Electoral Reform of Westminster
21 Jun 2009The first past the post system, currently employed by Westminster, doesn't elect by majority but by the biggest minority vote. It is not only disproportional, it is undemocratic. For example, in a constituency with 3 fairly evenly matched candidates, the winner can win with only 34% of the votes. In a competition with 10 contestants, a winner could gain 100% of the representation with only 11% of the votes. This can happen even if the majority of voters dislike the winning candidate immensely. The argument that a FPTP system makes it easy to get rid of unpopular MPs is disingenuous. In fact, the only way to evict an unpopular MP is for all opposing voters to come together behind a common opposition candidate. This requires telepathy on behalf of the electorate and also forces them to vote tactically rather than for the candidate they want. These factors alone make the system indefensible.
Some argue that the "constituency link" between a single MP and their constituents is important but this is debatable from the voter's point of view. For example suppose you were one of the approximately two thirds of the voting electorate who did not vote for the winning candidate? In this case you are forced to correspond with an MP who is unlikely to share your beliefs on many important issues. In a multi candidate constituency a voter can compare several of the MPs to get their position on important issues and take that into account at the next election.
Multiple candidate constituencies could be large enough to allow the MPs to assume a much greater role in the administration of local services. For example, health and education administration are usually the responsibility of a county council or unitary authority. In this case a single constituency MP has little influence over these services. Under a county or city wide constituency they could however form the assembly in a Governor or Mayor's office, rendering much of the County Council bureaucracy obsolete. It would also mean that the heavy hitters in politics would wield real power at a local level and would improve accountability by establishing a clear chain of command in Government.
The system Commons elections should employ is the Single Transferable Vote which allows the electorate to rank candidates according to preference, even choosing between candidates in the same party. This would allow popular, independent minded party mp's to be elected and shape party policy. It would also avoid the criticisms leveled at the party list system which allows parties to choose in which order candidates are elected. In addition it would provide broadly proportional results at a national level, due to the multi candidate constituencies used.
Some people advocate other reforms, such as the Alternative Vote. This would allow people to rank by preference in a single member constituency. While such a reform would at least solve the problem of minority candidates being elected without majority support, it would not supply proportionality and would likely entrench the two party system rather than lead to a multi-party democracy that most people would prefer. Others advocate the so called AV plus system which redresses this by having a hybrid proportional system to top up the parties' block votes. This system is unfair to independent candidates, contains the problems of party lists, and in Scotland has led to a "dog's breakfast" of many different electoral systems which are confusing to the voters. The hybrid system also creates two classes of MPs which is less than ideal. Nevertheless any of these reforms would be an improvement to the FPTP system.
1 authors proposed articles for this document. The ones displayed were approved by the majority of voters, with 3 voters taking part. The views expressed in the document do not necessarily reflect the view of Diffusionware Limited, it's directors, agents or employees.
←Back to Headlines
