Anyone who has been alive and awake for anytime in the last several weeks will know the agony of the sequence of Parliamentary votes for the various Brexit alternatives. I suspect that most people are, at one-and-the-same time, fascinated – in the sense that watching a dumpster fire is exhilarating – and appalled – at an inability to come to any definitive conclusion as to what might be a way forward for the country. This viewpoint seems to be independent of which side of the Brexit debate one stands.
What is clear in all of this, is that there is no single alternative (other than wanting to avoid a ‘no deal’ Brexit) that either party, or the entire House of Commons, can agree upon. After the indicative votes on 8 alternatives on 26 March there was the rather bizarre interaction amongst the various MPs speaking as to whether a loss is really a loss when other alternative received even bigger losses.
The reality is that there is, and will simply never be, an alternative that will command a majority. What this means is the political system can keep spinning and bringing up the same alternatives again and again or something has to change. The reality is the UK is in a situation where there are no good alternatives and the choice is now one where the decision has to be made as to what is the least unpalatable alternative amongst a set of unpalatable alternatives. The mode of voting used up to this point in time – simple ‘Yes’ versus ‘No’ votes – will simply not only not solve the impasse but will also most likely lead to a voter’s paradox where the wrong alternative from a social welfare and fairness perspective will win out.
So, what should Parliament do? A relatively simple alternative is to use a preference voting structure that pits all the alternatives against one another simultaneously. Such systems – of which there are many alternatives – are not only more likely to present the consensus of the House but also would be perceived as fairer and more reasonable than a series of non-comparable up or down votes on single measures.
There are many variants of preference voting models and generally these lead to fairly similar outcomes. But what might the best alternatives for the House? Given that some preference voting approaches can be quite complex, and the fact that the Brexit debate is both heated and highly emotional, the best option is probably a simple option. In addition, the House needs to decide is whether it wants to generate a single ‘winner’ or simply know what the variants are in order of preference.
The simplest alternative to determine a ‘winner’ is the Australian Single (or Instant) Runoff System. Here, each MP would rank the alternatives in terms of their preferences. If no alternative gets more than 50%, then for that alternative that is last is excluded. Those who voted the excluded alternative first on their ballot would have their second alternative now considered first and the votes would be recounted. The process would continue until one alternative was ranked ‘first’ on a majority of ballots.
If the desire of the vote is to generate a distribution of preferences for the alternatives, then a Single Transferable Vote process would do the trick. A simple alternative would be to say that what the House wants is the best 2 or 3 alternatives out of the 8 or more on offer. Again, MPs would rank order their votes and the process would continue as in the case of the Single Runoff System but would stop once the desired number of alternatives are reached. The votes left amongst these alternatives would reflect the overall preferences of the House.
Which would be the best option? Here the issue is trickly. If the outcome the House is trying to achieve is to come up with one alternative then the former approach, the Single Runoff System – is clearly the best. If what the House wants is to know what the 2 or 3 potential alternatives are that might be mixed and matched in a Brexit plan then the latter option, the Single Transferable Vote model would work.
What I am proposing here is nothing radical. However, it would be a relatively quick and simply way for MPs to choose amongst a set of unpalatable alternatives in a manner that could lead to a quicker and more cooperative understanding of what Brexit options really should be debated and which should be chucked into the dustbin of history.
This sounds interesting, depending on the alternatives presented, of course. By the way, you need to edit your description of the Instant Runoff System (which sounds a bit like a drainage device): “If no alternative gets more than 50%, then for that alternative that is last is excluded.” I think you meant to write “If no alternative gets more than 50%, then the alternative that comes last is excluded.”