Is The UK's Plurality Electoral System Fair.

University Degree Mathematical and Computer Sciences

POLITICS ASSIGNMENT S.KIBBLE

Is The UK’s Plurality Electoral System Fair

Elections are basic to the democratic process. Free elections and a fair electoral system are said to be among the features, which distinguish liberal democracies from other forms of government. The fairness of the Plurality Electoral System also, known as 'first past the post' and the 'simple majority' system requires the candidate to gain a simple majority. In recent years this system has been heavily criticised for the way it distorts the relationship between seats in the Commons and votes won by the various parties.

This criticism is centred around three main arguments:

the system is 'unfair', that it disproportionality discriminates in favour of the two main parties and against third parties..
the present system encourages 'adversarial' politics and has been a major factor in Britain's economic and political decline since l945.
the electoral system puts an excessive amount of power in the hands of the government and the Prime Minister) leading to an 'elective dictatorship'.

The question of electoral reform was of very minor significance in British politics until the February 1974 election, which demonstrated the over-representation of the two major parties and the under-representation the Liberals. Since then, the campaign to change has attracted support from a number of Labour politicians and it is a central part of Liberal Democrat policy.

The present electoral system ignores many factors including the number of candidates and abstentions. If there are 4 candidates it would still be possible for one party to win the seat with 25% + 1 vote of those that voted. In 1979, 203 candidates were elected with less than half the vote. Nationally, 1931 was the last occasion that an elected Government received over 50% of votes and in 1974, Labour were elected with just over 39% of the popular vote.

The system lacks proportionality with no direct link between the votes cast for a party and the seats won. In the 1997 general election, the Labour Party, with around 44% of the votes, won 418 seats, 64% of the total. This is undemocratic, in that the minority who vote for the winning party impose their wishes on the majority who vote against.

Large numbers of MPs win on a minority of votes and single member constituencies distort proportionality because large numbers of voters do not support the winning candidate. There are also variations in the number of voters in constituencies and the concentration of voters in different kinds of seats, e.g. that miners more likely to vote Labour. Labour, therefore, tended to pile up large majorities in its safe seats. On average, it usually took more votes to elect a Labour MP than it did to elect a Conservative however this was reversed in 1997. Had the parties had an equal share of the vote Labour would have had an 82-seat majority.

The simple majority system of small constituencies allowed Labour to gain an advantage through the over-representation of Scotland and Wales. Labour realised the significance of trying to win marginal seats and to ensure the efficient distribution of its vote. A swing of 1% between the 2 large parties would result in a change of 10 marginal seats, providing an over amplification of opinion change and a false mandate. .

The voter's chance of affecting the result differs, as votes in a marginal constituency will potentially have more significance than those with a large majority. All votes cast for a losing candidate are wasted, as are all votes that add to a majority and millions of votes cast for third parties. e.g. Liberal Democrat Votes. Voters may be deterred from voting if they feel that their vote will be wasted. In the 1951 general election, Labour won 17 of the 20 seats that had majorities of more than 25,000.

FPTP discriminates against third parties whose support is spread evenly but thinly across the country. In the l997 election the average number of votes required per Lib.Dem MP was 338,286 as compared to Labour: 65,236 and Conservative 70,497. The Alliance came second in many seats, “but under the first-past-the-post system there are no prizes for coming second”.

This is a preview of the whole essay

In 1983, the Liberal Alliance received ¼ of votes and only 23 seats, thereby depriving a large body of population without representation. The system discriminates less against regional parties whose support is based on class or on a concentrated cultural or religious community. They fight seats only in their particular part of the UK and so tend not to suffer from the same problems as those of a national third party. In 1997 the Conservatives lost all their seats in both Scotland and Wales and most of their urban seats. It is undesirable to have an electoral system that disenfranchises large numbers of Conservatives in Scotland or Labour voters in rural areas.

It is argued that the present system has led to strong, stable governments based on parliamentary majorities of one party able to make coherent decisions and answerable to the electorate, rather than coalitions. The stability of the present system is more apparent than real. In three cases since 1945 new elections have been needed within 18 months of each other. The Labour governments from 1974 – 79, and John Majors Conservative Government of 1994 were certainly not strong and relied on agreements with other parties.

Coalitions are seen as the inevitable outcome under Proportional Representation as it is unlikely that any party can win a majority. Coalitions are said to be unfair, in that they arise following an election and as a result of deals struck by politicians. Differing interests of the various parties may cause them to collapse and produce instability. They may be undemocratic, in that small parties can gain power disproportionate to their support, e.g. the Right Wing Zionists in Israel. However, the coalition governments of both Germany and Holland are seen as strong and cohesive with clear programmes.

It has been argued that the current system perpetuates the two party system and encourages adversary politics. When the other party is elected to power, it reverses a significant part of its predecessor's policies, producing uncertainty in economic management and industrial policy.,

The present system preserves a direct relationship between an MP and his constituents who are able to judge his suitability for re-election. However, many MPs lack majority backing in their constituency, making it difficult for them to claim a mandate. The system does allow for voters to reassess performance and vote again in bye-elections but the selection of candidates by local parties who play safe, is seen as discriminatory against minority groups.

The system is simple to understand and operate providing a clear choice between alternative governments. The argument, that the introduction of a more complex system could lead to confusion and hence to a decline in support for the system, lacks merit. The evidence both of Continental countries and of Northern Ireland, does not suggest that this is a real problem. The link between voting and representation is the prime concern of the voter and he or she should be able to understand how the system actually works.

The question of fairness was considered by the Royal Commission on Electoral Systems, which reported in 1910, suggested the use of the Alternative Vote, while the Speaker's Conference of 1918 suggested AV. in most seats and the Single Transferable Vote (STV) in boroughs returning 3 or more Members. Critics argue that Parliament should 'mirror' the opinion of the electorate and that parties should get seats in proportion to their votes.

Supporters claim, PR provides an answer in that it would help ensure continuity in policy because it would produce a coalition government of one of the major parties with a centre party, thus imposing greater moderation of policy. It is argued that plurality voting encourages the emergence of governments with an electoral minority and Parliamentary majority.

Opponents consider PR unrepresentative, in that the policies pursued may well not be placed before the electorate at a general election and irresponsible, in that the nature of coalitions makes it easy for the various parties to avoid responsibility for their actions. Each PR system has defects, which are at least as significant as those of current system. It must be borne in mind that proportional representation does not equal proportional power.

In late 1990 the Labour Party set up a working party under Prof. Raymond Plant to consider the argument for electoral reform. The Plant Report recommended that PR should be used in elections other than for Westminster. Despite Tony Blair expressing scepticism about PR at the 1997 election, the Labour Party introduced several forms of it in the European Elections, the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly and the Greater London Authority.

In 1998 the Jenkins Report was published which advocated the Alternative Vote Plus scheme, a hybrid Plurality and Additional Member System. Labour party members rejected the policy by 3:1 and Prime Minister Blair refused to promise a poll on the issue.

In conclusion, the current electoral system appears to reinforce the under-representation, powerlessness and alienation of many voters. Fairness, although an important consideration, is not the only factor. The British system is based on single party majority governments and a Proportional Representation system could produce highly undesirable consequences and great instability. However, with the growing significance of European Community, for Britain to become more Democratic, then the way ahead must be through electoral reform in the direction of PR.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Bogdanor, Vernon. The People and the Party System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1981.

Blackburn, Robert. The Electoral Syatem in Britain, London: MacMillan, 1995

Butler,D and D. Kavanagh. The British General Election of 1997. London: MacMillan, 1997.

Dunleavy, Patrick and Helen Margetts. Electoral Reform- What is it All About. London, London School of Economics, 1992.

Jones, Bill. Political Issues in Britain Today. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999.

Kavanagh, Dennis. British Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990

Kingdom, John. Government and Politics in Britain. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 1999

Rose, Richard. Elections and Electoral Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.

Articles and Reports

Assinder, Nick. “Voters Want Change in Election System”. BBC News Online.

1st July 1998. www.news.bbc.co.uk.

Barkham, Patrick. “Electoral Systems Explianed”. The Guardian 7th Jan. 2000

Chapman, David. “A Review of Consensual Electoral Systems”. Contemporary Political Studies. (1998)

Jenkins, Lord. “ The Independent Commission on the Voting System”. Making Votes Count. (1998) www.makevotescount.org.uk.

Johnson, Nevil. “The Risk of Unintended Consequences”. Centre for Policy Studies. (1997)

Jones, George. “Tories to Fight Proportional Representation”. The Daily Telegraph 25th Feb. 1998.

Lipsey, David. “Reaching for the Electoral Summit”. Citizen 8 (1999)

Lung, Richard. “Criticism of the Plant Report”. The Economist (1997)

McGuire, Kevin. “Labour Compromise on Electoral System”. The Guardian 8th July 2000

Postelthwaite, Clive. “Coalition or Cabel”. Prospect Magazine (1998)

Shrimsley, Robert. “Blair Shifts Stance On Electoral Reforms”. The Daily Telegraph 18th Mar.1999.

Shrimsley, Robert. “Labour MPs Join Tories to Oppose Vote Reform”. The Daily Telegraph 13th April 1998.

Smith-Hughes, Angela. “A Guide to Voting Systems in the UK”. Citizen 11 (2000)

Tempest, Matthew. “Electoral Reform Pledge on Hold”. The Guardian 14th Feb.2001.

Wheatcroft, Geoffrey. “So Dream On Mr. Kennedy”. The Guardian 6th Jan.2000

Jones, Bill. Political Issues in Britain Today. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999. ch3

This book provides, like many others used in this essay, an overview of the first past the post system and its strength and weaknesses. The alternative systems are addressed clearly but the most positive aspect is the historical debate regarding reform and linking this to effects of such decisions in the context of Europe.

Kingdom, John. Government and Politics in Britain. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 1999. ch9

The strength of this book is not just the facts of the issue of the electoral system but highlighting the anomalies in the arguments of each proponent. Analysis is thought provoking and informative with cartoons to distract from the heaviness of the topic.

Jenkins, Lord. “ The Independent Commission on the Voting System”. Making Votes Count. (1998) www.makevotescount.org.uk.

The Commission sought to find a suitable proportional alternative to the current first past the post system. However, it is clear that in trying to ensure that the new system was proportional by retaining the familiarity of constituencies, it developed the AV Plus concept, a less radical form of PR, which has recently been shelved by the Government.

Johnson, Nevil. “The Risk of Unintended Consequences”. Centre for Policy Studies. (1997)

This report comments on the broad remit of the Independent Commission on the Voting System. It believes that instead of proactively seeking to change the current system, lessons should be drawn from the problems associated with Proportional Representation on Continental Europe. It argues that, of the 4 criteria under review, 3 are fulfilled by FPTP providing stable yet flexible government and that this system should not be changed.

Lipsey, David. “Reaching for the Electoral Summit”. Citizen 8 (1999)

Lipsey, a member of the Jenkins Commission, argues that the Commission failed to go far enough in the reform of the electoral system. The Labour Government was unlikely to implement AV Plus but would certainly block anything stronger. He outlines the move towards conservatism and pressure groups for the unwillingness to change a winning system. His tone is that of a person frustrated that others cannot see the way forward as clearly as him.

Shrimsley, Robert. “Blair Shifts Stance On Electoral Reforms”. The Daily Telegraph 18th Mar.1999.

Shrimsley discusses the internal policy document that shows that Labour would push through PR as per their 1997 manifesto despite strong resentment to change by senior activists. He provides evidence that although this is Blair’s own stance, he is unlikely to want change of a system so beneficial to him in 1997. In putting the argument for electoral systems, he is mocking of the various Labour factions and their unfulfilled pledges.

Page

Rose, Richard. Elections and Electoral Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983

In the General Election of Feb. 1974, received 19.3% of the vote but only 2.2% of the seats in the House of Commons. In Nov. 1974, they received 18.3% of the vote and only 2% of the seats. After a similar showing in the 1979 General Election, the Liberals approached the European Court of Human Rights in Strassbourg to challenge the legitimacy of the British Plurality system. It was held that it was not an infringement of their Democratic rights.

In 1983, this figure was 334 candidates and in 1987 over half of candidates were elected with less than 50% of votes.

The Hasard Society Commission on Electoral Reform in 1976 stated, “if fewer than 40% of voters can impose their will on the other 60%, distortions are no longer a question of fairness but of elementary rights of citizens.”

The 2 party vote share in 1997 was 74% but this translated into 88.6% of the seats. The Liberal Democrats in 1997 polled 17.2% of the vote but won only 7.2% of seats.

“Britain seems to have the most powerful and least representative system of government in Britain.” Bogdanor cited Blackburn 1995

The importance of marginals can be from the fact that between 1945 and 1970, there was no swing in 470 seats and that massive resources were put into 50 marginal seats

In the 1997 election, if Labour and Conservative parties had had identical numbers of votes, Labour would have held 85 more seats due in part to the alteration of constituency boundaries to Labour’s favour.

had the Labour and Conservative percentages been reversed in 1997, the Conservatives would have held a majority of 45 seats. (Curtice cited in Kavanagh 1997)

Lipsey, David. “Electoral Systems Explained.” The Guardian 26.Oct 1999.

in the 1997 General Election , the Scottish and Welsh Nationalists won 10 seats with a total vote of 782,000 votes, whilst the Ulster Unionist Party received 258,349 votes, equating to 10 seats

Since 1945, British Governments in power, average the same as those of W. Europe, most of whom are coalitions.

Rose. Op.cit

women and ethnic minorities are unrepresented as the safe candidate “is white, middle aged and male.” Bogdanor 1981

Disproportional outcomes have widely been regarded as acceptable, with proportionalism being unfavourably associated with multiplicity of parties, coalitions and unstable governments. Re: interwar Germany, post-war Italy and France, pre-1959. (Budge 1999)

Where voters indicate their first and subsequent preferences for a candidate. If any candidate fails to register over 50% of the vote, other preferences can be brought into play.

Used to reduce wasted votes and preferred system by the Liberal Democrats. Voters rank preferences in order e.g. 1-6. 2nd preferences are taken into account when the 1st choice achieves the desired quota of votes. STV’s can only be used in large multi-member districts and not small constituencies.

Kavanagh 1990

Bognador, cited in Jones 1999

The Second Ballot, also known as the Run-Off Ballot. The elector has only one vote. Any candidate who receives more than 50% in the first election is declared the winner. If there is no outright winner on the first ballot then a second, run-off, election

is held, and may be restricted to the two leading candidates on the first ballot.

AMS, provides 2 votes, to be used in a single plurality district, the 2nd, proportionally from a select list.

When the motion was defeated Sir Ken Jackson of the Amalgamated Engineering Union stated, “This is good news for democracy. PR. For Westminster is no longer a threat and common sense has prevailed.” (Jackson, cited by McGuire)

Tempest, Matthew. “Electoral Reform Pledge on Hold.” The Guardian 14th Feb.2001.

“ It was a lesson of history, that political parties rarely had the courage to do anything that might damage their electoral prospects when they have the power to do so.” Lord Jenkins.