Report of Discussion

Tuesday, 5 December 2023

A Discussion was convened by videoconference with Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Mr Roger Mosey, SE, presiding and the Registrary’s deputy and two additional Pro‑Proctors as the attending officers.

Remarks were received as follows:
 

Report of the Council, dated 10 November 2023, on a revised nomination and election process for Senate elections

(Reporter, 6718, 2023–24, p. 113).

Mr G. C. Oddy (Pembroke College):

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, the existing voting procedures ensure that if a candidate is objectionable to a majority of voters they will not be elected.

Two of the proposed changes weaken this safeguard:

(c) Changes to the election timetable

Should the withdrawal (or death) of a candidate result in there being only one candidate remaining, the existing procedures enable other candidates to be nominated. Under the proposed new procedures the single remaining candidate would be elected even if this is against the wishes of the electorate. The new procedures need to allow additional candidates to be nominated should only one candidate remain following a candidate’s withdrawal.

(d) Replacement of the Single Transferable Vote (STV) with the first-past-the-post voting system

The argument that STV can lead to the election of a candidate who is not the first choice of the majority of voters is flawed: this is also the case with the first-past-the-post system, should votes be split roughly evenly between three or more candidates. Under the existing STV system the reallocation of votes ensures that a candidate who is objectionable to a majority of voters will not be elected as they will be the lowest-placed choice on a majority of ballot papers. Under the proposed new voting procedures a candidate may poll the largest number of votes and thus be elected even though they do not have a majority and their election is against the wishes of a majority of voters.

I therefore urge the Council to revise the proposals so as to address these concerns.

 

Professor G. R.Evans (Emeritus Professor of Medieval Theology and Intellectual History):

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, this is a welcome Report. Thanks are especially due to Professor A. W. F. Edwards for making the case for the retirement of the Nomination Board, which is now to take place.

I have only one comment. Annex A1 proposes a replacement for the existing Ordinance.2 With the exception of three instances of ‘shall’, ‘will’ is used throughout where ‘shall’ would surely be appropriate?

 

Professor C. J. O’Kane (Department of Genetics and Churchill College):

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I am both puzzled and alarmed by the proposal to replace the single transferable vote (STV) with first-past-the-post (FPTP) for elections with only a single vacancy. In the background to this Discussion I found only one individual contribution in a cited source (in the Discussion of 20 June 2023)1 to support the assertion that retaining the STV ‘attracted criticism’.

The only real argument is an assertion that when there is a single vacancy, ‘it can lead to the election of a candidate who is not the first choice of the majority of voters’.

This is a misrepresentation, in that FPTP can also lead to the election of a candidate who is the first choice of only a minority of the voters and actively disliked by a majority (unless there are only two candidates, in which case FPTP and STV are equivalent). In general, STV leads to the election of candidates who have broader support, and also gives increased legitimacy to candidates who might have won anyway.

Irish Presidential elections only have a single vacancy – and as Head of State, the position is very comparable to that of Chancellor.

In 1990, Mary Robinson received 39% of 1st preference votes and would have lost in FPTP to Brian Lenihan (44%), but won the STV count by 52% to 47%, receiving a large majority of transferred votes. These transfers under STV are still full votes that would otherwise have been lost under FPTP. Mrs Robinson went on to enjoy wide support for a transformative term of office.

In 2011, Michael D. Higgins obtained 39.6% of first preference votes, and would have won in FPTP, in a very crowded field of seven candidates. After transfers he won with 57% of the votes – although the same outcome as FPTP – with much more legitimacy than 39.6% would have conferred, and broad support for what was also a successful term of office.

There is also an explanation that FPTP is used to elect members of the House of Commons, but this is not necessarily a recommendation for it. FPTP can result in a candidate who wins a three-horse race with 34% of the vote, or a four-horse race with 26% of the vote – this cannot be portrayed as a majority of the voters, and indeed similar situations do happen in parliamentary constituencies with three (occasionally four) plausible candidates in England, or four to five plausible candidates in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

It is factually incorrect to imply that STV can elect a candidate who is not the choice of a majority of voters, and that FPTP will not. STV is more likely to elect a candidate who has broad support and legitimacy – particularly important in a community of scholars, and especially for a post such as Chancellor.

 

Mr T. N. Milner (Darwin College):

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I am offering these remarks in a personal capacity. The proposed regulations seem to offer a sound basis for conducting future nominations and elections, but I would like to raise three points for consideration.

These set a minimum notice period before voting can begin and define the latest point at which nominations can be made before it starts. Currently, the work of the Nomination Board, done after notice of a vacancy or future vacancy is given, creates a significant pause before the twenty-eight days when other nominations can be made. Given the importance of the business and also for clarity, might it be good to retain such a minimum nomination period?

As the designated returning officer, the Vice-Chancellor (or a deputy) is empowered to decide both the method of casting votes and the form of the voting paper. For consistency, could that extend to the form under which nominations may be made, a matter currently allotted to the Council in a footnote?

Given the large potential electorate that can now nominate and vote electronically from different time-zones worldwide, might it be wise to adopt a provision similar to that for the election by the Regent House of members of the Council, so that any election shall not be deemed invalid owing to the misdirection, late arrival, or non‑arrival of any material relating to it?