Review of meeting on 3rd March by Helen Warner
Brigid Gardner of Make Votes Matter and Humanists UK, examined the flaws in our current voting system and the alternative systems.
It is accepted that a one person one vote electoral system is the foundation on which a democracy rests, but our current ‘First Past The Post’ (FPTP) system is deeply flawed and consequently so is our democracy. The UK is the only country in the EU using the FPTP system, and in other key UK assemblies, some form of proportional representation is used.
Brigid looked at the last two general elections. If we had had proportional representation for the 2015 general election, the Conservatives would not have won. Ramifications would have included no referendum and we would still be in the EU. The pie-chart demonstrates how FPTP can be described as ‘distorting democracy’ in 2015:
In 2019 the Conservatives had 43.6% of the votes but 56% of the seats in the House of Commons, a 1.2% increase in their vote share on the previous general election yet 48 extra seats. By contrast the Lib Dems had a 4% increase in votes but lost a seat in House of Commons.
Consequently, smaller parties are disadvantaged by the FPTP system because it is predicated on a 2-party concept. [If only 2 candidates, the winner will have at least 51% of the votes, but if 3 parties the winner can gain power with only 34% in theory, and if 4 parties can win with only 26% of votes cast etc.] In fact, frequently a MP is elected with less than 40% of the votes cast now. This means the majority are left without their chosen candidates. This often results in tactical voting, i.e. people vote for a candidate they least like. Another result is that ‘safe seats’ give rise to cynicism because there seems ‘little point in voting’ for the opposition because it will be a ‘wasted vote’. It makes no difference if a seat is won by 1 vote or 30,000. In these circumstances, one sees MPs more likely to further their own progress in ‘The Party’ than focusing on what the electorate need. In contrast, in a marginal seat, a minority can ‘swing’ a seat and all the ’political effort’ goes into winning those seats. So, Brigid concluded that we have ended up with “tribal politics instead of compromises for the long term good”.
The obvious question is therefore ‘How could our system be reformed?’
Brigid outline three alternative proportional representation (PR) voting systems:
1. Additional Member Systems (AMS). Forms of this are used to elect the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh and London Assemblies, and for general elections in Germany and New Zealand.
2. Open or Flexible List PR systems. Different forms of this are used for general elections in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden.
3. Single Transferable Vote (STV) PR systems. Forms of this are used in the Republic of Ireland and Malta the Northern Ireland Assembly, Tasmanian Parliament and Australian Senate.
Further explanations of these can be found here.
No system is perfect of course. For example, a List System, where Parties select their list of candidates gives too much power to political parties rather than local MPs.
Brigid favours seats in proportion to the number of votes for the party and demonstrated the impact of a single transferrable vote system, where voters vote for 1st / 2nd / 3rd etc., on the 2015 election, see table below:
Only parliament can change the voting system, but it has historically suited the two main parties, so there has been no will to do so. The impacts of the last two general elections however has been starkly ‘unfair’, so there is a growing movement for electoral reform within Labour and of course the ‘smaller’ parties.
There was then lively questioning from attendees.
Questions included whether voting should be made compulsory as c30-40% of people do not vote. Brigid was sceptical about this. Whether First Past the Post leads to ‘strong and stable’ governments rather than inaction of coalition governments. Brigid told us that there is no history that coalition governments are less effective, (and dictatorships are so called ‘strong and stable’ governments!)
There was discussion about the lack of long-term planning and, owing to the UK not having a constitution, that any new parliament can over-turn and change what the previous government implemented. However, Brigid said that there were issues with a constitution. The American constitution system actually constrains and makes it near impossible to make changes.
Lastly, the question was What can we do now? As Labour may now be more ready to consider some sort of PR system, perhaps now is the time to write to our local MPs to press for electoral reform and sign the petition at the make votes matter website here.
Additionally, talk to other people because too few understand the issues.
