The UK’s voting system is already broken but Priti Patel wants to make it worse

Voting systems
Support us and go ad-free

After a weekend of Conservative gains in elections around the country, the left has suffered losses up and down the UK.

But the results only confirm what electoral reform campaigners have known for a while: the UK must change its voting system.

The UK is the only country, bar Belarus, in Europe that uses First Past the Post (FPTP). The system has long been criticised as failing to represent thousands of voters and allowing right-wing parties to dominate.

That could change with a system using proportional representation. But unfortunately, home secretary Priti Patel seems intent on making things worse.

Winner takes all

Under FPTP, used for the UK’s Westminster and local elections, everyone votes for one candidate for their local ward or constituency. The winner is simply the candidate with the highest number of votes in that area.

The problem is that parties can receive support from thousands of voters across the country, but if it is geographically spread out, they will come away with nothing. For example, in the 2019 general election the Greens received more than 865,000 votes.

They took just one seat.

Read on...

Support us and go ad-free

Parties with strong nationalist appeal, like the SNP and DUP, tend to do better under FPTP, as their support is more geographically concentrated.

This system means that only marginal seats tend to make a difference during elections. And many feel a vote for any candidate other than the winner is a vote wasted. It encourages tactical voting for candidates people may not agree with, in an effort to have their voice heard.

Conservative gains

On May 6, the UK went to the polls to vote for local councillors across the UK. It ended in disaster for Labour, which lost control of eight councils. The Conservatives, meanwhile, gained control of 12.

One of the councils the Conservatives took was Cornwall, previously run by a coalition of Lib Dems and Independents. Tories took 47 of the 87 seats on the council, which is 54%. But they only received 37% of the vote.

In response to the results, Cornwall Lib Dem councillor Andrew George wrote:

About 12% of Cornwall’s electors (37% of those who actually voted) voted Conservative this week. But the Conservatives took 54% of the seats and therefore 100% of the power to now run the Council for the next 4 years. I do not believe this is what the majority of people think is either right or satisfactory.

More than half the seats the Conservatives won were against a selection of candidates who had more (values) in common with each other than with the Conservative candidate who won.

All nine seats up for grabs on Redditch Borough Council were taken by Tories. According to the Electoral Reform Society, this was despite the Conservatives only receiving 56.2% of the vote overall. These discrepancies were reflected in several councils, and not just for the Conservatives.

Josiah Mortimer of the Electoral Reform Society wrote:

No party should sweep the board on a minority of the vote. It’s a recipe for poor representation, disengagement, and a growing divide between communities and their councils. Instead, we need vibrant, diverse town halls that reflect our communities.

As we’re increasingly finding out, areas that are deemed ‘unwinnable’ by governing parties tend to get left to wither on the vine. These one-party-takes-all outcomes are a deadweight on our democracy.

Favouring the right

Proportional representation refers to any voting system where the share of seats a party wins reflects the share of votes it receives.

Evidence suggests countries that use proportional representation instead of majoritarian systems (like FPTP) tend to elect more progressive governments.

Jonathan Rodden, a political science professor at Stanford University, analysed voting system bias by comparing political leanings of electorates to the political leanings of parliaments. He wrote:

In every industrialised parliamentary democracy with majoritarian electoral institutions, averaging over the postwar period, the legislature has been well to the right of the voters, and in most cases, the cabinet has been even further to the right.

As a result, several campaign groups across the UK have been calling for a change to a system using proportional representation for years. Post their disastrous general election in 2019, polls found three quarters of Labour members supported proportional representation.

Greens, Lib Dems and yes, even UKIP, have also long been supporters or a proportional system.

Scottish parliament elections use a mixed FPTP and proportional system, which is directly attributed with enabling the SNP to win 64 MSPs in the latest election instead of the 110 they would’ve won under pure FPTP.

An alternative system

One of the few UK elections that doesn’t use FPTP is mayoral elections. Instead, mayors are elected using the supplementary vote system. This system allows voters to mark both a first choice and second choice candidate on their ballot papers.

If none of the candidates get 50% of the vote outright, all candidates but the top two are eliminated for a run-off. First choice votes are used if your first choice candidate got through, but if only your second choice candidate did, then that vote will be used. While not fully proportional, candidates need a wider support base than in FPTP and votes are less likely to be wasted.

In stark contrast to the picture for Labour elsewhere, the party took 11 out of 13 of the mayoral positions up for grabs this weekend, with Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan retaining their seats, and candidates like Tracy Brabin being elected.

Brabin did not secure a 50% majority in the first round of the West Yorkshire mayoral election, so it went to run-offs between her and Conservative candidate Matt Robinson. With second preferences included, Brabin received almost 50,000 more votes which would’ve been wasted under FPTP.

The results followed a similar trend between Sadiq Khan and the Conservative candidate Shaun Bailey in London.

Dismal plans

In a move that could disrupt the mayoral trend, Priti Patel has already stated she plans to switch the election of mayors from supplementary vote to FPTP.

This is likely to give the Conservatives a boost, as recent elections show the left in cities has become more fragmented. Without the boost from second votes, left-wing candidates are more likely to suffer from vote splitting under FPTP, while a strong Tory candidate has the potential to unite the right.

Emma Knaggs, the grassroots director of Make Votes Matter, criticised the proposals:

This move would undermine our crumbling democracy, be a backwards step, and leave millions of people without a say in politics. We urge the Government to rethink their proposals and give voters a chance to make votes matter at the ballot box with a proportional system.

The Home Secretary claims that this move would bring ‘strong and clear local accountability’, ‘so the public can vote out those who are failing to deliver’. However, this makes no sense, because, under First Past the Post, mayors could easily be rejected by a majority of their voters yet still get re-elected, just because their opponents ‘split’ the vote.

As it currently stands, the UK’s voting system makes it difficult for many people to see candidates into office who really reflect their views. The supplementary vote in the mayoral elections at least gives people a second choice to have a candidate that is somewhat representative of their voice.

Party politics notwithstanding, a move away from FPTP would be a move in the direction of democracy. And it’s one that’s vital if we want people to engage with politics and feel like their votes and their voices count.

Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/secretlondon123YouTube/Guardian News

Support us and go ad-free

We know everyone is suffering under the Tories - but the Canary is a vital weapon in our fight back, and we need your support

The Canary Workers’ Co-op knows life is hard. The Tories are waging a class war against us we’re all having to fight. But like trade unions and community organising, truly independent working-class media is a vital weapon in our armoury.

The Canary doesn’t have the budget of the corporate media. In fact, our income is over 1,000 times less than the Guardian’s. What we do have is a radical agenda that disrupts power and amplifies marginalised communities. But we can only do this with our readers’ support.

So please, help us continue to spread messages of resistance and hope. Even the smallest donation would mean the world to us.

Support us
  • Show Comments
    1. PR would be an improvement, but dissolving the structure of power and giving people control over their own lives would be better. Why should the votes of 40+ million people result in real power in the hands of half a dozen? Because parliament is inherently conservative. It was established to defend aristocratic power. For centuries,it had less power than the monarchy. When the king insisted he was above the law, parliament rebelled. Then we had a parliament which represented the landed interest and could challenge the monarchy, to some extent. Once capitalism got under way (with significant help from the land owners) parliament represented the landed interest and the capitalist interest. Only latterly did the common folk get representation. Parliament is conservative by nature. It is a bulwark against radicalism. The 19th century saw the creation of a workers’ movement against the wishes of parliament (the Combination Acts sought to prevent it). It’s when people can do things for themselves that real solutions are found. Devolve decision-making. Keep it local. Federate without hierarchy or bureaucracy. Let democracy work at grassroots level, rather than votes pushing a few up a greasy pole of power. An elite political class is the product of representative democracy. Democracy as direct as possible makes it impossible.

    2. The UK’s voting system is already broken but Priti Patel,
      wants to make it worse. SAY GOODBYE to our rights including
      our Freedom under Tory rule British people.
      WELL Ms Patel are you after taking all our rights including our freedom away from us British people yes, or no?
      You put a new crime bill in place that effects our right to protest
      You put a bill in place to give all Dodgy police Officer more power.
      You put in place a new stop & search law.
      Now your after changing the law to pick who can vote & who cannot vote
      Is this a policy the making rich businesspeople in London area that fund Tory party yes, or no? Ms Patel.
      Can I ask Ms Patel is your attack on British people’s rights plus freedoms to protest plus hold any Govt party to account in Govt come about as a ‘result’ of you being SACKED by Ms May when you tried to make British taxpayer pay setting up your own little private armed army before you was ordered back to U.K. then you got sacked from the Minister job you held under Ms May.
      I see a path of law +bills here Ms Patel in all your new law plus rule you have set up on us British people the new laws-rules will stop us British people from holding you Tory Govt members to account when you let in mass amounts of HONK-KONG migrants into U.K. and brake Tory Manifesto paper rules on Immigration laws set out in your party Manifesto paper the leave voted -voted for –the new laws -rule will aid you keeping us under control when we British people start kicking off on our streets for braking immigration laws your Tory party set in place to allow more & more Migrant people into U.K. for cheap labour workforce failing us British voters of U.K.
      Boris Ms Patel -Minister under Boris how many dodgy deals have you done with China+ Russia to get more Tory party funding out of them the new laws +rules will aid in them Not paying the living wages to Honk -Kong workforce that come here when Tory Govt brake all the immigration rules set in place now by them to benefit rich businesspeople outside of U.K.
      Boris plus all Minister of Tory party hiding in LONDON is the U.K. now under Tory rule going to be run like Chins OR Russia Govt style way of beating the people into submission and LOSS of all our rights +freedom to hold you Tory Govt members fully to account now yes, or no? Boris +Ms Patel

    3. No offence, but this article is shoddy and totally misleading. The tories gained nothing in Scotland and the only losses suffered were on the right. Shouldn’t really have to point this out.

    Leave a Reply

    Join the conversation

    Please read our comment moderation policy here.