One question or two? Let's have a referendum
The political and legal row over the Scottish referendum – when it should be held, and whether it should consist of one question or two – is unlikely to be quickly or easily settled. It raises issues important to all parties, north and south of the border.
But, beyond the merely political issues, there are some statistical ones. If, as some suggest, the referendum offers two questions to the electorate, there needs to be absolute, analytical clarity about how the “yes” votes are to be publicly reported and counted.
If there are two questions, they would ask voters to provide yes/no answers to (i) independence; and (ii) greater devolution of powers, in shorthand “devo-max”. Current opinion polls suggest that the latter is more likely to command a majority than the former.
The analytical options are to analyse the two questions separately, or cross-tabulation of the respondents’ dual answers as:
- a) Yes to (i), Yes to (ii)
- b) Yes to (i), No to (ii).
- c) No to (i), Yes to (ii)
- d) No to (i), No to (ii)
In the case of cross-tabulation, the count has to take cognisance also of 4 other combinations because some respondents may opt to answer one only of the two questions on which opinion was sought. If the return remains valid when a respondent answers only one of two posed questions, we have also to count, and report publicly, the following partial responses:
- e). No response to (i), Yes to (ii)
- f) No response to (i), No to (ii)
- g) Yes to (i), No response to (ii)
- h) No to (i), No response to (ii).
The decision on validity affects whether the count for independence is the sum of votes a)+b)+g) versus just a)+b); and whether the count against independence is c)+d)+h) versus c)+d).
The UK Government’s consultation paper, published this week, takes the view that a two-question referendum would be wrong. “If these two questions were taken together, there would be four possible outcomes, and potentially four campaigns, each arguing for a different result” it says. “Having four campaigns would not help to generate clarity.” So the UK Government’s appears already to have discounted e) to h) . . .
There is, in addition, the issue raised by the Liberal Democrat peer Lord Steel. Suppose that a small majority voted for independence, and a large majority for devo-max. Then the more popular option would be defeated by a less popular one. Because his electoral mandate is for a referendum on Scottish independence, Alex Salmond, the SNP leader and Scotland’s First Minister, has made it clear that a majority for independence would trump a larger majority for devo-max.
By contrast, the Constitution Unit at University College London has proposed a two-stage referendum on independence: in principle, and in practice. The first stage would establish if a majority of the Scottish electorate favoured independence: if yes, the terms of such independence would be negotiated. The second referendum would determine if a majority favoured the terms reached.
Without such a process, Scots would be making a decisive decision on the basis of pretty slender information, says Professor Robert Hazell of the UCL unit. But neither side in the debate appears persuaded: Alex Salmond has never accepted the need for a second referendum, and now the UK Government has stated its preference for a single referendum asking a single question.
That avoids the complexities of a two-question referendum but, as the Coalition Government doubtless calculates, forces voters into a trustful choice, some practicalities of which emerge in detail only later.
Anonymous (not verified) wrote,
Thu, 12/01/2012 - 15:00
Had everyone forgotten (or did they never know?) that the 1997 devolution referendum had two questions on the paper?
I agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament.
I do not agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament.
and
I agree that a Scottish Parliament should have tax-varying powers.
I do not agree that a Scottish Parliament should have tax-varying powers.
And there were indeed four campaigns (of rather different sizes) - the obvious Yes/Yes, and No/No, but also the reasonable Yes/No. But there was also the No/Yes - for those who did not wish devolution, but if it was to exist, wished it to have tax raising powers.
Somehow we managed to cope with all this complexity.
John McKellar (not verified) wrote,
Thu, 12/01/2012 - 18:47
Surely the issue is crying out for some form of transferable vote with several options available; here is a possible list (certainly not definitive):
i. Independence
ii. Devo Max
iii. Devo a little more
iv. Status Quo
v. Less devolution
vi. Cancel all devolution
A normal transferable vote allows the voter to pick options in any order; but here there is another twist, they are naturally ranked - I'm assuming that a voter for Independence would prefer Devo Max to Statu Quo, etc.
With the options ranked, there is less political game-playing between Devo-Max and Independence - they are on a continuum. We can assume (I believe) that a voter would be happy for their vote to go to an adjacent option.
We now have ONE QUESTION - "How far do you want devolution to go?", but multiple options.
We start at one end and count until 50% of votes are included; and that's our decision. (It might matter whether we count from the bottom or the top ... so I guess the status quo would be the default.
I'm sure the debate will roll on .............
Nicola Prigg (not verified) wrote,
Sat, 14/01/2012 - 21:37
A multi-option referendum (like John McKellar suggests) could use approval voting (although that being said one option still might not get over 50% but less likely).
If not a multi-option vote, then one question could be the SNPs: Do you support Scotland becoming an independent state separate from England?
Or whatever the wording they wish to use. And the other being: If Scotland does not wish to become independent, do you wish the Union to be reformed?
Then if a Yes vote, we debate how the union should be reformed. That brings the 2 questions more in line with the 97 referendum.
Anonymous - we haven't forgotten but its different. Independence and devo-max are two options for Scotland's constitutional future. So if there is a Yes/No question on independence and a Yes/No to devo-max then there can be a No to independence and a Yes to devo-max and we still get something. The tax-raising question in 97 was dependent on a yes result in the first. Thats not the same here.
I don't want this debate stalled because of a No vote which potentially it will if there is not some question asking if we want reform to current settlement.
Iain McKendrick (not verified) wrote,
Sun, 15/01/2012 - 12:29
Congrtulations to Sheila for venturing into this territory, but i think this article is confused. It mixes up two totally separate issues: whether the planned referendum should have one or two questions (independence or devo-max, which as John McKellar, above, points out could more usefully be thought of as a Single transferable vote referendum), and whether there should be one referendum or two, where the issue involved is not the choice between competing options, but rather the chance for the electorate to pass judgement on a proposed settlement as well as on the principle of change.
The interesting issue to me (as someone who woould probably rank his preferences as Devo-max, Status-Quo, Independence) is that both in dismissing the need for a second referendum, and in rejecting the idea of a second question, the UK government and Labour opposition are restricting the options available to me as part of the electorate, I presume for tactical reasons.
Ross (not verified) wrote,
Wed, 18/01/2012 - 10:46
I think the first comment uses a false comparison. Both questions in the 1997 referendum concerned devolution. They were complementary rather than opposing. Independence/ separation and devolution are two opposing options so one referendum containing both options risks an unclear result as Sheila's article highlights. Also, I would disagree slightly with Iain McKendrick's comment. A no to Independence is not necessarily a yes to the status quo. Devolution has developed in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland both with and without the use of referenda but that debate should in my view not be conflated with the fundamental question of whether Scotland should remain part of the United Kingdom.
Peter Meikle (not verified) wrote,
Thu, 19/01/2012 - 16:06
How about the following 2 questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Do you want Scotland to have greater autonomy? Yes/No
2. If a majority of the people answer "Yes" to Question 1 then do you favour
A) Complete independence?
or B) Devo-max?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a majority vote "No" in Question 1, then Question 2 is ignored.
Note that everyone votes in Question 2, even those who said "No" in Question 1.