UK General Election 2017: Why we need to change our method of voting

Key points in this article

• We have a broken system of voting where a party with less than 50% of the vote can form a government with 100% rule.
• The Conservatives are the party most resistant to electoral reform. Labour is non-committal on the subject. However, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens pledge to introduce alternative voting methods in their 2017 manifestos.
• The Conservatives want to change the way mayors are elected by making the voting process less representative.
• The Conservatives will legislate to force voters to present a form of identification before voting. They say this is to tackle electoral fraud. Ironically, the Electoral Commission found the Conservatives guilty of electoral fraud in the 2015 election over election expenses. They were fined £70,000.

What’s wrong with out voting system?

We have a flawed method of electing a government that fails to represent large swathes of the electorate.

The method of voting we use in the UK is called first-past-the-post (FPTP). It’s a simple system: the UK is divided into 650 regions or constituencies. In each constituency we elect a single MP (Member of Parliament) to represent that area (and party) in Parliament. The candidate with the most votes in the constituency is declared the winner and becomes an MP.

Note: the candidate with the most votes does not mean a candidate with over 50% voter support. Quite the opposite in fact: most MPs are elected with less that 50% of the vote in their constituency.

Here is a randomly chosen example — the result for Bury North in the 2015 general election:

• Conservative: 41.9%
• Labour: 41.1%
• UKIP: 12.4%
• Greens: 2.5%
• Liberal Democrat: 2.1%

The winner in this constituency: Conservatives. Percentage of voters who didn’t vote Conservative: 58.1%.

A first-past-the-post method of voting simply doesn’t work when you have more than two parties. As the results above show, when the winning vote is less than 50% of voters, there is no representation of the remaining (majority) votes — those votes essentially amount to nothing.

Analysis of the 2015 UK general election by the Electoral Reform Society — an independent campaigning organisation — showed that 331 of 650 MPs were elected with under 50% of the vote in their constituency, and 191 with less than 30% of the vote.

Read more: Election ‘most disproportionate in history’ say campaigners (BBC News, 1 Jun 2015)

Some of the problems in our electoral system

‘Safe seats’

Constituencies that always vote for the same party are described as ‘safe seats’. Some people don’t even bother to vote in a safe seat because they feel their vote will make no difference. In addition, opposing parties might put little effort in to campaigning in those constituencies if they are considered ‘unwinnable’.

Marginal seats

Marginal seats — where the vote could swing from one party to another in a close contest — are where parties spend a disproportionate of their time campaigning. These are the seats that may tip the balance in favour of them winning the election. This also means the attention given to voters is very unevenly (and one might argue unfairly) divided during an election: marginal seats get the lions share of attention while other regions are neglected.

Tactical voting

Tactical voting is another symptom of a broken voting system. Let’s say you live in a Conservative constituency and your preferred party, Labour, have no chance of winning in that constituency. However, another party — the Lib Dems — may just be able to defeat the Conservatives. So even though the Lib Dems aren’t your preferred choice, you decide to vote for them because it would be the best way of defeating the Conservatives. Put another way, you don’t vote for the candidate you prefer; you vote against the candidate you dislike the most.

All of the situations above are symptoms of the first-past-the-post method of voting. It’s an antiquated system that simply isn’t fit for a modern democracy. Why then do the main two large parties — Conservatives and Labour — remain in favour of it? Quite simply because it allows them to form a majority government with less than 50% of the vote.

In the 2015 general election, the Conservatives got 36.9% of the national vote but over 50% of the seats in parliament, and thus 100% government rule.

The arguments in favour of first-past-the-post

The two most oft-cited ones are:

• it’s cheap and easy to administer
• it creates strong single-party government, rather than weak coalitions

The Conservatives are particularly fond of the ‘strong government’ argument. But in a representative democracy, parliament’s makeup should reflect how people cast their votes. If that means no overall single party majority or smaller parties like UKIP gaining more seats, then so be it. That’s democracy.

Can a voting system that delivers a single party government with less than 50% of the vote be considered fair, representative and democratic?

What’s the alternative to first-past-post?

The alternative is to choose a voting system where the percentage of votes cast for a party is reflected in the seats allocated to the party in Parliament: a proportional system of voting. It would mean that no matter how you vote, your party choice is broadly reflected in the final makeup of parliament. The devolved Scottish Parliament and the devolved National Assembly for Wales already use a method of proportional representation for their elections.

A proportional system would reduce (but not necessarily eliminate) the problems that come with ‘safe seats’, marginal seats and tactical voting that are so common in our first-past-the-post system.

Although there are many different systems of proportional representation, there is no perfect or ‘best’ voting system. But first-past-the-post is by far the worst system of voting.

Where do the parties stand on electoral reform?

Conservatives

The Conservatives are the most resistant to changing our voting system. They will not consider any changes to the first-past-the-post method of voting. They have no plans to reform the unelected House of Lords either. In their 2017 election manifesto, they state:

We will retain the first past the post system of voting for parliamentary elections and extend this system to police and crime commissioner and mayoral elections.

We will retain the current franchise to vote in parliamentary elections at eighteen.

From: Conservative Manifesto 2017, p43

Currently, police and crime commissioner and mayoral elections use a less-than-ideal method of proportional voting called the supplementary vote. Astonishingly, the Conservatives want to change this method of voting to an even less representative method: first-past-the-post.

The Conservatives want a less fair method of calling an election

We will repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act.

From: Conservative Manifesto 2017, p43

The Fixed-term Parliaments Act was introduced in 2011 under the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition. It removes the Prime Minister’s power to decide the date of the next election. Instead, the date is fixed: the first Thursday in May in every fifth year.

Why is the Act important? It means the government cannot advantageously choose a date that they feel would be most favourable to their circumstances. Removing that unfair tactical advantage by setting a fixed date is thus a matter of electoral fairness. No reason is given by the Conservatives as to why they wish to repeal the Act.

The Conservatives will make it harder for many people to vote

We will legislate to ensure that a form of identification must be presented before voting.

We will…tackle every aspect of electoral fraud.

From: Conservative Manifesto 2017, p43

Although the form of identification has not been specified in the manifesto, it may stop people from voting if they do not have officially sanctioned ID. Will a letter addressed to you from your bank or local council suffice? Or will photo ID be required?

Unlike some other European countries, we do not have a national photo ID card (the exception is Northern Ireland which issues a free Electoral Identity Card). The only official forms of photo ID in the UK are driving license and passport, neither of which are free.

Importantly, there is no evidence of widespread electoral fraud in the UK that would support the Conservative’s proposals. The Electoral Commission analysis of the 2015 general election found:

• 269 cases of campaigning fraud
• 123 cases relating to voting
• 47 cases relating to nominations
• 38 cases relating to registration
• 4 cases relating to administration

Just under a quarter of all reported cases (123 cases, representing 26% of the total) related to voting offences, which could include personation (voting as someone else), breaches of the secrecy requirements, tampering with ballot papers, bribery or treating (providing food or drink to influence a voter) or undue influence.

From: Analysis of cases of alleged electoral fraud in the UK in 2015 (Electoral Commission, PDF, published Mar 2016)

Ironically, it was the Conservatives who were found guilty of electoral fraud during the 2015 election over the way they used election expenses.

The Conservative Party has been fined a record £70,000 and its former treasurer reported to the police following a report by the Electoral Commission into its election expenses.

The Commission also suggested that the advantage gained by the party via spending that was incorrectly recorded “meant that there was a realistic prospect that this enabled its candidates to gain a financial advantage over opponents.

From: Election Expenses Exposed (Channel 4 News, 16 Mar 2017)

Labour

Labour make no promises on electoral reform in their 2017 manifesto but say they will create a Constitutional Convention to:

…examine and advise on reforming the way Britain works at a fundamental level.

The Convention will look at extending democracy locally, regionally and nationally, considering the option of a more federalised country.”

From: Labour Manifesto 2017, p102

Labour will also seek to reduce the size of the unelected House of Lords. They say they believe in an elected Second Chamber but make no mention of timeframes or whether this will be implemented during the course of the next parliament.

Finally, Labour have pledged to reduce the voting age to 16.

Liberal Democrats

The Lib Dems are in favour of electoral reform. Their 2017 manifesto includes the following pledges:

• Reduce the voting age to 16 for all elections and referendums
• Introduce a new method of voting for local and national elections: Single Transferable Vote
• Cap donations to political parties at £10,000 per person

The Greens

The Greens are also in favour of electoral reform. Their 2017 manifesto includes the following pledges:

• Introduce proportional representation (PR) for parliamentary and local elections (the type of PR is not mentioned)
• Reduce the voting age to 16
• Replace the House of Lords with an elected second chamber
• Allow local constituents to secure a referendum on local government decisions or to recall their MP

Conclusion

Electoral reform is long overdue in the UK but the prospects for change are depressingly low. It should be clear from the analysis above that the Conservative Party have an unpleasant anti-democratic streak to them. This is just one of many reasons to not vote for them on 8 June 2017.