How d’Aft voting system works

Date: 23/01/1997

There are dark mutterings in the corridors of power in Strasbourg. Cries of “foul!”, “fiddle!” and “fix!” are to be heard.

The only democratically elected of our hallowed EU institutions, indeed the world's only supranational elected assembly, stands accused of being undemocratic.

Perish the thought, in all working languages. Banish the notion of constitutional wrongdoing. Get thee behind me, forces of disruption. Do not cloud still further the murky waters of parliamentary procedure.

In other words, hail to the new president, and let us not question too closely the means by which he got there.

Nothing personal, Señor José María Gil-Robles, but this is beginning to look suspiciously like a carve-up.

There have been eight presidents of the directly-elected Parliament so far, and six of them have been either from the Socialist Group or the European People's Party three apiece in fact from the two largest blocs in the place.

A seventh was the leader of the European Democratic Group, effectively then and in reality now part of the EPP, and the eighth was French Liberal Simone Veil.

Veil was the first president after direct elections, in 1979, and it is surprising that it took another decade before the Socialists and the EPP sealed their unholy pact to rotate the presidency in future between them. Buggin's turn. After you, old chap, and don't forget which way to vote next time.

In practice, it had happened already. First, Socialist Piet Dankert, then the EPP's Pierre Pflimlin. Lord Plumb, also centre-right, came next and it was then, one supposes, that the move towards an acknowledged carve-up began to ensure alternates in future.

In 1989, the EPP backed the other lot's candidate, Enrique Baron, and the next time, in 1992, the Socialists very graciously did not even field a candidate.

Again, in 1994, the agreement held, with the EPP supporting Socialist Klaus Hänsch, who was duly elected. And now, in another horrendously predictable turn of events, the EPP has a representative back in the post.

Oh, we in the media did our best to create excitement, thanks to the late entry of French Radical Catherine Lalumière into the race. We even pretended she might have a chance, just to make it more exciting.

And indeed she did notch up sufficient votes to signal that there are quite a few of our directly elected MEPs who are less than thrilled with the way this increasingly important post is simply handed around among the big players, a little out of the reach of the rest.

That was why the pro forma plaudits for Gil-Robles as he took the podium in Strasbourg last week were delivered through gritted teeth by the leaders of the smaller groups.

Socialist leader Pauline Green made a good show of defending the system, arguing hotly that the vote was a straight, democratic, open endorsement of everyone's preferred candidate.

The only trouble was that the final list of candidates was, shall we say, a little on the slender side.

“The last properly democratically elected president of the Parliament was Henry Plumb,” commented one veteran MEP over lunch last week as Gil-Robles began practising with his gavel. “Since then, it's just been a question of whose turn is it next. Very boring.”

It is, however, easier to understand how the president is elected than how the various committee posts are carved up.

The most-oft used expletive in Strasbourg last week was not in fact “foul” or “fix” or “fiddle” but “d'Hondt!” the name of a largely unsung Belgian whose deliciously lateral brain came up with one of the least understood and most complex voting systems since the American primaries.

But it works marvellously well, because as soon as anybody starts grumbling that there has been an illicit deal done to secure a top committee post, defenders simply point out that it's the d'Hondt system at work.

Oh yes, you say. The d'Hondt system. Good. Carry on.

I conducted an in-depth straw poll of several notable Parliamentary officials last week. “Tell me,” I said, “do you understand the d'Hondt system of voting?”

“Absolutely”, replied one.

“Go on,” I said. “Enlighten me.”

“Well. Ahem. What it is, you see, is a system by which committee jobs are allocated to certain Euro MPs”

“So far, so crystal clear.”

“on the basis of a certain formula which ensures that the votes are weighted along proportional representational lines”

“I'm still with you.”

“in such a manner as to take into account a number of variables, thereby guaranteeing that available posts are shared out on the most equitable basis amongst different political groups.”

“So, how is it done then?”

“Well, how it works is that, you see, if you are a big political group as opposed to a small one, you are entitled, in a strict pecking order, to stand for the key posts of certain key committees. This could mean, for example, that the Socialist Group, the largest in the Parliament, might be eligible, say, to have the first, third, fifth, seventh, eighth, 11th, 13th and 18th choices of committee, while the EPP, for example, might get the second, fourth, sixth, ninth, 12th,16th and 20th choices.”

“Hmm. So what about the rest?”

“Well, as it were, the Liberals might have the tenth choice, and the Greens the 19th choice, depending on their actual size vis-à-vis every other group. What choices of committee you get depends on what priority order the committees are given and that depends, of course.”

“What on?”

“A number of variables.”

“And this is fair, is it?”

“Oh, absolutely. That's why we have the d'Hondt system.”

“I see. So that, in certain cases no names, no pack-drill certain individuals are still in the chair of the same committees after a dozen years or more?”

“Well, obviously, that must mean they are considered the best person for that job.”

Sources close to Voicebox claim that a new voting system is now under consideration in a bid to answer the current crop of complaints.

I understand that the d'Hondt system is to be replaced by the d'Aft system, which will apply equally to the election of the president, the vice-presidents, the quaestors and the committee chairmanships.

It seems rather complicated, but basically it works like this: there will be no automatic entitlement amongst political groups to anything. Every elected representative of the Parliament is entitled to cast one vote for each of the available posts. They then use that vote to support whichever of their colleagues they believe is best suited to each job, regardless of sex, religion, race or political party. No one can vote for him or herself.

When all the votes are added up, the one with the largest number gets the job. Where one person has been elected to more than one job, those votes are re-cast, obviously excluding those candidates from the eligible list.

This first-into-the-post system raises the novel prospect of candidates being elected by just one vote, which gives everyone a genuine chance. It is the most democratic system available and, as it happens, the most unworkable.

It may be d'Aft, but it is easier to understand than d'Hondt.