Quizzes available at this site:
UK GENERAL ELECTION 2010: ENGLAND • WALES • SCOTLAND
OTHER: POLITICAL LEANING (short version) • POLITICAL LEANING (long version) • ELECTORAL REFORM

Electoral reform FAQ

Since the 2005 election, there has been increased interest in electoral reform. Labour maintained a convincing majority in the House of Commons, despite winning only 35% of the vote, in an election in which only 61% of the electorate voted. More than three quarters of the electorate therefore either voted against Labour, or didn't vote at all. Furthermore the 'value' of votes varies significantly from party to party in seat winning terms.

This situation changed little in 2010, the turnout in the election was 65%, and the Conservatives, the leading party in the eventual coalition, won only 36% of the popular vote. Whilst the Lib Dems won 23% of the vote, and have entered into power with the Conservatives, few people would argue that despite winning the votes of two thirds of the number of people of as the Conservatives, they do not own an equivalent proportion of the policy agenda.

As with the original whoshouldyouvotefor quiz we have approached this without an agenda. It is fair to say that we believe that the current FPTP system is unrepresentative - indeed this is a clear statement of fact - however we do acknowledge that it has its advantages and we have endeavoured to treat it, and indeed all of the systems discussed, fairly. We do provide links to external sites for more information on particular systems. We would like to make it clear these sites are not necessarily objective and in some instances demonstrate clear bias towards certain systems.

Quick links:

• First Past the Post (FPTP)
• Alternate Vote (AV)
• Single Transferable Vote (STV)
• Party List System (PLS)
• Additional Member System (AMS)
• The Jenkins Proposal/Alternate Vote Plus (JAV+)
• Cellular Constituencies

The different possible electoral systems we have considered for the purposes of this quiz are:

First Past the Post (FPTP)

This is the system currently in place There are 646 constituencies in the UK, each of which elects a single Member of Parliament (MP). Each voter casts a single vote by placing an X against the name of the candidate they wish to be elected, with the candidate receiving most number of votes, no matter how much of the share of the total votes cast they receive, winning the seat.

Pros:

• There is a direct link between MPs and their constituencies
• Poor performing MPs can, in theory, be voted out by their constituents
• The system is simple to understand and has been in place for a long time
• It generally gives a single party an overall majority in the House of Commons (i.e. over 323 seats) and thereby avoids multi=party coalition governments which are considered unfavourable by some.

Cons:

• As seen in the last election, there is massive disparity in the value of votes for different parties. Third/smaller parties in particular receive few/no seats meaning that the majority of votes cast for them are wasted.
• Whilst an MP is elected to serve a specific constituency, around 50% of the electorate in that constituency will have voted against him/her – these people do not have someone they have voted for to represent them.
• Whilst poor performing MPs can theoretically be voted out by the electorate of their constituency, this rarely happens. Seats tend to change hands due to change in nationwide support for the party the candidate represents.
• Many seats are 'safe' - remaining within the hands of a single party for decades - the actions of individual votes in these seats has effectively no effect on the electoral outcome.
• Smaller parties find it financially/organisationally challenging to have candidates stand in every seat - reducing the alternatives for many voters to simply the three main parties.
• It is possible - as happened in 1951 - for the party that wins the most votes not only to fail to win the most seats, but actually see another party take an overall majority in the House of Commons due to the geographic distribution of the vote.

Alternative Vote (AV)

AV is a system in which one winner is selected from a pool of candidates for each constituency using preferential voting. Voters rank candidates in order of preference, and their votes are initially allocated to their first choice candidate. If after this initial count no candidate has a majority of votes cast, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and votes for that candidate are redistributed according to the voters' second preferences. This process continues until one candidate receives more than 50% of the votes, upon which they are declared the winner. The benefit of this system is that, in theory, at least 50% of the people who have voted will have expressed some degree of preference for the winning candidate, than therefore is more proportional. It is of course completely possible that votes only show preference for one candidate, and do not rank any others. Some AV systems demand that voters rank all candidates on the ballot to overcome this problem - this is not the proposed execution being voted upon in the UK 2011 referendum. The AV system has the advantage that each constituency has a directly elected candidate, however it retains many of the issues of the First Past the Post system in terms of true proportional representation. Research has suggested that had there been AV in previous elections, in 1997, 2001 and 2005 Labour would still have won, with an increased majority. In 2010 there would have been a marginal swing in seats won to the Lib Dems from the Conservatives and Labour on a 2:1 ratio. See here, here and here for more details.

Pros:

• The system would offer greater proportionality than is the case under FPTP
• MPs would still be directly elected by their constituency
• There is a higher probability that under the AV system at least 50% of the electorate in a constituency would have expressed some kind of preference for the winning candidate than under FPTP
• It is still likely to deliver an overall majority in the House of Commons to a single party

Cons:

• The system would not be significantly more proportional than FPTP - in three out of the last four elections it would have actually increased the majority of the winning party
• Small parties would still see no representation in the House of Commons
• The system offers more confusion for voters than the FPTP system.

Single Transferable Vote (STV)

To implement the STV, much larger constituencies would be created, each electing between 3 and 5 MPs. Voters are given a much wide choice of candidates, with the major parties fielding multiple candidates within the constituency. Votes are required to rank the candidates in order of preference - though they can apply no rank at all to as many candidates as they see fit. If your first preference candidate doesn't need your vote - either because they have sufficient first preference votes to win one of the seats, or because they have too few to have a chance of winning a seat, then a proportion of the value of your vote passes to your second choice candidate and so on. For a model of how STV works have a look at: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/votingsystems/stvmodel.htm

Pros:

• The system delivers a more proportional result - i.e. there is a more direct relationship between the national share of the vote that a party receives the number of MPs it has in the House of Commons
• There is still a link between MPs and their constituencies, albeit the constituencies are larger - however it is more of the electorate will have an MP for whom they have voted for in some way
• Voters have a greater opportunity for voting for a winning candidate - partly because the system is more proportional and partly because each voter is expressing a preference about a number of candidates.

Cons:

• The system is harder for the voters to understand - especially as the main parties would be fielding multiple candidates in every constituency
• Smaller parties are still unlikely to be represented by MPs
• It is less likely that a single party will achieve an overall majority in the House of Commons so government would be by a multi-party coalition

Party List System (PLS)

There are a number of variations, but at its most simple, voters cast a single vote for a party. The nationwide share of the vote is translated into a directly proportional number of MPs. Each party has a list of candidates, internally drawn up, ordered in preference and they allocate candidates seats in the House of Commons depending upon the number of seats won. More complex versions include multi-seat constituencies and open list systems whereby voters are able to vote either for the party list, or for individual candidates if they disagree with the order of the list.

Pros:

• They system is very simple for votes to understand
• There is true proportionality in that every party wins a fair number of seats based upon its share of the vote
• Even minority parties have some MPs
• In theory, everyone's vote counts

Cons:

• There is no link between MPs and geographic constituencies
• There is a danger that too much power is held by the party machines as they decide upon the candidates and their order of preference, rather than the local party organisations
• It is a virtual impossibility for a single party to win an absolute majority in the House of Commons, leading to certain government by cross-party coalition.

Additional Member System (AMS)

AMS is a combination system in which voters have two votes - one for a constituency MP, the other for a national party. The majority of MPs would be elected by the FTTP method (albeit from larger constituencies). The national party vote is used to allocate candidates via the Party List system as a top up to constituency MPs. List candidates are not allocated to parties simply on the basis of the share of the national vote, rather they are used to make up for discrepancies in the number of seats won at a constituency level. For instance, if a party should have won 24 seats based on its share of the vote overall , but actually only won 18 seats from the constituency system, then it would receive 6 top up seats.

Pros:

• The system is more proportional than the FPTP system, however for it to make a significant improvement in proportionality then a significant proportion - e.g. 50% - of the seats need to be allocated under the top-up system
• A link is still retained between MPs and, albeit larger, constituencies
• A voter can express personal support for a local candidate by voting for them, but use the national vote to show dis-satisfaction for the party that candidate represents.

Cons:

• Two types of MP are created, half of whom represent constituencies, half of whom don’t
• The central party would have control over the ranking/selection of list MPs
• The system is not straightforward for voters to understand
• It is possible for a party to win more than its 'share' of seats from the constituency element of the election - potentially required addition MPs to be included/removed from the House of Commons each Parliament.

The Jenkins Proposal/Alternate Vote Plus (JAV+)

Lord Jenkins of Hillhead chaired an independent commission on the voting system, which reported in 1997. It highlighted, in greater detail, many of the flaws of the FPTP system that have been touched upon above. It proposed an AV+ system as an alternative which is a combination of an Alternate Vote system and an AMS system. The number of constituencies would be reduced to around 500 constituencies each having a directly elected MPs. Unlike the current system however they would be elected by an Alternate Vote (AV) system. Under AV, voters rank candidates in order of preference. If one candidate doesn't receive more than 50% of the vote in the constituency, then the bottom candidate is knocked out and the second preferences of the people who voted for this candidate are re-allocated to the remaining candidates. This process continues until one candidate has received more than 50% of the vote. As well as ranking the candidates in their constituency, the voters would also have a second vote as with the AMS system. Unlike the AMS system however, they would not be voting for a party at a national level, they would be choosing either a party, or a particular candidate at county level. These county level votes would be used decide which party should obtain seat additional seats to make up for any in-balance in the seats won at constituency level given the share of the vote. By picking individual candidates as an alternative to picking a party something of an open list system would be used. The above is something of a précis of the Jenkins proposal - for more information see: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/publications/leaflets/avplus.htm

Pros:

• The system would offer greater proportionality than is the case under FPTP
• The majority of MPs would still be directly elected by their constituency
• Under the AV system at least 50% of the electorate in a constituency would have expressed some kind of preference for the winning candidate
• The central party would not be able to exert full control over the ranking of additional members.
• It is still likely to deliver an overall majority in the House of Commons to a single party

Cons:

• The system would not be significantly more proportional than FPTP - indeed if and AV system alone was used the system would have been even more biased towards the Labour party in recent elections.
• Two type of MP would exist, some operating at country level, some at constituency
• Small parties would still see no representation in the House of Commons
• The system would be very confusing to the voters, not only in the practical mechanics of voting but also in explaining to voters how the system works.

Cellular Constituencies

Having carried out the research for this quiz, the WSYVF team thought that it would have a go at creating an electoral system. We are not psephologists (experts in elections) however we like to think that we have a certain amount of common sense and a creative approach to problem solving. We set ourselves the aim of creating a system that was:

• 1) Truly proportional, treating even the smallest parties equally
• 2) Allowed for there to be a direct representational link between a constituency and an MP
• 3) Allowed all voters to be represented by an MP from the party they voted for
• 4) Put the choice of candidates in the hands of local parties rather than the national party organisation
• 5) Created only one type of MP
• 6) Was simple and straightforward for voters to understand.

The system we devised is called cellular constituencies. Each voter makes a single vote for the party that they want to support, and seats in the House of Commons are allocated directly on the basis of the share of the vote won by the parties. The actual number of seats would remain broadly the same as now, around 650. So far, so much like the Party List system, but there's more.

The country is broken down into 320 'cellular constituencies' each approximately twice the population size of an existing constituency. In the run-up to an election, a party will know broadly how many seats it is likely to win, based on information from opinion polls. Say a party is showing at 34% in the opinion polls, even allowing for a healthy 6% margin of error it knows that it should win somewhere between 180 and 260 seats. Given this range, the local parties in two adjacent cellular constituencies work together to nominate two candidates, a first choice and a second choice. Two constituencies joining together like this are called a 'two cell'. Even if the party does far worse than expected, it will win enough seats to ensure that all of the first choice candidates can enter the House of Commons. Depending on how well it does, it will have a number of seats available for second choice candidates to enter the House. Before the candidates are even selected, the party will produce a hierarchy of 'two cell' constituencies - the two cell at the top of the list will have its second choice candidate become an MP if the party wins 161 one seats, the next one down if the party wins 162 seats and so on. It would be suggested that double cell constituencies that cover the largest geographical area are placed at the top of the list, increasing the likelihood of voters having a more physically local MP.

Smaller parties would adopt a similar approach, although the number of constituencies joining together would be more – indeed for the smallest parties expecting to receive only a couple of percent of the vote they could have 40 cell blocks.

This system means that whilst voters would be voting for a party rather than a candidate, they could at least be told in advance who is going to be representing them. It means that every voter has someone from a party they voted for representing thing. Whilst for the smaller parties these individuals would be covering a massive geographical area, the actual number of people who voted for them would be more or less the same as an MP from a larger party who is representing a smaller area.

We would propose that every cellular constituency has a constituency office that is shared by MPs of all parties, and that MPs who represent a number of cellular constituencies divide their time between these offices fairly. This offers voter with a choice of who to go to with a problem. If they are a Green voter, they may want to wait until their Green MP is in the constituency - though this might not be very often as they could be covering 30 or more cells - alternatively they may decide to speak to their Labour MP who represents just a single cell, and so will be in the constituency office every week. This approach would also mean that if a voter simply doesn't get on with their MP, they have alternatives to turn to with their problems, even though they might not be from a party for which they voted.

Basing MPs from different parties together in the same constituency office would not only make life easier for the voters, it would be more likely to cause the MPs to take a cross party view on local issues - if you have a pressing local issue at the moment, but your MP is, say, a Lib Dem, it is less likely that the Government will take notice of it than if your MP is Labour.

Pros:

• Offers true proportionality with even the smallest parties having some representation in the House of Commons
• Every vote cast will count
• MPs are still tied to a local, albeit larger, constituency
• Voters will have a local representative from whichever party they voted for
• Voters will have a choice of local representatives to approach with issues
• Candidate selection will be made by local party organisations as opposed to the national party
• The system is simple and straightforward for the voters
• More likely to produce cross-party collaboration to address local issues

Cons:

• Certain to deliver coalition governments as opposed to single party governments
• Constituents unable to vote out an unpopular MP
• MPs, especially those from the smaller parties, would be covering a larger geographic area than is now the case, however broadly the same number of voters.

Copyright © 2010 Thoughtplay Ltd • Coding by Hatmandu • Follow WSYVF on Twitter • Our Facebook group