The ward system

[hullenedge]

Posted purely for historical curiosity.

Searching through my old clippings...there was some debate locally about 'the ward system' in the 1930s when various council amalgamations were proposed. Some districts used wards (my home town had since the 1890s although there was quite a hoo-ha because some sitting councillors refused to enter 'head to head' contests and some long-serving cllrs were defeated!) whereas other districts elected en bloc. From one of our local papers:-

'This system has its advantages, in that it enables each section of a township to watch its particular representatives, but there are those who argue that it tends to increase the cost of administration, for naturally a councillor is eager to secure as many advantages as possible for the particular ward that he represents. We have seen no evidence of this locally, nor have we heard of any grievance of this kind from the areas that are already divided into wards.'

Going back to the 1870s there's a letter signed by 'Ethel' (perhaps a newly-enfranchised female elector) to a Sheffield newspaper:-

'Could you, sir, or any of your readers, kindly furnish me with information respecting a) the origin of 'wards' as they exist in many municipal boroughs; and b) the reasons for such divisions? This parcelling out seems to me an unhappy device; it tends to foster a narrow 'ward' feeling to the prejudice of larger interests; it nurses a spirit of rivalry and jealousy, inconsistent if not incompatible, with the general welfare of the borough. Candidates are requested to pledge themselves to look after the interests of this or that ward; and sometimes complaints are brought against members that they are not sufficiently alive to the wants or the requirements of their constituents. Amid such a conflict of interests it need not be surprising if occasionally the larger good is lost in the smaller. I fail to see any adequate reason for such a division...'

Strong stuff from 'Ethel'. Her letter did provoke some interest and there was a suggestion, by one correspondent, that Sheffield abolish its wards and elect the council using the cumulative vote (like the school boards) because this would lead to a 'better and higher class' of representative.

[Merseymike]

Interesting. I have always thought that if the justification is ability to represent a local view then single member wards would be preferable. I think there would be less one party states as well. There are places in the south where Labour do pretty well but just don't get quite enough to win a 3 member ward whereas split into 3 they would definitely win at least one seat. It's the same for other parties in the cities though I'm not sure whether a Tory ward could be created in Manchester or Liverpool

[carlton43]

I warm to the 'Ethel position' as a means of keeping consideration general rather than super local. In fact I have always had a strong support for what was familiar to me in youth...........The three member ward with one member up for election every year. I have a strong aversion to 'all-ups'. The problem with the 'Ethel position' is the need for a party list system of some sort and necessarily a type of proportional representation of members to party votes. If there is a move to PR (which I completely oppose)then I would prefer no wards at all in the authority.

[J.G.Harston]

The problem with "at large" elections is that you either have a ballot paper with 300+ names on it for an authority like Sheffield, or you have a ballot paper with 6 party names on it and the parties decide who gets elected.

[thirdchill]

The 'ward' system is certainly preferable to an 'at-large' situation, where it is less clear who residents should contact if they have a particular issue or concern that is local and they need help or assistance in this. In an ideal world, councillors should be doing most of the constituency work anyway, within local authorities that have more devolved powers where councillors are more likely and able to make a difference. And constituency work is more effective when there are clear local links between a councillor and an area that they represent.

As for 'single wards' versus 'multi-member' wards, it really depends on local authority. My personal preference would be two-member wards with elections by halves where possible (with local elections every two years).

[Davıd Boothroyd]

There have been many debates in US cities about whether to have councillors elected by district or citywide (it has a crucial role in the story of Harvey Milk, for example). Most cities now do use districts, but not all - Philadelphia is an example of citywide election of councillors.

[J.G.Harston]

Jun 21, 2016 11:21:35 GMT @trident said:

I couldn't see 'at large' elections being viable for anything other than very small authorities such as the old pre-1974 rural districts. Can you imagine how long the count would take?!?!
It would be completely unviable for any authority with more than about 10 members.
In Canada, Vancouver City Council doesn't have wards, but it only has 9 councillors IIRC - in Canada, being a city councillor in a big city is a full time salaried job, like an MP.

When I watched the Harvey Milk film I was amazed that San Francisco had a city council of only 11 members. (And anorackily, the fall-out from moving between at-large elections and district elections and back again were a backdrop to the events.)

[neilm]

It's worth remembering though that in a lot of cases they aren't responsible for schools, child/social services and so on. The San Francisco Board of Education isn't part of the council.

The mesh of different elected authorities in California is striking. If you think we have it bad in places that have internal drainage boards, boards of conservators and so on have a look at California.

[john07]

Jun 19, 2016 18:15:58 GMT J.G.Harston said:

The problem with "at large" elections is that you either have a ballot paper with 300+ names on it for an authority like Sheffield, or you have a ballot paper with 6 party names on it and the parties decide who gets elected.

Most Parish/Town Councils elect at large do they not?

[J.G.Harston]

Jun 21, 2016 13:56:32 GMT john07 said:

Jun 19, 2016 18:15:58 GMT J.G.Harston said:

The problem with "at large" elections is that you either have a ballot paper with 300+ names on it for an authority like Sheffield, or you have a ballot paper with 6 party names on it and the parties decide who gets elected.

Most Parish/Town Councils elect at large do they not?

I don't know, those in my experience don't (Bradfield, Ecclesfield, Stocksbridge, Whitby, Eastfield, Filey). Tiny parishes (by area or membership) would be likely to have at-large representation, I think Hawsker-cum-Stainsacre and Eskdaleside do.

[Foggy]

Jun 19, 2016 13:40:20 GMT carlton43 said:

I warm to the 'Ethel position' as a means of keeping consideration general rather than super local. In fact I have always had a strong support for what was familiar to me in youth...........The three member ward with one member up for election every year. I have a strong aversion to 'all-ups'. The problem with the 'Ethel position' is the need for a party list system of some sort and necessarily a type of proportional representation of members to party votes. If there is a move to PR (which I completely oppose)then I would prefer no wards at all in the authority.

I was going to ask why this is, but then I re-read the comment and it seems that this was the system in your younger days, so you feel attached to it. I have only been able to vote since 2003, and have always lived in areas where the borough/district and parish councils are all up every 4 years, with the County Council completely renewed at the mid-point of the other councillors' term. I think partial renewal is only suitable for the upper houses of legislative bodies. Local councils are by their nature neither legislatures nor bicameral.

Toronto City Council made international headlines a few years ago. With only around 45 members, it is probably nevertheless one of the largest municipal authorities in North America, but local school boards are elected separately there.

However, we should not look to the USA and Canada for examples of best practice. Single-member wards with anything from a third to a half of councillors elected on district-wide lists by PR is the way to go.

[carlton43]

Jun 21, 2016 16:54:53 GMT Foggy said:

Jun 19, 2016 13:40:20 GMT carlton43 said:

I warm to the 'Ethel position' as a means of keeping consideration general rather than super local. In fact I have always had a strong support for what was familiar to me in youth...........The three member ward with one member up for election every year. I have a strong aversion to 'all-ups'. The problem with the 'Ethel position' is the need for a party list system of some sort and necessarily a type of proportional representation of members to party votes. If there is a move to PR (which I completely oppose)then I would prefer no wards at all in the authority.

I was going to ask why this is, but then I re-read the comment and it seems that this was the system in your younger days, so you feel attached to it. I have only been able to vote since 2003, and have always lived in areas where the borough/district and parish councils are all up every 4 years, with the County Council completely renewed at the mid-point of the other councillors' term. I think partial renewal is only suitable for the upper houses of legislative bodies. Local councils are by their nature neither legislatures nor bicameral.

Toronto City Council made international headlines a few years ago. With only around 45 members, it is probably nevertheless one of the largest municipal authorities in North America, but local school boards are elected separately there.

However, we should not look to the USA and Canada for examples of best practice. Single-member wards with anything from a third to a half of councillors elected on district-wide lists by PR is the way to go.

I strongly disagree.

[Foggy]

About AMS or about all-ups? For the former, fair enough – the merits and flaws of each electoral system have been debated at length elsewhere, and doubtless will be again.

If you mean the latter, then I don't think sentiment for how local elections were conducted when you were young is a good enough justification. The Local Government Act 2000 changed everything. The gradual erosion of genuine powers and responsibilities from local authorities both before and since then has altered the situation greatly as well.

[neilm]

Jun 21, 2016 13:56:32 GMT john07 said:

Jun 19, 2016 18:15:58 GMT J.G.Harston said:

The problem with "at large" elections is that you either have a ballot paper with 300+ names on it for an authority like Sheffield, or you have a ballot paper with 6 party names on it and the parties decide who gets elected.

Most Parish/Town Councils elect at large do they not?

Most of my acquaintance don't but I know a lot do. It's probably a 67-33 split in favour of at large.

[Sibboleth]

The general tendency in North America is that At Large elections are a way of keeping radicals off local authorities and also for keeping down minority representation.

[Defenestrated Fipplebox]

Jun 19, 2016 18:15:58 GMT J.G.Harston said:

The problem with "at large" elections is that you either have a ballot paper with 300+ names on it for an authority like Sheffield, or you have a ballot paper with 6 party names on it and the parties decide who gets elected.

They steer the ones they want elected to winable seats anyway, makes no difference long term. 

In Sheffield you just have to look at those who have been Labour cabinet members and or Liberal Democrat leaders to see its true.