The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 264 No 7098 p799
May 27, 2000 The Society

Branch Representatives' meeting

Pros and cons of STV discussed

At their meeting on May 11, branch representatives discussed the mechanics of the Society's Council election

See also:
Call for permanent BPSA office at Lambeth headquarters
Call for reconsideration of Council election canvassing
Conference success?
No support for electoral college for Society's presidential elections
Representatives want UCAS style scheme for preregistration placements
Branches want their role reviewed
Representatives want Society's public relations assessed for performance
Representatives want earlier Council response to BRM motions
Branch representatives support emergency hormonal contraception from pharmacies

Mr ROGER ODD (head of professional and scientific support, Royal Pharmaceutical Society) said that the single transferable vote had been intended to promote adequate sectoral interest on Council, which, after many discussions and a BRM motion that was subsequently agreed at the AGM in 1973, decided to have a detailed working party look at the subject. The subject had been so complex that it had taken nearly 18 months to come up with conclusions. Subsequently a report had been presented to the Council in November, 1974. The view after that time was that STV should be accepted as the method to elect the Council and the Society's auditors. It had seemed a logical election process, so it was introduced in the 1976 Council elections. It had been agreed at that time that there would be a review of the STV system after a few years, and this did not happen until 1988-89, when a further working party looked at the constitution of the Council and the election procedures, including the STV system. It had concluded, after lengthy consideration, that there was no need to change the election procedures, pointing out that there was a balance of members on the Council coming from various fields of practice, and it seemed to be working very effectively. Two other issues were considered at that time, one of them being regional representation on Council. It was felt that any regional representation might encourage or support those who came from larger areas rather than very sparsely populated areas round Britain. Finally, it had said that Council members elected nationally did represent all areas and issues, no matter where they came from. The views of the working party were not supportive of sectional representation either. The most important reason had seemed to be that most sectors of pharmacy were already represented on the Council, apart from industrial pharmacy, though the Council had always tried to co-opt a member from that sector. It had been agreed, therefore, that sectional representation should not be pursued at that time. Mr Odd went on to say that a motion had been accepted at the 1999 BRM that this matter should be investigated [PJ, May 29, 1999, p768]. This motion had been considered by the Council at its August meeting and, following that, it had been felt there was a need to understand exactly how the present position had been arrived at. Therefore, a very detailed paper had been considered at a Council meeting later in the year, and responses forwarded to the Slough branch, which had proposed the 1999 motion. It was agreed eventually that there would be a further discussion at the 2000 BRM. In addition, the Health Act working party was looking at Council elections. Any points arising from the discussion would be passed on to that working party. The Electoral Reform Society had said in 1974 that the STV system was a logical method in elections, simple in operation and one which presented no difficulty at all to the electorate, although the mechanics of it were rather complex. Mr Odd then invited comments.

Roger Odd: Health Act working party looking at Council elections

Mr ROGER MILLS (Slough) said that the motion had been proposed in 1999 because it was felt that a single transferable vote was not a valid method of election of seven candidates, although it was excellent for the election of one. However, he now wondered whether the system made any difference to the eventual outcome, except perhaps for candidates six and seven.
The Council was in a difficult position because whatever decision it arrived at, it would be wrong! If the system were changed, those who thought STV was satisfactory would be upset. If it stayed the same, those who felt it was over-complicated and that it should be changed would not be happy. He hoped the meeting felt it was worth making a change from STV back to a seven-vote system. The input of the profession was needed, and the BRM was the best forum. It was the only way in which the Council could assess whether there was sufficient feeling to make it worth changing.
Dr ANGELA ALEXANDER (Slough) said that she had thought she understood the STV system and therefore should favour it. However, she had changed her view and now thought it was difficult to understand. On reading what the Electoral Reform Society had to say about the first past the post system and STV (available on its website), the justification for the two systems really only applied to elections with multi-party systems. She was not sure it was appropriate for Council elections where candidates did not represent a constituency.
Mr NICHOLAS WOOD (Chelmsford) said people should be prepared to be open-minded. On close analysis, the results were similar whether by STV or 7X. In past Council elections the only difference had been in respect of the seventh candidate. The problem the Society faced was the decline in the number of those voting. The perception of the membership was that STV was to blame because people did not understand it. There were disadvantages to the 7X system. It was important to look at other systems, such as proportional representation. There were mixed systems, such as the list system, the alternative member system, etc, which had been used in European elections and for the election of the London mayor. Advice should be sought from other professions and from the Electoral Reform Society. It was not a simple choice between 7X and STV.
Mrs GILLIAN ARR-JONES (Brighton) said it was a straight contest between STV and 7X and she supported the 7X system.
Mr BILL BROOKES (South Cheshire) was unhappy with the present system and did not think the STV system was fair. An analysis of the results over recent years showed that there was not much difference between the two systems. He did not agree with Mr Wood that other systems should be examined. They were more appropriate to parliamentary elections. He thought pharmacists were straightforward and preferred a simple system. He suggested putting the matter to bed quickly and getting back to the easily understandable 7X system.
Mr TONY CARSON (South West Metropolitan) said the paper gave a good history of the matter, but the results showed that there was not much difference which-ever system was used. His concern was the falling vote. He did not think this was because of STV but because the membership did not feel Council members represented their interests. There was a falling vote in national and local government elections which reflected the electorate's lack of faith in politicians for similar reasons.
Mrs ELIZABETH McCONECHY (Glasgow and West Scotland) pointed out that the Society's Scottish Executive was still elected by the 7X system, with six votes for six candidates, but had a falling vote as well.
Mr MILLS urged the PRESIDENT (Mrs Christine Glover) to put the matter to a vote between the two systems. The majority were in favour of a cross system.
Mr ALLAN ASHER (East Metropolitan) hoped that if there were a return to the 7X system of voting the results of the Council election could be announced on the day of the annual general meeting in the way it had once been done.