The Electoral Reform Society (ERS) has just published its report on what it calls the most unfair election in the UK, ever.
It has suggested that using differing electoral systems the votes would have been as follows:
Their full analysis is here.
I would probably opt for larger constituency STV (single transferable vote) as the ERS does.
What seems impossible to justify any longer is first past the post. That worked in a two party system. That appears to be history.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Of course the ‘might have been’ results can only be estimates (particularly the STV) as people may well have voted differently than they did under the FPTP system we have, if the election had been run under a different system.
Nevertheless, the case is clear that FPTP no longer works in our multi-party political system.
Interesting that whichever system, we would either have a Conservative government or a (most probably) Conservative/UKIP alliance.
Hopefully this will put an end to the tiresome “it’s not fair” calls from disgruntled Labour supporters. The Conservatives might be bad but I don’t think a Conservative/UKIP coalition would be any better. Be grateful for small mercies.
We have no idea how people would have voted under STV
Outside of Clacton, the only constituency that wanted a UKIP MP, exactly who would the additional 53-79 UKIP MPs be forced on to under these “fair” systems.
I actually voted for AV – looks like I was right!
List PR for me. Why is that option regularly pooh-poohed? Just because each potential MP is not listed by constituency? People are worried that a real link between the constituency and their MP will be lost? Pfft. Allocate the selected MP’s from the lists back to a constituency afterwards. Done.
It seems to me that FPTP worked better in this election than in any other. The proponents of FPTP found, primarily, on its ability to provide “strong government”: or at least that is how I understand their case. It has delivered that in circumstances where there is no real consensus, any more, and if you believe that is important it has surely proved its worth.
Of course one may think that other principles should underpin the electoral system we espouse, and there are strong arguments for that too.
I take no position on this, because I do not feel we have had a proper debate about the pro’s and cons of the alternatives available, and I do not see the implications properly. I would really welcome some serious discussion on the issues, but so far all I seem to see is assertions that some form of PR is inherently better. And then different folk prefer different forms of PR, but I am hazy on what each entails and why one is superior to another.
I am in Scotland and I note this: Holyrood is elected on a form of PR. The SNP have an overall majority at Holyrood. Westminster is elected by FPTP, and the SNP achieved a landslide at Westminster. One may argue that the Holyrood outcome is “more representative”, but it is also possible that within the rules of each system the people have voted for the same outcome.
I do not see any reason, given that fact, that the outcome in the GE would have been as the Electoral Commission suggests: for under a different system people would make different choices, and we do not know what those would be.
My concern about FPTP is that “strong government” is a hurrah phrase, and can be rendered as “elective dictatorship” if one wishes to use a boo phrase instead. The government with an overall majority can do anything it likes after it is elected, whether in the manifesto or not.
My concern about PR is that “more representative” is a hurrah phrase, and can be rendered as “no binding commitments at all” if one wishes to use a boo phrase instead. Under PR compromises have to be made (unless the system fails to prevent an overall majority, as in Holyrood at present) and so you can have no idea what you are voting at the point you cast your vote: the horse trading comes afterwards, and the party’s always have the excuse of “grown up politics”. I don’t really like buying pigs in pokes, and I see this as a very serious problem.
There will be ways round that, and I am sure there are examples of how the problem is addressed in those countries which have PR. I would like to know what those solutions are. “Red lines” don’t seem to be enough, and we have seen what happens without a safeguard, in the lib dems behaviour over tuition fees.
I agree the FPTP system is no longer fit for purpose. In my opinion we should just go the whole hog and have PR going forward. We’ll get a lot of coalitions, but at least the will of the people is reflected.
One issue with these figures though is that while they illustrate a valid point, I think if we had a different voting system them people would vote differently. EG people more likely to vote Green instead of Labour/UKIP instead of Tory/no tactical voting as they are no longer worried of “wasting” their vote.
Accepted
We had a referendum on this only 4 years ago. People decided to retain FPTP overwhelmingly (68%/32% is about as big as they come in terms of referendum margins) in 2011. You are clutching at massive straws if you think the vote would have been significantly different had STV been on the ballot paper.
Just as the Scottish referendum resolved that issue? Of course it did….
Given that AV is not proportional (in fact the ERS simulations suggest if anything it’s slightly *less* proportional than FPTP as regards number of Tory vs number of Labour MPs), the argument that the rejection of AV in the 2011 referendum implies a rejection of PR is utterly ridiculous. For what it’s worth, opinion polling by the ERS suggests that around three-quarters of the public supports a PR voting system (I’ll post the link to that when I have more time).
This succinct table really SHOULD kill the argument that Referendum on AV constituted a vote against PR. As can be seen, AV is only a variation on FPTP, and would, according to the table, have slightly intensified the vote and seat multiplier effect of FPTP (though of course, only an actual election would show the real effect of AV)
Given that AV is really only a tinkering at the edges of FPTP, it is hardly surprising that it was rejected as an unnecessary fuss about nothing much.
The Lib-Dems SHOULD have demanded a proper PR alternative, perhaps the multi-member STV you mention, Richard, which would have protected us from the over-mighty “elected dictatorship” by whom we are now governed, my criticisms of which have earned me the description of “ranter” in another post. If opposition to, and complaints against, injustice qualify me to be called a ranter, I’m quite happy so to be called: justice is for me a foundational value, on a par with the vision, without which a people perish.
I think the Ranters of old would have happily counted you in their number
You’re right on AV
Changing the voting system in isolation is pointless. Until there is a cultural shift away from “them vs us” (as mediated by the architecture of the commons and all the associated privileges and procedures), all you would get is unstable government. As I’ve said before, Guy Fawkes 2nd would have to blow up the not-fit-for-purpose Houses of Parliament, AS WELL as there being voting reform.
STV is interesting – but it would also require a massive amount of voter education. We are still dealing with the upshot of a referendum held under STV rules: nobody won.
Given the murky fog that is Parliament these days, a corrupt Commons and a ludicrous Lords, although I would never have thought it possible, should Charles raise his standard at Nottingham, I might be half inclined to join him.
Not entirely ad rem to the main subject matter of this post, except that it throws light on the whole issue of the meaning, and even the efficacy, of the ballot as a means of expressing our democratic will, and, more importantly, on the effectiveness of democracy as a system.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/01/cameron-shrink-state-barnet-future-local-services
Quite frankly, here is set out in the plainest terms the operation of the neo-feudal state, against which I, and others have been railing (in my case, perhaps I should say “ranting”) for quite sometime.
Effectively, Capita is now a feudal fiefdom, against which the electorate has no redress, and for whose dubious ” services” they must pay, and not cost effectively, but well over the odds.
So – pay more, for a worse service! I thought that was the criticism laid at the door of Socialism by critics on the Right?
And to think that the improvements and benefits introduced into the UK by the Atlee Government and all others until the “great change” of 1979, were derided as extremist and dogmatic and authoritarian and unworkable by those same critics.
It is clear that the neo-liberal, neo-feudal Right were looking at themselves in the mirror, for no philosophy and theory of society deployed in British politics is proving more extremist, dogmatic, authoritarian, and probably unworkable, than that under which we are now ruled – not governed, but ruled, especially if our Human Rights are to be set aside.
Human Rights are not to be set aside! In the words of the Telegraph, ‘In the land of Magna Carta, individual liberties already exist: Human Rights Act or no’.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11644576/In-the-land-of-Magna-Carta-individual-liberties-already-exist-Human-Rights-Act-or-no.html
Not to mention the 1689 Bill of Rights and masses of subsequent legislation and case law that protects individual liberties. Don’t accept the title of that Act at face value (Russia is a signatory of ECHR, while Canada is not) and don’t forget it was written by the same lot who tried to introduce 90 days detention without charge and ID cards, took us into an illegal war on the basis of lies, imposed the Lisbon Treaty on us without a referendum, &c, &c.
Same as we have in Scotland: Regional and list. It delivers quite accureately a very close approximation of seats regards to the actual %age of votes that each party achieved.
I know this would cost the party I voted for, the SNP a tonne of seats at this election, but for a fairer voting system I can accept that.
And No the prevoius referendum did not anwser how the population feels about voting systems and reform fully as it only tested one option, which was rejected. The other options have not been tested thus they have not been rejected.
The problem with that is that it creates two classes of MP (those with personal mandates and those elected on a party list). We are told that it is not acceptable to turn Scottish members into ‘second class’ MPs with English Votes for English Laws, so why would it be okay to have second rate MPs elected by party list?
In addition, the list system puts far too much power in the hands of the whips. Independently minded MPs who put their country, constituents and conscience before their party would be pushed to the bottom of the list and replaced with Yes Men.
A very interesting and informative post. I agree that fptp is well passed its sell by date – I voted against it in the referendum a few years back although I was not enamoured of the only alternative on offer because I felt obliged to stand against the status quo. In a general election contested using some form of PR I would definitely not have voted Labour – depending on what parties were listed in would either have been Green or TUSC.
Any voting system forgets one undeniable fact.
The majority of the people of England did not vote or keep up registration to vote.
It is the people of England that will see the bulk of the 60 per cent austerity cuts yet to come now.
The SNP have Devo Max and have passed laws to save their welfare and NHS.
Wales will get more devolution around welfare. Wales has a devolved NHS.
Ulster is not part of the flat rate pension that is merely a disguised wiping out of the state pension for wel over half of new pensioners from next year, however many years in work.
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/state-pension-at-60-now
So even Tory voters will be betrayed by the party they voted for in the first past the post system or any other system.
Are you sure a majority did not vote, one way or the other?
How?
According to the electoral commission in 2011 there were some 6 million not registered.
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-reviews-and-research/new-report-shows-at-least-6m-people-not-registered-to-vote
That does not make a majority not voting though