Electoral Administration Bill

moved Amendment No. 114ZA:"After Clause 37, insert the following new clause—" ““SIMPLIFICATION OF VOTING SYSTEMS    In advising on electoral arrangements, the Electoral Commission must have regard to the importance of the process of voting being readily understandable to the electorate and, in particular, shall ensure that no more than two systems of voting shall be employed in any polling district on the same day or in the same election.”” The noble Lord said: I rejoin the Bill after a little absence; I want to get back into it again. The amendment would ensure that the system of voting is as easy and simple as possible. There is no sense in bombarding the electorate with multiple systems of voting. That will only cause confusion and discourage voting. The more systems in place, the more difficult it will be to safeguard them against fraud. The amendment will ensure that while some differences to the voting system may be used, no more than two systems of voting will be employed in any polling district on the same day or in the same election. I remind the Committee that the amendment addresses the system of voting and not the method. In the European elections of 10 June 2004, two systems were in place. There is the regional list system in GB, the single transferable vote in Northern Ireland, the supplementary vote system for the Mayor of London elections where you mark two preferences and a varied system for the London Assembly, combining first past the post with an additional 11 members being selected by the additional member system where you vote for a party. If that description were not confusing enough, it was proved by the results. In the Assembly election, over 150,000 votes were rejected, many clearly as a result of confusion. What is more, as a result of those elections, we now have a dual candidacy. In 2004 Dee Doocey—Lib Dem—was defeated in first past the post elections in London South West but got in by AMS. That kind of confusion can never be allowed to happen again. It pressurises the electorate not only into trying to make informed decisions by understanding different party policies, but it also faces it with the challenge of learning about several different types of election. This is a simple question of logistics. It is not intended to spark a debate on proportional representation or any other kind of voting. Simply put, the electorate should not be overburdened by too many systems of voting, and the combination of systems should not result in a dual candidacy where one person gains an elected post on the basis of a loophole in the system. There should be safeguards in place that prevent such confusion in the future. I beg to move.