The UK uses a variety of electoral systems-but fails to deliver proportionality where it matters most

Written by Conor Newman (December 2007)

Plan
-Electoral systems used in the UK-FPTP, AMS( Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly), Closed list(EU elections), STV(NI Assembly)
-Arguments for delivering proportionality

Introduction

In this essay I intend to argue that despite the variety of electoral systems currently in use in the UK, there is a failure to deliver proportionality where it matters most-Westminster. The Parliament of the UK is the most important of all the different assemblies, as the laws it passes affect each part of the UK, whereas the devolved assemblies of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales only affect their respective areas and have limited powers. Even though the devolved assemblies are on the whole more proportional than Westminster, it is Parliament that is truly sovereign in the UK.

Scottish Parliament

The devolution referenda of 1997 and 1998 devolved power from Westminster to the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland assembly. Their powers are limited to only focusing on certain issues within their specific areas, such as health and education.
            The Scottish Parliament utilises the additional member system. The Parliament itself consists of 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament(MSPs), and 73 of these are elected through the first-past-the-post system in single-member constituencies. This is a very simple system that is also used in UK General Elections to Westminster, and it is when the candidate with the highest number of votes wins the seat, regardless of the majority of the votes that they had-as long as they got more votes than anyone else, they are elected. The other 56 MSPs in the Parliament are elected via a party list system and are not chosen by the public but are ‘top-up’ members drawn from the list. This means that electors get two votes: one for their MSP in their single-member constituency, and one for the party in a multi-member constituency, of which there are eight in Scotland. This electoral system has led to a greater proportion of electors using their list vote to support minor parties; this is because the electorate recognise that the list vote is proportional so their votes will count towards the overall picture. This was seen in the 2003 election, where the Scottish Green Party, despite winning none of the FPTP votes, won seven MSPs through the party list votes, while the Scottish Socialist Party received six. Although Labour was still the largest party in the election, they failed to win a majority of seats, and were forced to form a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. This shows how by injecting proportionality into the Scottish Parliament, Labour are losing their once overwhelming majority and smaller parties are benefiting from this, meaning that the views of the electorate are being represented in Parliament.

National Assembly for Wales

The National Assembly for Wales also uses the AMS system. Forty of the total of sixty Assembly Members(AMs) are elected through the FPTP voting system, just as in the Scottish Parliament and Westminster. The remaining 20 ‘top-up’ AMs are elected in five multi-member constituencies, with four AMs per constituency. As with the Scottish Parliament, Labour’s share of the vote fell dramatically when this system was introduced, as electors realised that their list vote could be used to benefit the minority parties. Plaid Cymru, a Welsh Nationalist party has, through the AMS system become the second largest party in the Assembly. Although Labour is receiving a large proportion of the FPTP vote, they are failing to receive any regional top-up seats, whereas Plaid Cymru and the conservatives have benefited greatly from it.

Northern Ireland Assembly

The Northern Ireland Assembly, unlike the other two devolved assemblies, utilises the Single Transferable Vote system, which is a form of Proportional Representation. This is when candidates must reach a droop quota, which is calculated by dividing the total valid votes with the total number of seats(+1) and then adding one. For Northern Ireland elections, this droop quota is 14.3% of the vote. If no candidate reaches that quota on the first ballot, then the lowest placed candidate is eliminated from proceedings and their voters’ second preferences are added to the remaining candidates. This process continues until all the seats in the large multi-member constituency are filled. In Northern Ireland, there are 17 constituencies and they each send six members.
            This system led to the Ulster Unionist Party becoming the largest party in Northern Ireland in 1998, with Sinn Fein, the Democratic Unionist party, and the Social Democratic and Labour Party being close behind.
            As you can see, these devolved assemblies use broadly proportional systems, so that electors get a wider choice of candidates and they know that their votes will count. However, these devolved assemblies are of little importance compared to that of Westminster, because it is sovereign over all parts of the UK, and so its laws are binding for all. It can override the devolved assemblies, and so proportionality at UK Parliament is vital. However, this is not the case.

Westminster

In Westminster, the First-Past-The-Post system is used. The country is split into 646 single-member constituencies, and, in each constituency, the candidate with the most votes wins a seat in the House of Commons, the democratically elected chamber of Parliament. Then, the party that gains the most seats in the House of Commons forms the Government. If we take the Spelthorne constituency, if, out of a population of 50,000, 10,000 people voted for the Labour party, but 30,000 people voted for the conservative party, then the conservative party candidate would gain the seat and become an MP. That means that the 10,000 votes for the Labour party and all the other votes for minor parties were completely wasted. This shows how FPTP is not a proportional system. It favours a two-party system, because only the Labour and Conservative parties have a realistic chance of coming to power-thus, any other votes are wasted. Even if someone votes for one of the two major parties, if the candidate they voted for does not get enough votes, then they will not be elected and all of their votes would be wasted. In the past, the FPTP system has shown an incredible bias towards the major parties that were not warranted. For example, in 2005 only 21.6% of the electorate actually voted for the Labour party, but yet they gained 35.2% of the seats and won the election. That means that despite the fact that over three-quarters of the electorate did not vote for the labour party, they still got elected. This shows how unfair and biased the FPTP system. It delivers virtually no proportionality, such as in 1983 where the Liberal/ Social Democrats Alliance won a quarter of the popular vote, but only won 23 seats. On the other hand, the Labour party were only 2% ahead of the SDP/Liberal alliance in terms of national vote, but won a massive 209 seats! If the system had been proportional, or even had just limited proportionality, then the SDP/Liberal alliance would have won a much greater proportion of the seats, creating a multi-party system. This shows how the FPTP system in Westminster favours the two major parties and means that any minority party has virtually no chance even winning any seats, let alone forming a Government. This undermines the democratic values of the UK, because people’s votes are not of equal and their votes are being wasted. If a person lives in a marginal constituency, that is one where the seat could go either way, then their votes have a much greater value than a vote from a person in a ‘safe seat’ where it is a foregone conclusion that one party will win. This has led to a rise in Apathy; people are becoming more and more tired of the political system because they know that their votes will not make a difference.
            However, some people have argued that FPTP is in fact a strong electoral system, and it works better than a more proportional one. The main argument is that it leads to one party having a strong majority, and therefore a strong Government. PR systems almost always lead to coalition Governments, and this can mean decision making is hindered. Under FPTP, one party has a majority and can pass laws with ease. Also, there is a strong link between the constituents and their MP. In a PR system, there are multi-member constituencies and this means that responsibilities for MPs are blurred and it is more difficult for MPs to stay ‘in touch’ with their voters. Under FPTP, this is not a problem because there is only one MP, and so a close relationship between the constituents and their elected member is maintained. However, despite these arguments it cannot be denied that FPTP fails to deliver on proportionality, because only two parties have a realistic chance of getting into power, and the opinions of the people are not proportionally translated into the seats gained in Parliament, as seen in recent elections.

Proportionality in the UK

As well as Westminster and the devolved assemblies, there are other elections that take place in the UK. The Greater London Assembly (GLA) is elected by a form of AMS like the Scottish and Welsh assemblies. 57% of the assembly members are elected by FPTP from different boroughs of London. The rest are ‘top-up’ members drawn from a party list from Greater London as a whole. A party must reach a quota of 5% in order to be represented in the assembly, which acts as a safeguard against extremist parties gaining power. This broadly proportional system has led to minor parties such as the Green party and UKIP gaining seats in the assembly through the party list votes.
            UK elections to the European Parliament, which is one chamber of the European Union’s bicameral legislature, are conducted under a closed list system. This means that, like in the second ‘top-up’ AMS votes, electors cannot choose from a range of candidates like in STV, but choose only a list of party candidates. The regional multi-member constituencies each elect between four and eleven Members of the European Parliament (MEPs).
The closed list system used in EU Parliament elections is a controversial issue, because it means that electors cannot choose between candidates, meaning that, although it is proportional in terms of the number of votes roughly equates to the number of seats, party leaders and managers have great control over which candidate is actually elected and where they are placed on the party list.
            The final type of election taking place in the UK is the directly elected mayoral elections, such as those in London. In this election, the Supplementary vote (SV) system is used. This is when electors put down on the ballot paper their first and second preferences only, and if no candidate wins a majority then all but the top two candidates are eliminated. Second preferences for those two candidates are then added, and then the one with the highest number of votes wins. This system can be called even less proportional than FPTP. Any votes made for minority parties are essentially not counted at all, which means that this system, perhaps even more so than FPTP, favours a two-party system, because only two parties make it through to the final ‘round’ of voting, and those two parties are almost inevitably going to be the Labour and Conservative parties. Even though FPTP is not proportional, it at least gives other parties, such as the Liberal Democrats, an opportunity to gain some seats. Also, even though SV is classed as a majoritarian system, it is not actually necessary for the winning candidate to get a 50%+1 majority, because once second preferences are added there may still not be procure this number. This shows that not only is the system not proportional, the winning candidate does not require a majority! However, what must be taken into consideration is that these elections are for one person, and so a proportional system would be unwieldy and unnecessary.

Does the UK deliver on proportionality?

The above evidence shows that the UK uses a wide variety of electoral systems. Most are broadly proportional, such as the AMS elections to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, and the STV elections to Northern Ireland Assembly. Also, the European Parliament elections are utilise a closed list system, meaning that the number of votes roughly equates, through use of the d’Hondt formula, the number of seats gained. The Mayoral elections use the majoritarian of the Supplementary vote, although a system like this is necessary because the elections are not for seats but for a sole candidate. However, these various assemblies and mayoral elections are not crucially important in the large-scale of UK politics-it is Westminster that makes all the major decisions that affect not just England, but the entire United Kingdom. In Westminster, they use the First-Past-The-Post system which, as I have discussed, is not a proportional system. It lends the winning party an unfair bias, as was seen in 1983 where the SDP/Liberal Alliance got a disproportionately low number of seats compared to their percentage of the popular vote. Also, there have been instances where the winning party has actually received a lower percentage of the vote than the second place candidate, but because they won the marginal seats then they won more seats overall. This creates a two-party system where it is almost impossible for ‘third parties’ to gain any seats at all. It is Westminster that matters most in the UK, and it is there that the electoral system fails to deliver on proportionality.

Conclusion

In this essay I have discussed the different electoral systems currently in use in the UK, and assessed their proportionality. I have come to the conclusion, through various examples and statistics, that although most of the electoral systems used in the UK are proportional, the elections that matter the most, UK General Elections, utilise a system of elections that is not proportional. If the most important elections in the UK do not deliver on proportionality, then how can we argue that the UK’s overall electoral system is a proportional one?