Written evidence submitted by Dr Roger Morgan OBE on behalf of the Pupils 2 Parliament project (VPC 04)

It is agreed that this submission may be quoted and published.

Introduction

1. Pupils 2 Parliament is an established project enabling school pupils to consider and feed in their views to parliamentary, national government and national body inquiries and public consultations.

2. The project has been approved by the Clerks of both Houses of Parliament to use the term ‘Parliament’ in its title.

3. This submission reports the findings of an experiment carried out to inform the Committee on experience of alternative methods to single choice “aye/no” voting and for “indicative voting” to choose between different options before the House.

4. The experiment compared four different voting procedures for choosing between more than two options, carried out with 106 school pupils:  86 aged 9 to 11 in three primary schools, and 20 students aged 11 to 17 in one secondary school, together with views on the voting procedures tried from a focus group in the secondary school. 

5. The voting trials were carried out separately in each school, without telling the pupils of the results in any previous groups.  This submission therefore reports the findings from four independent pilot trials of different voting procedures.

6. In the primary schools, all the different voting methods were tried in each school, the children voting between the same three options to answer a question in the course of a consultation on puppy smuggling (the full outcome of that consultation is being submitted to Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for their current inquiry on that topic).  In the secondary school, the pupils trialled and then discussed the voting methods to choose between four different proposals they had made for possible future changes in the House of Commons voting procedure.

7. The schools involved were Staunton-on-Wye Endowed Church of England primary school, Herefordshire,  Eardisley CE primary school, Herefordshire,  Weston Rhyn primary school, Shropshire, and The Bishop of Hereford’s Bluecoat School, Hereford.  

8. All views, voting results and proposals came spontaneously from pupils, with no prompt or ‘lead’ on what they should say or how they should vote, and are reported without selection, addition or comment.

9. Experimental comparisons of voting methods are rare, and I hope that the results of this small scale experiment will be of interest and use to the Committee in its inquiry.

Summary

•                                                                                                                                                 This submission offers the Committee the results of a pilot experiment carried out with a total of 106 school pupils, in four schools.  The experiment compared four alternative voting procedures for choosing a winner out of a number of options: separate ‘aye/no’ indicative votes on each option, a single multi-choice vote between all the options, voting through elimination rounds, and successive knock-out voting rounds between pairs of options.

•                                                                                                                                                 The 20 secondary pupils thought Parliament currently functions moderately well, but that its voting procedures are overly complicated, ritualistic and outdated.

•                                                                                                                                                 In two schools, separate aye/no voting and a single round of multi-choice voting produced the same winning option.  But in the other two schools, they produced different winners. 

•                                                                                                                                                 From this small scale pilot experiment, it cannot be assumed that a series of separate ‘aye/no’ indicative votes and a single multi-choice vote between options will produce the same result.  The result may depend on the voting procedure.

•                                                                                                                                                 Voting by elimination rounds and voting by knock-out rounds between pairs of options both produced the same winning option.

•                                                                                                                                                 One round multi-choice voting gives each voter only one vote to deploy in choosing between options.  Elimination voting involved 105 % more votes being cast, and aye/no indicative voting involved 126 % more.

•                                                                                                                                                 In one round multi-choice voting, the winning option got 70% of the available votes, and in elimination round voting, it attracted 74% of the available votes.  Multi-choice and elimination procedures each resulted in a majority winner.

•                                                                                                                                                 Indicative voting by aye/no votes on a series of options failed to produce a winning option with majority support.  Over four trials of separate aye/no voting, the winning option got only 42% of the available votes.

•                                                                                                                                                 In elimination round voting, the percentage of available votes going to the winning option rose from the first round to the second – from 70% to 80%.

•                                                                                                                                                 The 20 secondary pupils strongly proposed adopting a voting procedure which gives each MP only one vote to deploy, encouraging voting for their preferred option without additionally voting to show support for others or respond to influence.

•                                                                                                                                                 They made four proposals for improvements to existing Commons voting procedures.  Top was replacing divisions with voting booths equipped with single-press voting buttons for secret voting.  Second came allowing more time for votes – for thinking and getting to the chamber.  The others, with less overall support, were electronic voting on screens (but there was concern over likely hacking) , and moving to be counted at one or the other end of the chamber rather than through lobbies.

•                                                                                                                                                 In the light of recent parliamentary events, this group also proposed that the Commons should consider introducing secret voting, at least on potentially contentious issues, to encourage MPs to vote in line with what they believe is best for their constituency and the country, rather than for party or subject to pressure.

• From the pupils’ work, it is recommended that the Committee should carry out wider research to compare alternative voting procedures following this pilot experiment; that introduction of secret voting should be considered for more contentious votes in the Commons; and that consideration should be given to trialling the use of voting buttons in polling station style secret voting booths.

Pupils’ views on Parliament’s current procedures

10. We asked the 20 members of our secondary school group how, from their own knowledge, they thought parliament is currently functioning. 

11. None thought it is currently ‘doing well’ with its present procedures, 9 thought it was functioning ‘badly’, and 11 thought it was doing ‘in the middle’.

12. They thought the Commons has an “overly complicated voting system”, “outdated”, “more of a ritual than anything”, and “not well coordinated”, although it had still resulted in “good people” reaching decisions.  But parliament has now got itself into “not going anywhere”, needs to “sort itself out”, and “needs to reach a decision”.

Proposals for improvements in voting procedures

13. We told the secondary school students about the current Commons voting procedure, using the MPs’ Guide to Procedure.

14. Although a student raised the question that “we have had these systems for years, so should we change them?”, the group made four proposals to improve voting:

1. Electronic voting 

MPs voting on computer screens in front of them, saving time on the division process.

However, there were two concerns.  Firstly, voting on screens is not secret.   Secondly, a computerised system could be hacked.

2. Voting booths

To add secrecy of voting and incease speed over the present division lobby system, MPs could pass and use voting buttons in a number of booths, as used at polling stations.

This system should be ‘low tech’ not involving a computer or wireless connections, to prevent hacking.  The buttons should not register repeated button presses by the same person.

3. Voting on foot

MPs could simply stand at one end or the other of the Chamber – an “aye” end and a “no” end – and be counted by tellers there, without going through the lobbies.

4. Allowing more time for votes

Giving MPs more than 8 minutes to vote would give them more thinking time and make it easier to get to the chamber to vote.  This time needed could come from faster means of voting, such as electronic screens or voting booths.

15. Their preferred proposal was introducing voting booths, followed by allowing more time for voting.  Voting booths offered faster divisions, opportunity for secret voting, and immunity from computer hacking. 

16. The proposal for more time came second because the existing voting system already takes up too much time.

The experiment to compare voting methods

17. The four alternative voting methods compared in this experiment for choosing between a number of options were:

• Separate aye/no votes:  putting each option one after the other to a separate, independent, ‘aye/no’ indicative vote.

• Multiple choice vote:  putting all options at once to a single vote, in which each voter casts one vote, for their chosen option.  (There were three options in the primary schools, four in the secondary school).

• Elimination rounds:  putting all options to rounds of voting, eliminating the lowest scoring options from each round until there is a single winner.  In the experiment, we held two rounds in each school, eliminating the lowest scoring of three options in the primary schools and the lowest scoring two of the four options in the secondary school).

• Knock out voting:  holding a series of ‘either/or’ votes between pairs of options (selected either at random or in the order of printing on the options list), knocking out the losing option at each round until there is a winner.  This took two rounds with the three options in the primary schools, and three ‘knock out’ rounds with the four options in the secondary school.

18. Pupils voted either by going and standing on ‘aye’ or ‘no’ sides of the room, or by show of hands.  They could abstain.  Each group also experienced voting by voice, calling “aye” or “no”, followed by a ‘division’ in which they moved to stand on the ‘aye’ or ‘no’ side of the room.

Results of the experiment

19. In two of the four school trials, separate ‘aye/no’ voting produced the same winning option as a single multiple choice vote.  But in the other two schools (one primary and the secondary school), these two methods produced different winning options.  In both cases, the position of the first and second most voted-for options was reversed.

20. On this pilot evidence, it cannot reliably be assumed that a series of aye/no  votes will necessarily produce the same result as a single ‘multi choice’ vote between options.  The choice of voting system may affect the voting outcome.

21. Further research, on a larger scale and with voters perhaps more like MPs, is merited to see if this is replicated.

22. In all four schools, the elimination round and knock-out voting methods both resulted in the same final option being chosen.  These voting methods produced the same final results as a single multiple-choice vote.

23. Twice in this experiment it was therefore the series of separate aye/no indicative votes which gave a result out of step with the other voting methods.

24. A single multi-choice vote between all options in one go limits voters to casting one vote each, while other methods involve voters making choices more than once.  In this experiment, 96 votes were cast in single multi-choice voting (with 10 abstentions).  Compared with this, 126 % more votes (a total of 217) were cast in separate ‘aye/no’ voting, and 105 % more (197 votes) were cast in elimination round voting. 

25. In knock-out voting, each round adds the number of voters (minus any abstentions) to the total of votes cast.  Illustrating this, in the secondary school, 58 votes were cast in knock-out voting, compared with 20 (with no abstentions) in single multi-choice voting..

26. We looked at the proportion of available votes going to the winning option in three of the different voting methods.  Out of 217 votes cast in the separate ‘aye/no’ voting across the four schools, 92 (42 %) were cast for the school’s winning option.  Of the 96 votes cast in single multi-choice voting across the four schools, 67 (70 %) were cast for the winning option.  Of the 197 votes cast in elimination round voting, 148 (75 %) were cast for the winning option. 

27. From this experiment, separate aye/no voting was the one voting process that failed to produce a winning option having majority support.

28. The final strength of support for the winning option was strongest in elimination round voting. 

29. The lack of a winning option with majority support that we found in indicative voting through a series of aye/no votes could affect how certain one can feel about the eventual result, compared with voting procedures more likely to produce an option with a majority.

30. In the elimination round voting, the percentage of available votes cast for the final winning option rose from 70 % in the first round, to 80 % in the second.  Support for the winning option from the available votes strengthened markedly from the first round to the second.

31. In one primary school, even elimination of an option that had got zero votes still led to an increase in the proportion of votes going to the winning option in the next round.

Pupil views on the different voting methods

32. The 20 secondary school students gave their views on the experience of using the different voting methods.

33. Two key issues were raised.  First was secrecy of voting. This had led them to favour the secret ‘voting booth’ option to improve the current Commons voting system.

34. From recent knowledge of Commons voting (during the Brexit process), the group thought there should now be more emphasis on secret voting, to reduce voting under pressure of party, how friends are voting, or of the majority.  They thought MPs should at least “sometimes” be freer to vote in the best interests of their constituencies rather than parties or groups, and to vote as they “feel deep down”.  Although secret voting does not eliminate voting pressures, it would protect against it. 

35. Two arguments were raised against introducing secret voting in the Commons.  One was that, given the importance the group gave to voting for constituency rather than party, it was important for an MP’s constituents to be able to see how their MP had voted in representing their interests.  The other was that the Prime Minister needs to know the voting patterns of MPs in order to pick a Cabinet and Ministers whose voting shows their agreement with government policies, their party loyalty – and so “who they can trust”. 

36. An alternative view was that it would be better for a Prime Minister to persuade and discuss with people being considered for Government appointments, rather than trying to judge them on how they voted.  This would also develop common views before appointment.

37. There was a comment that the issue in much voting now is between self-interest and what is best for the country; an issue not resolved by secret voting.

38. The group confirmed their overall view that secret voting should now be considered for introduction to the Commons.

39. One additional proposal was that secrecy of voting could be an option available for use in votes that were deemed to be difficult or controversial.  Open voting was then suitable for votes on issues without evidence of much opposition.

40. It is worth noting that although voting by show of hands had not been proposed or tested with the group, we had used this form of voting in our own group discussions, and they pointed out that this is also observable voting and so influenced by how others vote or which way the majority is going, and so “hands up is not the best idea”.  Consideration could be given, in our own approach to voting and in the Commons, to greater use of voting by paper ballot – already used in Commons deferred votes.

41. The second issue raised by the secondary school student focus group was the difference between having only one vote to deploy to select the winner of a set of options (as in the single multi-vote method), rather than multiple votes (as in the other three voting methods trialled).  Being able to vote for more than one option in separate aye/no votes had in the students’ experience “made you not scared of how to put your view forward”.  But only having one vote to deploy in the single multi-vote method made you “vote for what you really want”.  With only one vote to use, you were not tempted or pressured to give one vote for what you wanted and another for what you wanted other people to see you voting for.

42. The group overall decided in favour of having one rather than several votes to deploy with a choice of options, and therefore in favour of the single multi-vote system.

Recommendations from the pupils’ work

1. That the Committee should carry out wider research to compare alternative voting procedures following this pilot experiment.

2. That introduction of secret voting should be considered for more contentious votes in the Commons.

3. That the use of voting buttons in polling station style secret voting booths should be tried in Commons voting in place of traditional divisions.

43. I am grateful to the Heads and staff of the four schools involved for this submission, especially to the members of staff who took notes of the pupils’ votes and views, and above all to the pupils themselves for their views and fresh thinking.

September 2019