in the electoral cycle. (Power's figures show that six parties spent £65 million in 2004 - a non-general-election year, p. 207.)
59. H.E. Alexander (ed.), Comparative Political Finance in the 1980s, Cambridge University Press, 1989;
60. A. Gunlicks (ed.), Campaign and Party Finance in North America and Western Europe, Westview Press, 1993;
61. J. Fisher, 'Next step: state funding for the parties?', Political Quarterly, 73, 2002, 392-99.
62. International evidence confirms that parties are adept at finding ways of working within new regulations. In the United States, for instance, attempts to tighten campaign finance regulations from the 1970s onwards were readily circumvented by candidates: the cost of election campaigns continued to rise, see Grant in A. Grant, 'Party and Election Finance in Britain and America: a Comparative Analysis', Parliamentary Affairs, 58, 2005, 71-88.
63. The deposit was raised between 1983 and 1987 - from £150 to £500 - when the share of the votes cast which had to be won in order for the deposit to be returned was reduced from 12.5 to 5%.
64. In the United States, where large numbers of signatories are required in order to get issues placed on a referendum ballot; it is common for interest groups involved to employ agencies to collect the requisite number of signatures.
65. It is not totally clear what they mean by 'responsive' - we assume that it is one in which shifts in voter attitudes are more closely reflected by the allocation of House of Commons' seats than is the case with the current system.
66. Johnston, Rossiter and Pattie. Loc cit. no 34.
67. M. Franklin, 'The Dynamics of Electoral Participation' in L. LeDuc, R.G. Niemi and P. Norris (eds.), Comparing Democracies 2: New Challenges in the Study of Elections and Voting, Sage, 2002.
68. M. Russell, 'Is the House of Lords Already Reformed?', Political Quarterly, 74, 2003, 311-8.
69. Franklin, Loc. cit. note 45.
70. Norris, Loc. cit. note, 27.
71. C.J. Pattie and J. Mitchell, 'Electoral Reform Reformed? The Arbuthnott Commission and Scottish Parliament Elections', Representation, 42, 2006, 195-208.
72. Interestingly, the Commission does not address the issue of what PR system would best meet its goals, which are: 'to increase the number of parties or parliamentary alliances competing for the voters' support that have a serious chance of winning representation; to enable candidates who have no organisational allegiance a chance of winning a seat in Parliament; to allow voters a chance to express their preference for a particular wing of a party or a particular candidate; to ensure that all votes count by having some influence on the final outcome of an election' merely noting that 'Current thinking seems to suggest that such goals could be best achieved by the Single Transferable Vote system, but we have no firm views on this' (p. 190).
73. C.J. Pattie and R.J. Johnston, 'Party knowledge and candidate knowledge: constituency campaigning and voting at the 1997 British General Election', Electoral Studies, 23, 2004, 795-819.
74. M. Sawer, 'Above-the-Line Voting in Australia: How Democratic?', Representation, 51, 2005, 286-90.
75. M. Franklin, Voter Turnout and the Dynamics of Electoral Competition in Established democracies Since 1945, Cambridge University Press, 2004.
76. Electoral Commission, Age of Electoral Majority: Report and Recommendations, Electoral Commission, 2004.
77. Loc. cit. note 53.
78. On the undercurrent of populism which runs throughout the Power report, see T. Bale, P. Taggart and P. Webb, 'You Can't Always Get What You Want: Populism and the Power Inquiry', The Political Quarterly, 77, 2006, 195-203.
79. Almond and Verba, Loc. cit. note 2.