- Most voted against UKIP but UKIP won!
- MPs ignore evidence - "just rearranging the deckchairs"
- MPs ignore the obvious
- Election statistics
- Roads for votes!
- Simple explanations for reformers
- And they call it democracy!
- STV fairer for Tories in Scotland and strengthen Union
- Scotland votes No! But change inevitable for the whole UK
- Select Committee told STV could improve voter engagement
There is something unseemly about a union allegedly packing the membership of a local party to get its nominee selected as the party’s prospective candidate. It seems doubly unseemly when it is a safe seat so, in effect, the party will choose the MP. Unfortunately, it is also more likely to happen in a safe seat, because the prize is greater.
On the other hand, if I desperately wanted to become a party’s candidate, I might well encourage all my relations, friends and colleagues to join the party and vote for me. Wouldn’t you? Of course, it seems much worse when one applicant has a lot of colleagues in the same union. That is unfair on other applicants. It will be much worse if it turns out to be true that, as claimed, the union "enrolled" some people as party members without their consent.
However, if it is wrong for a union to steal the selection from the local party, isn’t it worse still for a party to steal the election from the voters? But that’s what the dominant party – not only Labour – does in every safe constituency with our 19th century voting system.
The Single Transferable Vote (STV) in multi-member constituencies would solve the problem. It would give voters a choice not only between the various parties but also between candidates of the same party. In a safe Labour area like Falkirk, there would still be a Labour MP, but voters would decide which Labour candidate. In a safe Conservative area like Arundel and South Downs, there would still be a Conservative MP, but voters would decide which Conservative candidate.
Open primaries have been suggested as a solution, but STV combines open primaries and elections in one event, which is more efficient and less expensive than two events. Please see www.stvAction.org.uk/node/465 for other advantages of STV.
STV in multi-member constituencies is the best system for electing a group of representatives, such as a Parliament, Council or Committee.
In West Sussex, the Conservatives took nearly twice as many seats as all the other groups combined even though more than three out of five voters voted against them.
It took 1,557 votes to elect a Conservative Councillor but 5,475 (more than three and a half times as many) to elect a UKIP Councillor.
In the Worthing Pier division, more than seven out of ten voters voted against the Conservative winner, who had the lowest share of the votes of all the winners.
Although the Conservative Party gained unfairly overall from the First Past The Post voting system, there were examples of individual Conservative candidates who may have suffered from it.
First Past The Post helped the Labour Party in Southgate & Crawley Central, where the party’s candidate saw his share of the vote fall to 37%, but he still defeated the Conservative candidate to whom he lost last time, because UKIP split the Conservative vote this time.
In Selsey, UKIP gained the seat from the sitting Conservative by a mere 110 votes, while the Labour candidate attracted 332 votes. So the UKIP candidate won although more voted against him than for him. If the voting had been by Alternative Vote (AV), the 332 Labour voters could have expressed a second preference, the winner would have represented the majority and it might have been the Conservative.
It was not just the underrepresented UKIP, Liberal Democratic, Labour and Green Parties who were robbed by the undemocratic First Past The Post voting system but also, and more importantly, the voters who did not get the Council they voted for. Some individual Conservative voters were probably also robbed as the examples of Southgate & Crawley Central and of Selsey show.
This is more evidence that England and Wales should use the more democratic and efficient Single Transferable Vote (STV) for local elections like Scotland and Northern Ireland already do.
The Conservatives were the main beneficiaries and the Labour and the Green Parties were the main losers in Cambridgeshire of the undemocratic First Past The Post voting system used in last Thursday’s County Council elections.
The Conservative Party won 32 seats instead of the 23 that its support deserved while Labour won only 7 instead of 12. First Past The Post really punished the Green Party by denying it any seats at all although its fair share would have been 3.
The Liberal Democrats and UKIP got close to their fair shares but both lost slightly. The Liberal Democrats won 14 instead of 15 and UKIP 12 instead of 14.
Independents seemed to do well by winning 4 seats instead of the 2 that their votes would indicate but it is difficult to calculate how independent candidates with perhaps very different views from each other would have fared. Voters who supported one independent candidate may not have wanted to support all the others.
For the purpose of this blog, each party’s fair share has been calculated simply over the whole county. In practice, there would be slight differences according to which system of proportional representation (e.g. STV) was used, where the boundaries of the electoral divisions were and, of course, how people voted.
Changing the system would probably change the way many people vote. For example, there are many parts of the country (especially in rural areas) where Labour supporters know that voting Labour is useless under First Past The Post, so many of them either vote Liberal Democrat to try to defeat the Conservatives or they abstain. They would probably vote Labour in accordance with their consciences if STV was introduced. In other parts of the country (mainly urban) it is Conservatives who would waste their votes under First Past The Post and who would vote by STV for their true beliefs
Kent County Council elections 2013
An analysis by Michael Steed and Eric Syddique
Kent Conservatives will exercise untrammelled power in County Hall with the approval of little more than a third of the voters – they won nearly 54% of the seats for 36% of the votes.
The overall results in Kent were:
Party -- %Votes -- %Seats
Cons -- 36.1 -- 53.6
UKIP -- 27.0 -- 20.2
Lab -- 19.9 -- 15.5
LibDem -- 9.8 -- 8.3
Green -- 3.8 -- 1.2
Others -- 3.3 -- 1.2
The smaller opposition parties, notably the Liberal Democrats, did not do so badly out of the voting system. The big losers were Labour and UKIP, whose supporters are seriously under- represented in County Hall.
Any system of proportional representation would have produced a council with no one party in charge – as the voters clearly wanted. To provide a picture of what county hall could have looked like, we have applied the rules most used in Britain for bodies elected by proportional representation (the regional list system).
We use Kent’s twelve districts to keep a constituency basis, rather than use a pure, Kent-wide, proportional system. Seats are allocated to the parties in each district by the formula used to elect British MEPs, which favours larger parties.
On the votes cast last Thursday, that would have produced a County Council of 35 Conservative, 26 UKIP, 17 Labour and 6 Liberal Democrat members. Two of the three larger groups would have to work together to form a majority, whether in coalition or on an ad-hoc basis.
The difference between that more balanced Council and the 84 people who will be deciding Kent’s affairs is much greater than the party numbers indicate. In a fair-votes Council, each of the two main party groups would have at least one member from each Kentish district.
In contrast, no group has that now. Thanet, with eight county councillors, will now have no one in the ruling majority group. With PR, the Conservatives, who took exactly a quarter of the votes cast in Thanet, would have two of the eight seats.
Labour now has members from only six districts; with a fair-votes Council, the Labour voters in the county town, Maidstone, and in South-west Kent, all now without a voice, would be represented, with a Labour member from everywhere but Tunbridge Wells.
The biggest difference would be in the composition of the UKIP group. All but one of their seventeen councillors was elected for one of the seats in the coastal belt from Sheppey round to Romney Marsh. In this stretch of coastal Kent, covering Swale, Canterbury, Thanet, Dover and Shepway, there were 44,206 UKIP voters, now represented by 16 UKIP councillors.
Yet there are nearly as many UKIP voters in the rest of Kent – 42,247 to be precise, now represented by just one seat in Tunbridge Wells. The absurdity is well shown by the imbalance between two adjoining districts, inland Ashford and coastal Shepway.
In Ashford UKIP came a good second with 29% of the vote, more than Labour (15%) and Liberal Democrat (10%) combined. Yet each of the latter two parties won a seat, while UKIP was not awarded a single one. In Shepway, UKIP appeared to be far more popular, sweeping the board in Folkestone town, and taking four of the district’s six seats. But when the votes for Shepway are added up, we find that the Conservatives, with 8,368 votes, actually topped the poll ahead of UKIP with 8,265. The UKIP share in Shepway (32.3%) was actually little higher than in Ashford.
With PR, there would have been two UKIP councillors from each district instead of four from one and none from the other; the Conservatives would have won two fewer in Ashford and two more in Shepway.
This example illustrates how the advantages of a fairer voting system are not just about a fairer reflection of political strength. Any constituency-based PR system, such as the single transferable vote used in Northern Ireland or in Scottish local elections, or the regional list system, whose rules we have followed, also produces a much more geographically representative council.
Doncaster voters elected a Mayor by SV on Thursday. SV is supposed to stand for Supplementary Vote, but it may as well stand for silly voting.
The curious thing is that SV was invented to cope with the deficiencies of First Past The Post so at least its supporters recognize that First Past The Post is deficient. The sad and scandalous fact is that it fails to do that.
There was a turnout of 61,385 in Doncaster and the winner won by 639 votes in the second round of counting. But 11,296 votes were wasted; i.e. the first preferences were for candidates excluded from the second round and the second preferences were not counted for one reason or another. About 2,000 of those votes were wasted because the voters did not express a valid second preference, but 9,320 people did not cast their 2nd preference votes for one of the two leading candidates. In other words, 9,320 people were disenfranchised by the SV system. If those citizens had not been disenfranchised (i.e. if they had been allowed to express all their true preferences), the result might have been different but we shall never know.
AV Alternative Vote) would have avoided that. Voters could have expressed third and fourth preferences etc in the knowledge that one of their preferences could count in the final stage of counting and the winner would have had to have over half the votes at that stage.
Although it is certain that one of the two leading candidates would have won if AV had been used, we cannot know which one. We do not know whether the winner under SV really represents a majority of voters or not.
The basic problem with SV is that it works only for those voters who can guess who the two leading candidates will be and who are prepared, if necessary, to abandon their principles to cast their second preference for one of the two.
AV is the fairest and most efficient way to fill a single vacancy such as a Mayor or Police and Crime Commissioner.
An Isle of Wight STV reformer has reported that, in the Shanklin South division, the sitting member was the Conservative leader of the Isle of Wight Council, which had a Conservative majority.
Initially, various candidates were nominated to oppose his re-election last Thursday. Somehow the opposition candidates realised that the only way to defeat the sitting member was by having only one candidate in opposition. All but one withdrew their nominations.
Result: Sitting Conservative Councillor - 619; Opposition Independent Candidate – 629 so the Leader was defeated. If other candidates had stood, the opposition vote might have been split and he might have won even though, clearly, more than half the voters did not want him
How much better a real AV election would have been. Then voters could have voted for their genuine first choices instead of being denied the opportunity to vote Labour, Liberal Democrat, UKIP or whatever. Also the result might have been different. One of the candidates, who withdrew this time, might have had enough support from voters to stay in the election to the last round of counting and then win.
Of course, STV in a multi-member division would have been better still. Not only could voters have voted for their genuine first choices but also the result would have been proportional. Conservative supporters would have had a choice of candidates. They could, if they wished, have rejected their local Leader but still have elected one or more of their party.
Here are some facts from one county – Dorset – where there were Council elections by First Past The Post on Thursday.
It took an average of 1,633 votes to elect each Conservative Councillor, 1,774 to elect each Liberal Democrat, 2,754 for each Labour and a massive 25,196 to elect the only UKIP Councillor! They call it democracy.
Look at it another way:
The Conservatives won 60% of the seats for only 39% of the votes. The Liberal Democrats got 27% of the seats for 18% of the votes. By chance, Labour’s result was about right with 11% of the seats for 12% of the votes, but UKIP ended with only 2% of the seats (actually one seat) for 23% of the votes! They call it democracy.
Although Labour’s seats were approximately proportionate to their votes, one of their candidates was lucky enough to be elected by only 22% of the voters. In other words, nearly four out of five people voted against the lucky Councillor who “represents” them! They call it democracy.
It is interesting that the Liberal Democrats did disproportionately well out of the First Past The Post system in Dorset. They got 6,051 fewer votes than UKIP but twelve Councillors to UKIP’s one! STV reform is not, as some of our opponents say, a conspiracy to give more power to the Liberal Democrats. In Dorset, it would reduce their power.
The purpose of our campaign for STV is to make elections fair for voters of all views and to improve voter choice.
Lady Thatcher and Mr Blair each led their respective parties to three consecutive General Election victories but, each time, about six out of ten people voted against them.
Thatcher “won” the 1979, 1983 and 1987 elections with only 43.9%, 42.4% and 42.2% of the votes, while Blair “won” the 1997, 2001 and 2005 elections with 43.2%, 40.7% and a mere 35.2%.
Is this democratic? Do British politicians have any right to lecture the rest of the world about democracy?
(In the absence of statistics on the ERS website, I copied these from Wikipedia.)
Jersey voted in a referendum on 24 April to reform the composition of the States Assembly. Voters were given three options and used AV to make their choice. As none of the options received half the votes in the first round of counting, there was a second round. Please see http://www.gov.je/Government/HowGovernmentWorks/ElectoralCommission/Page...
for more details.
The Jersey Electoral Commission recommended another referendum later on whether to change the voting system to STV.
England-only laws “need majority from English MPs”. This very brief summary of the McKay Commission’s recommendations today sounds more democratic than it actually is. The Government appointed the Commission, headed by Sir William McKay, to propose a solution to the so-called West Lothian Question – that Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland MPs can vote on purely English matters although devolution prevents English MPs from voting on many Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish matters.
The Commission’s terms of reference were:
“To consider how the House of Commons might deal with legislation which affects only part of the United Kingdom, following the devolution of certain legislative powers to the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the National Assembly for Wales.”
The report states, “Electoral reform, including proportional representation [PR] and reduction in the number of MPs returned for seats outside England, is not realistic and fails to tackle the underlying issue” but it is not clear to us why PR is not realistic. We regard it as essential.
Although the report points out that it is only twice that the UK governing party (Labour both times) has lacked a majority in England, the fact is that it can happen so there needs to be protection against it and PR by STV (Single Transferable Vote) would be the best protection. In any case the real issue is whether a majority of English MPs represent the majority of English voters, whatever party controls the UK Government.
To push through a major constitutional change without all-party support would be asking for trouble. An incoming Government could change it after the next General Election and the party that first introduced it might be tempted to change it back again. That would not be a recipe for stability.
It is hard to conceive that the Labour Party will accept the proposals as they stand, but will it realise the importance of PR and insist on it as part of a new constitutional settlement?