AS exams update: electoral reform

If there is a case to replace first past the post with an election system that is proportionally representative, it seems stronger now than ever. With help from the Electoral Reform Society website, read on…

Election 2010 hasn’t changed anything…

FPTP has historically been simple, familiar, quick to count, and most of the time produces a clear and decisive result. Many of the alternatives are seen as complicated. STV, for example, which is favoured by the Lib Dems, uses a complex formula and this could confuse voters, and the result can take a long time. Election 2010 was the exception and should not be seen as a permanent problem of our system.

FPTP stops extremist parties gaining seats. Figures show that the BNP would have picked up around 8 seats in 2010 if PR had been used. Instead they have nothing. This is good for stable democracy.

There is usually no need for coalitions since the natural mechanics of the system produces single party governments with (in recent times often large) overall majorities. This avoids the need for wrangling amongst coalition partners over what policies are to be introduced – usually behind closed doors, and in smoke-filled rooms. One of the probable outcomes of introducing PR is that the Lib Dems would hold the balance of power as they did this year. This can be seen as unfair since they are only the third biggest party.

Single rather than multi-party government fosters stability within the political system. Coalitions are prone to breakdown when one of the partners becomes dissatisfied with the government’s direction. Sticking with FPTP is the best way of avoiding a coalition government in the future.

FPTP allows voters to decide who their representatives are. We need to appreciate also the special link between an individual MP and his or her constituency and this link can be lost with different systems which use much larger geographic areas for constituencies and/or are multi-member.

One of the key arguments in favour of proportional electoral systems, that it would boost turnout, has not been supported by figures from the elections where different systems have been used. Indeed, participation has been a disappointment. The introduction of the Party List system for European Parliament elections did little for turnout, with the percentage of the electorate voting falling by a third between 1994 and 1999

The 2010 election strengthens the case for reform to a system of PR…

PR would produce fairer results since it could convert a share of the vote equally into a share of the seats. Currently FPTP does not do this. Traditionally FPTP benefited the winning party and a small swing towards either Labour or the Tories saw them rewarded with quite a large increase in the number of seats. However, the system is now biased in favour of the Labour party. The Tories intend to equalise constituency sizes and reduce the number of MPs to correct this imbalance, but this is only shifting the deckchairs on the Titanic. Why not accept that FPTP is no longer suitable for three party politics and introduce a system that is fair to all parties.

The introduction of PR for Westminster would bring to an end the system of ‘disproportionate representation’ we have at present under FPTP. In 2010 the Lib Dems received only 6% less than Labour of the national vote, but less than a quarter of the seats. A system of PR would end this discrimination. Moreover, many other parties with evenly spread support also suffered. UKIP, for instance, gained nearly one million votes but were not rewarded with a single MP. This lack of representation would be corrected with PR and surely this is the strongest argument in favour if millions of people do not get the MP they voted for.

A system of PR would, according to the Electoral Reform Society, “address the regional imbalance under FPTP that prevents either Labour or Conservatives being National Parties. Whole counties and cities are now the personal property of one party. Once again First-Past-the-Post has generated results that stretch the idea of ‘representative’ democracy to breaking point. The Conservatives would have healthy representation in the North, Labour in the South.” At the moment this isn’t the case. If PR had been used in the 2010 elections the Conservatives would have 7 MPs in Scotland. At the moment they only have one! It is ridiculous that the Prime Minister’s party can govern a nation of 5 million people with such a weak mandate. “Labour would see a revival in the SE, SW and particularly the East of England where their supporters struggle to make inroads under FPTP. Liberal Democrats would build on their strength in all regions, particularly the SW and SE.”

Turnout revived somewhat in the 2010 election, but the figure of 65% remains one of the worst in history. Opponents of the FPTP system would argue that the inherent faults within the system depress turnout and because PR would mean all votes count then people would be more inclined to vote.

Supporters of proportional electoral systems argue that fewer votes are wasted than under the current system. Under FPTP many of the votes cast do not matter since they go towards a candidate other than the winner, or they are surplus to the number needed to elect the winner. In 2010 only around one third of the votes cast contributed to the election of a candidate, with the rest being wasted votes.

Supporters of PR argue that the AV proposal backed by Labour and offered by the Tories is not much better than the current system, and is a pointless change. It is still unproportional, as it does little to benefit parties with evenly spread support. The Lib Dems, for instance, would have gained only an additional 20 MPs under AV at the last election despite gaining nearly a quarter of the nation’s vote. AV, therefore, is little fairer than FPTP so a PR based system is the only change worth making.

At the onset of the campaign, the names of the winners in 383 safe seats were published by, among others, the ERS. Supporters of PR called these 2005 victories “an affront to democracy. In 2010, even with the most fluid election in generations 380 seats came in as called.” This means that for well over half of the entire electorate there was no real contest in the constituencies they voted in. The introduction of PR would end this.

On a related point, ‘safe seat syndrome’ means that turnout is likely to be lowest in the safest seats, and highest where the votes is likely to be close. This is borne out by evidence from the 2010 election where the turnout in the 10 most marginal seats nearly 20% higher than in the 10 safest seats. A proportional electoral system, it is argued, would reduce or eliminate the problem of safe seats.

Only a tiny percentage of the electorate have the power to influence the outcome of the General Election. According to the Electoral Reform Society the 2010 could have turned on the basis of less than 20,000 voters in marginal constituencies. Many areas of Britain were campaign free zones in 2010 and PR would make politicians campaign the entire length and breadth of the country.

The current system for Westminster elections is said to lead to the under-representation of women. Currently only 20% of MPs in the House of Commons are women, and there is strong evidence to suggest that systems that are proportional lead to a fairer representation of women within a UK framework. PR has helped give the Welsh Assembly 47% women. Better gender representation is better for democracy.

In conclusion it is clear that, as the ERS argue, “in a modern democracy fairness, accountability and a real choice for voters should not be compromised.” At all levels of representation an electoral system like STV, which whilst not perfect, does the best job of guaranteeing: “votes have equal value; effective representation to all significant points of view within the electorate; electors being able to vote for their preferred candidates without fear of wasting their votes.”