British elections

The First Past the Post system, used for general elections, is non-proportional. In practice in the vast majority of constituencies there will be more than two parties standing candidates. Of the candidates standing in a given constituency, the one who receives a simple majority, the highest number of votes, is elected. Unlike majoritarian systems, the candidate does not need 50% or more of the votes in their constituency to be elected.

Consequences

Votes do not translate directly into seats. So it is possible for parties to get a large percentage of the vote, but get no seats in Parliament. This was the case with the Conservative party in Scotland until AMS was introduced. Also, the governing party does not need to get 50% or more of the vote, i.e they can become the government when less than half of the electorate supports them. For example, in the last election Labour won 60% of the seats with only 40% of the vote.

According to Duverger's law, a first-past-the-post voting system naturally leads to a two-party system. This certainly seems borne out in the history of British parliamentary politics. However, the British political culture is not a 'pure' two-party system. The Liberal Democrats have 53 of the 659 Commons seats in the 2001 Parliament, and several nationalist (regional) groupings sit, leading some spectators to regard the Westminster parliament as a "two and a half" party system.

Some people say that by discouraging minority parties, the system acts as a defence against extremist parties such as the BNP; on the other hand, critics believe that the system unfairly discriminates against smaller parties and is undemocratic.

Recent reforms

The Additional Member System was introduced by devolution by Labour in 1999 for the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Greater London Assembly. The Single Transferable Vote system was introduced for the Northern Ireland Assembly. The regional party list (Closed list) system is used for European elections.

Labour's pledged in its manifesto for the 1997 general election to set up a commission on alternatives to the first-past-the-post system for general elections and hold a referendum in the future on whether to change the system.

Labour made these commitments for two reasons: Labour believed they might need the Liberal Democrat for support or to form a coalition if they did not win the election with an outright majority and it was part of New Labour's modernising image. The first of the pledges was not met, there has been no referendum and none is planned for the future. The second was: Labour set up the Independent Commission on the Voting System, also known as the Jenkins Commission, chaired by Lord Jenkins in December 1997. It reported in October 1998 and suggested the Alternative vote top-up or AV+ system. However this was ignored by the government and no action has been taken.

The reasons were that, firstly Labour won the 1997 elections with a massive majority - it did not need Liberal Democrat support. Secondly, there was pressure from Labour traditionalists ('Old Labour') to abandon electoral reform (especially after they realised Labour did not need reform to win elections). After Labour's failure to win an outright majority in the proportional hybrid AMS elections to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly, the case for reform within the Labour party was further diminished.

Arguments for and against reform

For

Advocates of proportional representation argue that firstly it would be more representative of the electorate, as votes would roughly directly translate in seats. Fewer votes would be wasted and there would be less tactical voting (which is harmful to democracy because it causes people to vote for a differrent party than they support). It would allow smaller parties like the Green Party to have a realistic change of seats in Parliament. It would probably reduce the large majority that the many governments (like the current government enjoy), therefore it would produce weaker governments than with First-Past-the-Post because the governing party would have a smaller majority. This means governments as far less likely to be an elected dictatorship - the House of Commons would be less of a rubber stamp. Some argue this would make the system more fairer and democratic. It might cause coalitions government (like in the Scottish Parliament. Advocates argue this would lead to much more emphasis on consensus and better representing the combined will of the electorate, because coalitions be several parties.

Against

Supporters of the First Past the Post system like the direct link it provides between voters and their local MP. They argue the MP constituency link would be lost (but would not be the case if a hybrid system was used, such as Additional Member System or Alternative vote top-up (suggested by the Jenkins Commission). They also like the fact that it tends to produce strong governments, which they see as an advantage (there is virtually no chance of coalition government).

They argue that coalition governments cannot deliver the electoral mandate, because there has to be consensus on policy with other parties. Coalitions could give small parties disproportionate power. It could allow extremists, such as the BNP to gain real political power if they had enough votes nationwide. Some think it would irresponsible to give extemists the opportunity to have political power

Support from opposition parties

Electoral reform, towards a proportional model, is desired by the Liberal Democrat party, the Green and other parties. The Liberal Democrats favour Single Transferable Vote. These smaller parties would benefit in terms of parliamentary representation if PR was introduced.

The Conservative party are predominantly against PR. Despite the fact that the Conservative party would not necessarily lose more political power, it might find itself politically isolated on the right. It is possible that the Labour party might remain in power indefinitely with a new system, through a string of minority government coalitions with the Liberal Democrats and minor parties such as the Green Party. However, this is by no means certain, because the brief co-operation between Labour and the Liberal Democrats before the 1997 election has long since been forgotton and issues like the 2003 invasion of Iraq have divided the two parties.

Pressure groups

There are several pressure groups in the UK that exist to advocate electoral reform.

See Pressure groups in the United Kingdom

Low Turnout

Voter apathy is a concern currently. The turnout in the last election in 2001 was just 59%. The main reasons identified for low turnout are:

Decline in partisanship.
Reduction in the popularity of leader of parties.
Dissatifaction with parties' record on public services, education, transportation etc.
Lack of interest with the election campaign.

Possible measures to reduce low turnout

Compulsory voting, like in Australia.
Electoral reform, i.e. introducing a new electoral system.
New ways of voting, e.g. by post, telephone, internet.

Party systems

Traditionally, the UK has had a two party system. Pre-war the main parties were the Tories (who became the Conservative Party) and the Whigs (who became the Liberal Party). After the Second World War the main parties, Conservative and Labour dominated after the decline of the Liberal Party. However, after the large number of votes and respectable number of seats the Liberal Democrats received in the last two elections, some have challenged the view Britain still has a two party system. Also, the performance of parties differs significantly in differently elections. It can be argued that the the party system of European elections, for example is multi-party.

The expansion of the electoral franchise

19th century

The system of universal suffrage did not exist in Britain until 1928. From 1688-1832, less than 5% of the adult population had the right to vote.

The first act to increase the size of the electorate was the First Reform Act (known as the Great Reform Act) 1832. It abolished 56 rotten boroughs (which had elected 112 MPs) and decreased the property qualification in boroughs. It gave some parliamentary representation to the industrial towns (142 MPs) by redistributing some MPs from boroughs who had disproportional representation. The electoral register was created. The overall result of the Act was that the electorate was increased to 7% of the adult population. Although this does not seem like a lot, the Act was the first big step towards equal representation.

The Second Reform Act 1867 redistributed more MPs from boroughs who had disproportional representation (42) to London and industrial towns. It decreased the property qualification in boroughs, meaning all men (with an address) in boroughs could vote. The consquences were for the first time some of the working class could vote, and MPs had to take this intro account and the some parties decided to become national parties. The overall effect was the that the Act increased the size of the electorate to 16% of the adult population.

The Secret Ballot Act 1872 replaced open elections with secret ballot system. The Corrupt and Illegal Practises Act 1883 criminised to attempt to bribe voters and standardised the amount that could be spent on election expenses. The Franchise Act 1884 and the Redistribution of Seats Act 1885 (the Third Reform Act). Collectively these acts increased the electorate to 28% of the adult population.

20th century

The Representation of the People Act 1918 included the electorate to all men over the age of 21 and all women over the age of 30 (because young women were thought to be too radical). Later that year, the Parliamentary Qualification of Women Act 1918 gave women over 30 the right to stand for election to become an MP. The first woman to become an MP was Nancy Astor, in 1919. The Equal Franchise Act 1928 lowered the minimum age for women to vote from 30 to 21, making men and women equal in terms of suffrage for the first time. The Representation of the People Act 1949 abolished additional votes for graduates and the owners of business premises.

The Representation of the People Act 1969 lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. The Representation of the People Act 1985 gave British citizens abroad the right to vote for a 5 year period after they had left Britain. The Representation of the People Act 1989 extend the period to 20 years and citizens who were too young to vote when they left the country also became eligible.

External links

The Electoral Commission