Election 'most disproportionate in history'

[davieG]

The 2015 general election was the "most disproportionate in British history", the Electoral Reform Society has said.

In a new analysis the society - which campaigns to change the voting system - has assessed how the make up of Parliament would have differed had other voting systems been used.

The research shows UKIP could have won as many as 80 MPs and the Greens 20.

UKIP received 3.9 million votes and the Greens 1.2 million, and they ended up with one MP each.

'Fairer system'

Katie Ghose, chief executive of the society, described the current system, usually known as first-past-the-post, as "archaic" and "divisive".

She said: it "leaves millions disenfranchised and forces millions more to feel that they have to vote for a 'lesser evil.'"

"It's about time we had a fairer system for electing our MPs."

How different voting systems work

 

First-past-the-post (used in UK general elections): People get a single vote for who they want to represent their constituency and whichever candidate gets the most votes wins.

Single transferable vote (used in Northern Ireland Assembly elections and Scottish council elections): Voters number candidates in order of preference and all those passing a defined threshold - calculated by dividing the number of valid votes by the number of seats plus one - are elected. Their surplus votes are distributed to other candidates on the basis of other preferences with low-scoring candidates being progressively eliminated. The system sees more than one candidate elected from a single constituency.

Additional member system (used in Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly elections): Some representatives are elected via the traditional first-past-the post method but voters get to cast a second vote for "top-up" seats, allocated in proportion to the number of votes. These representatives are selected on a regional basis from lists of candidates drawn up by each party.

Party list system (used in European Parliament elections): The UK is divided into large constituencies, known as regions, and different parties put together lists of candidates for election, with their preferred choices at the top. Seats are allocated, on a top-down basis, in proportion to parties' share of the vote.

Supplementary vote (used in London mayoral elections): Voters choose their first and second preferences and a candidate can only be elected in the first round if they get 50% of the vote. If no-one achieves this, all but the top two candidates are eliminated and their second preferences redistributed to the candidates still in the race. The candidate with the most votes is then elected.

Alternative Vote (rejected in 2011 UK-wide referendum): Voters rank candidates in order of preference and anyone getting more than 50% in the first round is elected. If that doesn't happen, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their second choices allocated to the remaining candidates. This process continues until a winner emerges.

Alternative Vote Plus: As well as voters ranking constituency candidates in order of preference, they would get a second vote at a regional level either for a party or for their favourite candidate from a list proposed by the parties. This would mean having a group of constituency MPs and a group of "party list" MPs.

In a survey commissioned by the society and carried out by pollsters YouGov, over 40,000 people were asked how they would have voted in the general election had they been required to rank the parties in order of preference.

The report, entitled The 2015 General Election: A Voting System in Crisis, found that under a list-based system of proportional representation, similar to the kind used in European elections, the outcome would have been very different.

In this case Conservatives would have won 242 seats (-89), Labour 208 (-24), the SNP 30 (-26), the Lib Dems 47 (+39), Plaid Cymru 5 (+2), UKIP 80 (+79) and the Greens 20 (+19).

However, the analysis also found that under an alternative vote system, where voters' preferences are reallocated until one candidate gets over 50%, the election result would be similar to that of 7 May, with the Conservatives winning 337 seats - an increase of six.

'Breaking up Britain'

In this case Labour would have 227 (-5), the SNP 54 (-2), the Lib Dems 9 (+1), Plaid Cymru 3 (no change), UKIP 1 (no change) and the Greens 1 (no change).

And the research showed that under a single transferable vote (STV) system, similar to the kind currently used in Scottish local elections, the Conservatives would have won 276 seats (-55), Labour 236 (+4), the SNP 34 (-22), the Lib Dems 26 (+18), Plaid Cymru 3 (nc), UKIP 54 (+53) and the Greens 3 (+2).

"Our voting system is breaking up Britain," Ms Ghose added.

"First Past the Post is artificially dividing the UK, giving the SNP nearly all Scottish seats on half the vote, while excluding Labour from the south of England and over-representing them in Wales."

The report also found:

• 50% of votes in the election - 22 million - went to losing candidates
• 2.8 million voters were likely to have voted "tactically"
• The election saw an MP win on the lowest vote share in electoral history 24.5% in Belfast South
• 331 of 650 MPs were elected on under 50% of the vote, and 191 with less than 30% of the electorate

Since the election, politicians from UKIP, the Greens, Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru and the SNP have supported a petition calling for voting reform.

The Electoral Reform Society used the D'Hondt method for converting votes to seats in a list-based PR system.

Ms Ghose later told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Voters have changed fundamentally. They're shopping around, they're supporting a wider range of parties than ever before and I think that the system's really struggling to cope with that."

But Labour MP Dame Margaret Beckett said the current system tended to give the electorate what they wanted.

"One of the virtues of our present system is that the British people understand it, they know how to work it. In 2010 they didn't like any of us and they didn't give any of us a majority," she said.

"But in 2015 they said 'hang on a minute, we'd rather have a majority government of one or the other, than a mess'."

 

 

[Arriba Los Zorros]

basically we need to find a system where we use the theory of Proportional representation but have a an actual strong government with a majority behind it.

 

I'd propose AV: but with a few changes:

 

initially everyone votes for two parties in order of preference, with 1st and 2nd place being taken into account (2/3 'points' for 1st and one for 2nd). Then when the votes are added up, seats are allocated on basis on number of votes, However, you have to reach a certain threshold before you start gaining seats, ie 1 million, to weed out real minority parties. 

 

Then you get the chance to re-vote which would strengthen majorities I think.

 

this is all done out of constituencies. Parties given a number of seats can decide which of their representatives standing become MPs, basing this on number of local votes received.

[Rincewind]

Most disproportionate. NSS?

[Guest Sharpe's Fox]

People had a chance to change it in the AV referendum in 2011 and it lost by a 2:1 ratio in the turnout. Can't complain now.

[davieG]

People had a chance to change it in the AV referendum in 2011 and it lost by a 2:1 ratio in the turnout. Can't complain now.

We should have been given other options.

[Guest MattP]

People had a chance to change it in the AV referendum in 2011 and it lost by a 2:1 ratio in the turnout. Can't complain now.

 

Under the alternative vote UKIP and the Greens would still only have one seat and the Tories would have an even bigger majority.

 

For a vote spread like ours now AV is actually worse for representation than FPTP would be.

[Alf Bentley]

Under the alternative vote UKIP and the Greens would still only have one seat and the Tories would have an even bigger majority.

 

For a vote spread like ours now AV is actually worse for representation than FPTP would be.

 

You're probably right about UKIP & Greens, though having the 2nd choice vote would probably have increased their 1st choice votes from people who ended up voting tactically....so they might have picked up 1 or 2 more seats (though not in proportion to their vote).

 

But I'm dubious about your claim that AV would have increased the Tory majority.

- In Lab marginals, would UKIP, Lib Dem & Green voters have given their 2nd choices disproportionately to the Tories?

- In Con marginals, same question....

- In seats that the Lib Dems lost to the Tories, would Labour and other voters have given their 2nd choices to the Tories or the Lib Dems?

- In SNP seats where SNP got less than 50%, Labour mostly came second....who would Tories / LDs have transferred their votes to?

 

Partly depends on where the UKIP vote came from, as surely more Lib Dems & Greens would have gone Labour, if anything? The assumption has always been that UKIP garnered more votes from the Tories than Labour, but I'm not sure that was the case in 2015....

 

Unless you've seen some meaningful research (I haven't), we're probably both guessing - but my guess is that AV would have left us with another (probably Tory-led) coalition in 2015.

 

I'd much prefer Single Transferable Vote in Multi-Member Constituencies, but have already bored on about that too much. AV would be a marginal improvement on FPTP, though, I reckon.

[Guest MattP]

Yougov and the electoral reform society research said it would. Although as you say, it would be impossible to be 100% accurate as we would probably see some people voting differently.

 

Using the Single transferable vote we would probably be heading for a Tory-UKIP coalition.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32954807

 

[Alf Bentley]

Yougov and the electoral reform society research said it would. Although as you say, it would be impossible to be 100% accurate as we would probably see some people voting differently.

 

Using the Single transferable vote we would probably be heading for a Tory-UKIP coalition.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32954807

 

 

 

Interesting research that you quote. I find their AV data very surprising (though not very different from the FPTP outcome). Presumably their data suggested that votes would be redistributed fairly evenly between the 2 main parties, but that UKIP or other votes would have tipped a few extra seats into Tory hands?

 

How seriously the research can be taken is another matter, though - it is only a poll, after all, hardly a research method that has proven to be very accurate lately!

 

The outcome of the Scottish-style STV quoted doesn't surprise me, though under all the systems a few seats shifting would produce a different outcome....and with STV, the precise system can make a big difference: e.g. the list system (at the link you posted but not shown above) would have required a 3-party coalition....