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

Written by Alex Parish November 2007

Electoral systems are the way in which elections in representative democracies are conducted, and they have a  significant effect on the outcome of an election. In this essay, I will discuss whether the electoral systems used in the variety of elections held across the UK provide proportionality. This essay will, therefore define what is meant by proportionality, and then compare this to the electoral systems used in the UK, either for local and general elections, and elections to devolved assemblies in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London, and elections to the European parliament. I believe that proportionality would have the most effect on the general elections to Westminster, so will analyse whether the system used for general elections in the UK provides proportionality.

What is meant by proportionality?
Proportionality is the concept that the chamber elected will be of the same proportions to the votes made. For example, if a party gains 10% of the general vote; they will receive 10% of the seats in parliament.  It is claimed that greater proportionality leads to a more democratic system as every view is represented in parliament. For example, the current Labour government received only 36% of the vote, yet has a sizeable majority of 67 seats in parliament. In a proportional system, they would, instead, receive only 36% of the seats, with other minority parties receiving what share of the vote they received, regardless of whether they win a constituency as under FPTP; meaning their views are more fairly represented.

Proportionality, however, has many drawbacks as a system. It tends to lead to weak coalition governments where it is infact the smaller parties which hold the balance of power depending on who they support on an issue. For example, if Labour had 40% of the seats, the Conservative party had 40% of the seats and the Liberal Democrats held 20%, it would be the 20% that becomes the most important and the party with a majority of seats does not have a parliamentary mandate and cannot force its policies through on its own without the support of other parties. This could be considered a positive move, but it tends to lead to inefficiency and breakdown of governments and confusion as the results are revealed. An example of this is the German federal elections, which uses the AMS system where a third of the seats are given on a proportional basis, of 2005; where both Merkel and Schroder claimed victory with their coalitions. This took several months to resolve and produced a weak grand coalition of all parties, showing flaws in the establishing a coalition under a proportional system.

Under proportional systems, the link between the voter and parliament is also weakened and the public can maybe feel less involved with politics, as it removes the constituency link of each MP present under single member constituency systems, such as FPTP.

Systems used in the United Kingdom

First past the post
First past the post is used in the United Kingdom to elect parliamentary members in a general election, and in local elections to elect councillors. It is a simple plurality system, where the candidate does not need a majority of the votes to win - simply more votes than the other candidates. Every constituent receives one vote, which they use for individual MPs to represent their views in the next parliament. Anybody can run in the elections, but votes received for a party that does not win a constituency are not counted nationally and are effectively “wasted”. The close link of representation that these single member constituencies lead to and the level of accountability an MP has to their constituents lead to effective representation and clear responsibilities of each MP.

It is not a proportional system and it is possible for a party to get more of the popular vote and still “lose” the election, as happened in 1974; where the conservatives received 37.9 % of the vote, with 297 seats, but labour only received 37.2% of the vote and received 301 seats, due to the unequal distribution of population in constituencies. It also tends to marginalise third parties that although have some support in all areas, do not win many constituencies overall. The Liberal/SDP alliance received 25% of the vote in 1983, but got only 23 seats. In comparison, Labour on 27% received 292 seats.

Some say this is an advantage of first past the post, as it avoids coalitions and provides a strong government that can pass its policies as promised in its manifesto which it has been given consent to carry out by the electorate, without having to compromise through a coalition government. Even though popular mandates are rare, parliamentary mandates ensure an efficient government. An integral part of FPTP ensuring this is the “winner’s bonus” which attempts to ensure a large parliamentary majority on a small margin of votes.
Aside from proportionality, first past the post has many other drawbacks in forming a government. There is very limited choice given to the electorate, as in the majority of seats it is unlikely that any other party is likely to win the seat than the two main parties as the vote is not counted nationally, fostering a two-party system. Also, due to the adversarial nature of the parliament, with an official opposition, some claim that first past the post is too divisive and, because parties are not forced to cooperate in a coalition, and have a majority in parliament, the party in power does not have to consider the other parties position, encouraging conflict.

Additional Member System
The additional member system is used in the UK for elections to the Scottish devolved parliament, created in 1997, and the Welsh assembly, created in 1998. AMS is an example of a mixed system; containing both first past the post, and party list systems to try and create a broadly proportional result, whilst retaining a close local constituent link. Each constituent has two votes, one which is for a first past the post system to elect their local representative in single member constituencies, and one on a party list system in a multi member region. When the results are counted, additional “top-up” members are given to parties so that the amount of seats in the parliament is proportional to the amount of the vote received. The amount of top up seats available in the parliament in relation to first past the post seats is calculated on a ratio. In the Welsh assembly this is 2/3 to 1/3 and in the Scottish parliament 57% to 43%. The top-up seats are allocated using the d’Hondt formula, which uses a divisor method to decide which party receives each top up seat in each case.
AMS produces a broadly proportional result as can be shown by the results of the Scottish parliament elections in 2003. The conservatives, in the FPTP vote, received 16.6% of the vote but received only 3 seats, showing how biased the FPTP system is against third parties. However they received 15 top up seats in the party list vote, bringing them a total of 18 seats, which is about 14% of the available seats creating a fair more proportional outcome, though not completely.

The system could be seen as a compromise between fully proportional systems and the unfair FPTP system, obtaining the benefits of both systems. AMS leads to a far more proportional government which can be seen as an advantage, but some argue that having two different “types” of representative in parliament could lead to conflicts of interest, as the members elected by the party list system are selected by the party and therefore only accountable to the party, instead of the electorate as the FPTP candidates are.  

Single Transferable Vote
The single transferable vote system is used to elect members to the Northern Ireland assembly as set up in the Good Friday agreement 1998. It uses only multi-member constituencies and is considered a fully proportional system. Under the system, candidates are ranked by the electorate numerically in order of preference. How many candidates are voted for in each case is decided by the voter and is not fixed.

To be elected, a candidate has to reach a certain amount of votes, known as the “droop quota”. This is calculated using the amount of votes cast and dividing it by the amount of seats and one. If this is reached by a candidate they are elected, but if not the second preference votes are added to each candidate’s total, with the lowest placed candidate being eliminated. This process continues until enough candidates meet the droop quota with all the preference votes combined.

It leads to a broadly proportional result, with every vote being roughly of equal value as no votes are wasted in constituencies with only one winner, but the sole reliance on multi-member constituencies breaks the link between member and constituent which may create an electorate that feels unattached to the members which are not directly accountable. However, STV ensures that a wide range of candidates are able to stand; including more than one candidate for each party, which is not the case in other systems, where the voter can only vote for one candidate from each party. This gives greater control over the makeup of parliament on a candidate level and may be an attempt to reintroduce the personal representation that comes from single-member constituencies.

Arguments against STV are similar to those against proportionality, as weak coalition governments are produced where the minority third party holds the power to decide the makeup of the government. However, to form a government a coalition, or single party, must have more than 50% of the seats, enforcing the idea of a mandate, as the parties with the most votes can force through their policies.

List System
For elections to the European parliament, the list system is used, having being changed from the FPTP system in 1994. The voter is presented with a list of parties rather than candidates, unless there are independents standing for election. It is based around large multi-member constituencies, and, unlike STV, the voter cannot vote for different candidates within parties. The candidate is chosen by the party and therefore is not directly accountable to thier constituency, only their party. It is the most proportional of the systems used in the United Kingdom.

Supplementary Vote
Elections for the London Mayor use the supplementary vote system, a variation on the alternative vote system designed specifically for the London elections, removing the requirement in AV that the winner needs a majority of the votes cast. Each voter votes on a list of candidates in preferential order either first or second. It is based around single-member constituencies where if no one receives a majority of first preferences, everyone is eliminated apart from the two highest placed candidates. The second preference votes are the added and the one with the most votes wins.

The supplementary vote system is less proportional than even first past the post as candidates below the top two are not considered after the first round of voting, so supporters of minor parties votes are wasted.

Where does proportionality “matter most”?
Although devolved assemblies hold power over regional affairs, it is Westminster where the major decisions affecting the United Kingdom occur. Therefore, as it holds the most power, it can be assumed that it is where a big change in the makeup of the government relating to electoral reform would have the largest effect. Members are elected to the parliament via FPTP which, as discussed, is not proportional.

However, it could be argued that in the future it will be the European Parliament which will come to matter most to the United Kingdom. As elections to the European parliament are currently conducted using the closed party list system, which is a form of proportional representation.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the UK does not offer proportionality where it “matters most”, Westminster, which uses the FPTP system. Other electoral systems used in the United Kingdom have shown a successful implementation of proportional systems which may lead to electoral reform in the future, though this remains unlikely as the current system favours those in power. The additional member system as used in Scottish elections has shown to produce proportional yet strong governments which have worked well and shown the unfairness of FPTP.