By far away the most interesting piece of election analysis is in this week’s FT.
We are so used to reading about the Liberals being squeezed by the first past the post electoral system that it comes as a shock to discover that – for reasons of a collapsing vote from the Conservatives and a “vote from nowhere” for “Reform” a split right wing vote will disenfranchise the right wing of British voters.
The second chart is even more extraordinary as it suggests that the skewed nature of seat/vote allocation results in extremely low voter satisfaction in the UK.
According to the FT’s UK poll tracker, the aggregate of conservative and reform votes is only five percent below the Labour Vote with the Liberals and the Greens holding the balance of power
And yet the translation of votes to seats shows off the scale craziness
It is wrong to see the right wing as the politics of power and entitlement. It may contain the Etonian faction of the Conservative party but it also contains millions of people who have views which spring from a sense of being British working class.
If the 36% of the population who vote for Reform and the Conservatives do end up with less than 100 seats (and some predictions are for considerably less), then there will be what horseracing calls a “stewards inquiry” on the result.
It would be wrong to compare this electoral injustice to previous injustices relating to minor parties. This exclusion is not a disenfranchisement of minority views but a wholesale shut-out of the second most popular political persuasion.
The argument for proportional representation has been that it leads to more consensual , less volatile Government. And that Governments would be more consistent from one to another as a result.
However, the implosion of the Conservative party and the rise of Reform looks like creating a more extreme problem which gifts Nigel Farage a copper-bottomed argument that the way we vote is fundamentally undemocratic.
As a forty year fan of proportional representation, for reasons explained above, I will agree with Farage. First past the post is not unfair on the Liberals or Reform or the Conservatives, it is unfair full stop and that the winners this time are the Labour party is not a left-wing conspiracy but the result of failing to address this problem by successive Governments.
As the Conservatives have been in Government for the last fourteen years , the blame cannot be pinned on Labour who have had no opportunity to change things. But I have seen no indication that they have seen anything wrong with the current system over this time.
The question that looks like being asked after July 4th is whether any party can justify the craziness of first past the post any longer. The new found enthusiasm from electors to vote as they choose, and not according to heritage means that “likes” are expected to translate into “winners”.
Eurovision, Britain’s Got Talent, X-Factor, Strictly – all operate on a voting system that is seen to properly reflect the general vote. The pool of intentions determines the outcomes.
For this reason, however diluted, people think their vote counts. There is very little tactical voting (other than perhaps to rid a competition of an extremely unpopular act). What is more, people are extremely enthusiastic, paying to vote and doing it again and again.
What could be more different than the dismal results of this survey?
The FT urges us to brace ourselves for the most distorted result in British electoral history. It is not the result but the impact of that result, which we need to brace for.
Henry. Our present system is not ‘unfair’. The problem is was that the politians have failed to support ‘a referendum’ instigated by David Cameron who reneged on it after seeing its result. If a politician offers something, then it should be acceptable whichever a result may be. DC failed on this and unfortunately he is back in government again supporting a failed ‘BREXIT ‘ government. I still disagree with you that proportional representation produces a ‘stronger’ or fairer government. If you want strength – then leave well alone!
The Liberal Democrat’s should have pressed for a change to proportional representation when they were in coalition. I do not like our first past the post system (nor referendums but that’s another debate). Our system, allegedly, is voting for an individual to represent their constituents – but the party whip system means they often vote not according to their own conscience nor the way the majority of their constituents think.
The Blair New Labour party promised a referendum on PR for the House of Commons in 1997 but went back on it once elected. Instead they held a royal commission under Roy Jenkins which produced an excellent report recommending PR.
The Blair government did however introduce PR systems for all the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales, London Assembly, the NI power sharing executive and also the EU parliament. The NI assembly is elected by STV.
Also electing hereditary peers to the House of Lords when there is a vacancy is by STV!!!
The LibDems in the Coalition got a referendum on voting reform but settled for it being about AV (the Alternative Vote preferential system where voters rank candidates in preference order) rather than STV nor PR.
Nevertheless had AV been adopted, instead of our FPTP system, the most serious drawback of FPTP – perverse results – would have been avoided.
FPTP is not a majoritarian system. It is a positional system where the winner is the candidate receiving more votes than any rival – not a majority. With four strong candidates splitting the vote equally the winner only needs more than 25% of the votes, as sometimes happens. AV ensures the winner has a majority of votes taking account of second, third, etc preferences.
Proportional representation leaves us completely at the mercy of party members as to who actually represents us. There can’t be a ‘Portillo moment’ or an ‘Ed Balls’ moment under PR where even the most powerful men in the land can be sent packing by their local electorates getting fed up of them. This is an important part of our system that keeps politicians linked to their electorates in a way that we lose at our peril. However I do agree that the current system is broken. I personally like the transferable vote system which evidence has shown does produce a much less divisive politics since you can’t get elected in most cases unless you can find some connection with those who do not naturally sit in your political ‘bloc’ (put another way just slagging off those you disagree with does nothing to motivate them to put you down as 2nd choice). This means you have to find a way to connect your politics to a much broader constituency. It also reduces the power of the ‘party’.
I agree with Robert’s analysis. The electorate needs to get to choose its politicians, as well as the party of its politicians. The Single Transferable Vote system does this. Constituencies are larger, returning (say) 3 MPs. Parties put up up to 3 candidates each. Voters rank as many or as few candidates as they wish. In this way, voters can choose who they prefer from the candidates put up by their preferred party. In a 3 member constituency, a candidate needs support of over a quarter of the electorate to get elected.
It’s not a strictly proportional system (strict PR has severe disadvantages), it’s biased against smaller parties who can’t raise the support of one quarter of the electorate (in a 3 MP constituency), otherwise it does produce a more representative result.