No system of elections lasts for all time. As society and government change, so too must the system by which members of parliament (MPs) are chosen. There have been many changes over the years, women’s suffrage for example for a large, notable change; alterations to constituency boundaries as an example of minor changes that take place at intervals as thought necessary. And there’s been talk for decades now about proportional representation (PR) of one kind or another. It’s good to talk things over, good to remain open to change.

There must be a clear reason for any change. Change for change’s sake would be irrational and a waste of resources; change is costly so should come often enough, but not too often. A good place to start thinking about this is to identify issues with the current system and imagine some ways of addressing them. The next step would be to consider the cost effectiveness and drawbacks of those possible approaches.
In this short essay I’d like to think through an alternative to general elections. One disadvantage of a general election is that it may result in no significant change if the existing party and prime minister return to power, or it may cause a huge sea-change of policy and a completely new cabinet when party and prime minister are defeated and a whole, new government comes to power. A by-election, on the other hand, rarely defeats a government, though it may usefully influence policy by making public opinion clearer.
A better approach
Is there some way we could reduce the sometimes damaging flip-flop of U-turn changes of government on the one hand, and the tired persistence of stale policies on the other, while at the same time increasing the effectiveness of public opinion? Yes, I believe there is. It’s been staring us in the face for decades. It’s an idea that deserves attention and some public debate, and now would be as good a time as any to take an initial look.
Just suppose
Imagine what might happen if we abolished general elections altogether. I invite you to consider the idea of 20% of parliamentary seats coming up for re-election annually, or perhaps 10% every six months. MPs would continue to serve a term of five years, as they do at the moment. This would provide local stability in which constituents could become familiar with their local MP just as at present. But it would also provide strong (and useful) public feedback to a sitting government in terms of popularity of policies and personalities.
I favour the 10% every six months approach, or even 5% every three months. It would be a bit like 65 (or 32) by-elections at regular intervals. The period chosen could be still finer at 11 seats per month or, say, 1 or 2 per week. These choices should be debated along with the principle of shifting from the current system to a new method. A system like this could work with or without PR, of course. Personally I favour some form of PR, but it might be wise to keep the debates and the decisions separate from one another, not least to reduce the complexity of any proposed change and to enable a more focussed approach in debate and in any votes taken, either in parliament or by the electorate. There would be many details to be thought through.
Are there any parliaments or similar bodies around the world where a proportion of the seats come up for re-election at intervals? I’m not aware of any, but a system similar to the one I propose here is used for some local authority elections in Britain where a half or one third of the councillors are re-elected each time. So we do have some experience to inform us on how elections of this kind perform and, perhaps, how voter behaviour might change in such a system.
Moving towards a new system
What steps are required and how might this idea be taken forward?
Clearly, there would need to be a good deal of debate first. What would be the best choice of frequency at which a proportion of seats should be re-elected? How might we choose the seats? What advantages and disadvantages might we foresee for the new system, and how would it compare with the current arrangement of General Elections every five years?
My suggestion, already mentioned, would be to go for small changes at frequent intervals. This would involve more modest and less disruptive changes at Cabinet level for example, with just a few members of the cabinet facing an election each time. Sixty-five seats would be up for re-election every six months, or thirty-two every three months. Frequent elections would provide finer-grained but less disruptive changes in Parliament. Voters would be able to apply only gentle pressure to a governing party, but it would be pressure reapplied quite often. The government of the day would need to ensure voters remained content with their policies.
Seats for re-election could be chosen randomly or in some other way that would be easy to decide (but not favour a particular political party or region). So in one tranche, thirty-two seats would be re-elected and six months later a further thirty-two. Five years later the same tranches would come up once again.
Once all the ideas and issues had been carefully considered, recommendations could be made and a bill written and presented for debate. Like any other bill this would need approval from the Commons and the Lords.
How to make the change from the current system of General Elections to the new arrangement would also need a good deal of thought and debate. Many seats would have to come up for re-election earlier or later than normal. It might be possible for an intial batch of seats to be re-elected after four and a half years and another batch after five and a half with the bulk remaining at five years. Then at a later General Election these seats could shift by a further six months and two more tranches brought in so that gradually, General Elections would become smaller and smaller as a larger proportion of seats shifted to the new system.
Initial steps
I think I’ve gone into enough detail for the time being. I’d like to see a wider debate on this with plenty of thoughts and opinions from others. I’ll do what I can to get that started. Meanwhile, if you’d like to comment on this article please do; I’d love to hear what you think.