Discuss: 'The UK uses a variety of electoral systems - but fails to provide proportionality where it matters most.'
Harriet Levett - November 2005
INTRODUCTION
No voting system will ever keep everyone happy. There is always a large proportion of representatives and voters that have criticisms regarding the voting system used in their nation (usually because it doesn’t favour their opinions). This problem is faced in the UK as it is in every other country. However, this is not a simple matter. The voters and representatives of the UK are not all subject to the same voting system. Within the UK there are five different electoral systems used for different elections. These systems are the ‘first past the post system’ (FPTP), additional member system (AMS), list system (closed), single transferable vote system (STV) and the supplementary vote system (SV). However, it is argued that none of these systems provide proportionality where it matters the most.
WESTMINSTER PARLIAMENT (FPTP)
Westminster (the English parliament) uses the FPTP system for general and local elections. This system involves the electorate voting for the party of their choice. This vote counts towards the party who will sit in the seat of their respective single member constituency. The party that then wins the most seats forms the government (total seats= 659). The winning candidate only needs to receive the highest number of votes; it does not require the candidate to receive an overall majority of the votes. For example, in 1992 Sir Russell Johnston won three constituencies for the Liberal Democrats with only 26% of the vote) meaning that 74% of the voters voted for other parties). England has had this system for years however there is constant conflict between critics and supporters over whether the system is ‘fair’ and whether or not reform is needed.
Advantages
The FPTP system is easy to operate and equally easy to understand. Voters would find it extremely hard to be confused by the system or vote mistakenly. For this reason of simplicity it is popular with most voters and viewed by many as legitimate meaning few see reason enough for change. It is also noteworthy that few voters realise that there are other voting systems available.
Another advantage of this system is the clear outcome that this method tends to provide. Even if no party receives an overall majority of votes there is still a winner in terms of the party with the highest amount of votes thus no further calculation is required to determine the winner of an election.
It is also said that the ‘bonus seats’ (seats won by the leading candidate as a result of a larger share of votes) won by the party with the most votes allows a clear majority in the Commons and thus policies will be stronger and more effective because MPs are able to act swiftly and decisively while developing a sustained position on policy throughout the term(s).
Finally, it is suggested that because one of the system’s key characteristics is the single member constituency, it allows voters to form a bond with their MP compared with a multi-member concept.
While this system seems to be functional there are make disadvantages of using such a system.
Disadvantages
The most prominent problem with this electoral method is that is it highly disproportionate. Essentially the number of votes received by the party does by no means determine the proportion of the government (seats) that the party makes up as a result. It is in fact possible for a party that receives a higher number of votes to gain fewer seats due to the division of constituencies. The problem was once again visible in the 2005 general election in which labour got a disproportionately larger amount of seats that the main opposition (conservatives). Despite labour only receiving 2.9% of the votes they won 158 more seats. This disproportional nature of the FPTP system also affected the other parties in a similar way.
Furthermore, the two main parties are favoured by this system will break away parties and minority parties subject to significant injustice and disproportionate representation (while minority parties may receive a decent amount of votes they may still not receive a seat).
Another criticism is that despite the fact that a majority of the population may have voted against the winning party the party still wins as a result of ‘plurality’ (having the highest number of votes in comparison to the other parties).
Also, votes do not hold the same value. Votes in small constituencies have more influence that those in large constituencies and votes within ‘marginal seats’ are valued by candidates above those in their ‘safe seats’. This completely defeats the ‘one vote, one person, one value’ standard.
‘Safe seats’ also create conflict. These seats have such a large majority of voters for a particular party that it is more-or-less impossible for another party to ever win the seat. Essentially at this point voters voting for opposition parties have wasted their vote. Wasted votes are either votes for the losing candidate or the number of votes over the amount needed by the party/candidate to win. Wasted votes is a large pitfall of this system as over 41% of votes we classified as ‘wasted’ in England in 2001.
Not only is the system also very divisive by setting parties against each other it also leaves voters with limited choice of only the one candidate the party has selected for that constituency. Voters can not pick between a variety of conservative/labour candidates for example.
Reform for Westminster? Not so much
Due to the vast number of injustices fostered by the FPTP system it has been a hot topic for reform (especially for the labour party). The Jenkins Report (the result of a committee assessment of the English voting system) offered an electoral alternative a variant of the AV system (AV+). In this system one vote is cast for a constituency MP and another for a ‘top-up’ MP from a candidate list 80-85% of the MPs would be decided by the initial vote with the remaining percentage to be made up via the ‘top-up’ system. However any plans to reform by implementing this system have been sidelined by labour as a result of their recent victories. This is the main obstacle preventing the substation of the FPTP system as the current government will not change the very system that has advantaged them and resulted in a win.
SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT (AMS)
In Scotland 57% of their representatives are elected via the FPTP system and the remaining 43% are elected as ‘top-up’ representatives from candidate lists issued by the parties. Parties winning a share of the popular vote that is not reflected in the number of constituency positions have their seat numbers ‘topped-up’ with additional members to accurately reflect the proportion of votes received.
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES (AMS)
In Wales 2/3 of the representatives are elected via the FPTP while the remaining 1/3 are ‘topped-up’ with 4 out of the in 5 representatives of each constituency. Wales uses the same top-up standard as Scotland ‘d’Hondt rule’ (the mathematical theory of ‘highest averages’).
GREATER LONDON ASSEMBLY (AMS)
The electoral system here is similarly governed. 57% of members are elected within the London Boroughs with the remainder being topped up by members elected by Greater London as a whole. The main difference between this user and the two above is that the GLA requires a 5% threshold to be met; a party must reach this threshold in order to be entitled to representation.
Advantages
In this system votes are less likely to be wasted as the seat number are relatively proportional to the number of votes received. These votes still maintain a single-member constituency system for the most part. The maintenance of this strategy provides for a link to be ensured between MSP and voter. Finally there is a significantly larger amount of choice and thus value in the votes cast. Voters can vote for both a party and a particular candidate not handing all control to the party leaders to determine who will represent the voter.
This method franchises the voters more and allows for more proportional representation but disadvantages are still apparent.
Disadvantages
The representatives that are then elected are divided into those voted for in terms of party and have a position within the constituency. This representative will then be held accountable by the electorate within his/her constituency. However, the ‘topped-up’ members have no basis and no specified responsibility to any area or group of voters. This creates a distinct lack of accountability and uneven status within the parliament.
Also, while parties can control the candidates up for election for their party within the constituency, they also determine the candidates issued on the ‘top-up’ list. This creates a false notion of control for the public; in fact the party has a large amount of control over who is elected in both sides of the election.
Small parties are also disadvantaged.
Finally, this system is rather more complicated than the FPTP system used alone.
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (LIST)
Until 1994 the MEPs (Members of European Parliament) were elected via the FPTP system (the general/local election method in England). Blair’s government decided to replace the FPTP system in favour of a proportional representation system for the 1999 elections. The implementation was of a ‘closed list’ approach. This means that the electorate cannot choose between candidates of the party. Party managers then have the ability to put the more loyal candidates at the top of the list and thus minimising the chances of those lower down gaining a seat. This control allows the party to keep ‘threats’ to a minimum.
Advantages
In this system votes have equal value and the result is also highly proportional. This seems to be one of the most just electoral systems and it fairly represents the opinions of the public in terms of party preferences. However, candidates are also disadvantaged.
Disadvantages
Voters have little, if any choice at all, over the candidates that will represent them. This is because party managers are largely in control and can easy stifle views that are ‘standard’ in regard to the party line. It allows the party heads to have influence over the candidate to take the position and thus ‘yes men/women’ have a distinct disadvantage.
NORTHEN IRLEAND ASSEMBLY (STV)
The single transferable vote system determines all 108 winners in Northern Ireland. The 17 Westminster constituencies are elected in the same fashion and each send 6 representatives to the Assembly. Candidates must meet the ‘Droop Quota’ in order to be elected. The quota is (total number of votes/ total number of seats +1) +1.Voting in this system is ‘ordinal’. This means that voters can label candidates 1, 2, 3 etc voting for as many or as few candidates as they choose. If no candidate wins under this first ballot second preferences are transferred as the candidate with the lowest votes is eliminated.
Advantages
This system is widely proportional and tends to reflect the vote count in terms of allocation of seats. The system similarly ensures to a relative degree that votes are of equal value.
It is ensured that only a party or coalition of parties that received a majority (and no less) or the votes can govern while allowing voters to have a wide choice over candidates-even those of the same party. Candidates may also express their opinions of all candidates if they choose via rankings; no other systems allow such extensive freedom.
This system largely caters to the electorate providing choice and fairness in one go, however this is not the only side of the system.
Disadvantages
Some version of the AMS system and the list system translate votes into seats a lot more accurately than this system. Furthermore the system fosters multi-member constituencies breaking the personal link between voter and representative in any given area.
The possibility of forming a coalition government as a result of this system can mean that disproportional power is given to minority parties.
DIRECTLY ELECTED MAYORS (SV)
11 UK cities have no adopted the system of directly electing their mayor, in reflection of the US elective tradition. In each case the supplementary vote system is used to elect the mayor.
This system is very much a variant of the alternative vote system (a system yet to be adopted by the UK). In the AV system voters place a ranking number next to each candidate to reflect their preferences. If no candidate receives enough of a majority (50%+1) when first preferences are calculated then second preferences are transferred to the remaining candidates (having eliminated the least voted-for party); this continues until a candidate meets the threshold and is able to take power. In the SV system a similar process occurs, however if the first ballot does not result in a winner then all candidates, except the top two, are eliminated. This system is a ‘majoritarian system’ and has advantages and disadvantages like all other systems.
Advantages
This system is simple for voters to understand, and is very easy to operate. Minor parties also do not receive second preference votes that are counted; this avoids disproportionate allocation of power to the minority. This is sometimes viewed as unfair as second preference votes could rack up and while it is unlikely a minority party could theoretically become one of the top two parties if these votes were counted.
Disadvantages
This system’s main flaw is that it is far from proportional. The candidate may also win without receiving an overall majority of support. This seems to be an unfair allocation of power.
CONCLUSION
It is clear that very few systems provide proportionality, and even when systems can make such provisions they seem to be counteracted by evident disadvantages. However the question is specific to disproportional representation where it matters the most.
Where proportionality matters most is a very subjective judgement. For instance I think that ‘proportionality’ is important in whatever areas favour my party. It is hard for any candidate or voter to believe in the notion of ‘accurate proportion’ when their party doesn’t win. Furthermore, you will find little concern for proportionality in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland by the England and vice versa. It is a uniform judgement however that there is a significant need for the number of seats allocated to a party to correspond accurately to the number of votes received by the party. This has not been the case, particularly in the recent English general elections in which only a small difference in vote share created a massive labour seat advantage. If we examine the result in the general election we see that the proportion comes out the way it does due to boundaries of the constituencies and their respective populations. Thus it is my opinion that it is not a question of which system is the ‘lesser of the evils’ instead it is an issue for the boundary commission to approach. Boundaries should not be able to determine the outcome of the election due to distribution.
In conclusion, reform will be difficult as no winning party wants the risk of change, it is not a priority of the voting public, it would create more confusion, and any system will have critics.