However if the system were such a burden to democracy, then surely it wouldn’t have survived since elections first began to take place? The fact is it’s the only system ever used in British general elections and it produces strong, decisive governments with an overall majority in parliament that can be clearly seen. With every voter represented by one MP, it provides a clear democratic link between the people and parliament; furthermore it is quick and simple for the voters.
It’s easy enough to suggest that a new system in needed in Great Britain to overcome the drawbacks of the current one, but what exactly is this wonderful system that operates under the name of proportional representation? There are various different proportional electoral systems to choose from, yet as with the FPTP system, they all have their own merits and shortcomings. The one that already operates with Northern Ireland is known as the ‘single transferable vote’, and may explain why the turnout in the last election was considerably higher than it was in the rest of Great Britain (68%). This is the system that the Liberal Democrats want to introduce into the country. Parties put up candidates for the number of seats available in constituencies and voters then choose in order of preference by ranking the candidates first, second, third etc. A ‘droop quota’ is then established, and is worked out by the following calculation: -
Total votes / (number of seats + one) + one
The first preference votes are then counted, and those who reach the quota are elected. Then any excess votes are redistributed according to the second preference, so votes aren’t wasted like in the FPTS system. The candidate with the lowest amount of votes is eliminated and then their second preference are counted, so even if your first choice doesn’t gain power, there is the possibility that your second choice will. After this is considered, candidates who’ve reached the quota are elected, continuing until all seats are filled. It’s a complicated system but it ensures that votes aren’t wasted, and there’s the possibility that second choice candidates can still win seats, which might increase the turnout we have in elections.
The ‘alternative vote’ is another type of proportionate system that is used for single member constituencies. This system concentrates on one of the major drawbacks of the FPTP system, where a majority isn’t needed to gain power. To win an election, a party must get at least 51% of the vote, and if after the first count no party has this majority, then the candidate with the least votes is knocked out, and their second preferences are counted. Alternatively, if a majority isn’t held then a second ballot could be held for the strongest candidates in the first round. Yet if voter turnout is low as it is, then it hardly seems people will vote twice, or they may just wait until the second ballot anyway.
The ‘party list system’ is perhaps the most proportionate of all the systems and is simpler than other methods. Political parties draw up a list of candidates in order of preference and they are elected in order of this preference to the number of votes their party receives. A major downfall of this method is that parties have too much power to decide who the candidates are.
The ‘additional member system’ is one method that allows for MPs to be elected locally and then half of these are allocated to regional level, and therefore the party’s number of seats is proportionate to its share of votes.
The introduction of the various different proportional representation systems in this study is used to highlight the fact that perhaps there are reasons for a change of system; however there really isn’t a system to replace it with that doesn’t have its own drawbacks. Why change a system with downfalls for another one that has just as many failings, albeit different ones. Yet even though they do have certain disadvantages, the proportionate systems, it can be argued have many advantages that outweigh these. For example, the systems allow for voters to get a fairer deal, with the opportunity for second choices to be used, so there seems to be less wasted votes which may increase turnout. It makes the system more democratic, and allows smaller parties, perhaps with fewer resources to spend on campaigning, to gain power. The coalition governments that it may create allow for more moderate politics with ideas that benefit more of the electorate, and it also allows for people to gain an understanding of how a particular party would be if it were in power, such as the Liberal Democrats. Yet all but the ‘additional member system’ seems to damage the important link between MPs and their individual constituencies. It also can cause coalition governments, which can cause instability, ‘sneaky deals’ and diluted values within government. If two or even three parties join together to dominate, then the smaller parties are just as excluded, as they would be under the first past the post system. Furthermore, proportional systems can lead to extremist politics, as extremists groups can gain power, which leads to a lack of democracy. The irony is that the reason why the system would be changed in the first place is to enhance democracy.
Obviously something needs to be done, and the government has recognized this fact, by setting up the Jenkins commission on this issue. The commission believed that the current system should be reformed, and to that of the Alternative Vote Plus (AV+). Voters have two votes. With one they elect a constituency MP by AV. These MPs form four-fifths of the House of Commons. With the other they vote for a candidate on a region list produced by the political parties. These "top-up" candidates are used to correct imbalances in the AV system, electing candidates from parties whose share of the national vote merits a greater share of seats in parliament than they had won with the first vote. Michael White has referred to this idea as the ‘clever compromise’, as not only does it retain links with MPs and their constituents but also its top up formula helps correct the imbalances in any FPTP or AV voting system. However, the problem of electoral reform isn’t solved as easily I was hoped. The system is new and more importantly untried and untested. As it hasn't been used in any country in the world, it’s hard to assess what teething troubles may emerge. It also reduces the number of constituency MPs and increases constituency size, meaning people may feel less close to their MPs. Two categories of MPs are created and, as they are elected in different ways, they may come to have different status. Those picked from a regional list may have less constituency work and be considered slavish party loyalists as they have, in effect, been chosen by parties' central offices.
Ultimately there are defects within our current electoral system, and some believe that these are outweighed by the benefits that a new system would bring. Whether the Jenkins report is followed, or the Liberal Democrats system, if either, is introduced is yet to be decided. What is apparent though, is with a turnout of a mere 59.4% reform needs to take place, this doesn’t necessary mean changing the system, maybe just modernising it somewhat, in the hope that a democratic nation can be restored.
Bibliography
Text
- Elections and voting behaviour in Britain
Denver , T
(1994)
- Developments in British Politics 6
Dunleavy, P et al
Macmillan press (2000)
Jones, B et al
Third edition (Longman publisher 2000)
Articles
- Electoral reform with constitutional reform: Questions raised by the proposed referendum on Proportional Representation for the UK
Johnston, R and Pattie, C
Political quarterly 68.4 pg. 379 – 87
Dunleavy, P and Margetts, H
Parliamentary affairs 50.4 pg. 733 – 49
Websites
-reform society.com
archive
‘Elections and voting behaviour in Britain’, Denver , T
‘Election 2001 – Unfair and unrepresentative’ [http://www.electoral-reformsociety.com]
‘Election 2001 – Unfair and unrepresentative’ [http://www.electoral-reformsociety.com]
Jones, B et al, Politics UK, third edition (Longman publisher 2000)
‘Election 2001 – Unfair and unrepresentative’ [http://www.electoral-reformsociety.com]
Quoted by Patrick Barkham, electoral systems, The guardian newspaper, Friday March 23, 2001
