Whatever happens, our political system is now in crisis

A week is certainly a long time in politics. When I was putting together this website, I could never have imagined what would have happened to the polls and the campaign in such a short space of time. I do not wish to make a party political point, but we can all agree that this election is now a lot more interesting than it was just a week ago.

I have to say my expectations of this campaign were that Labour would lose, we’d have a Conservative government and electoral reform would be off the agenda for the foreseeable future. Even if we do still have a Conservative government after the election, I think no government can ignore what has happened during this campaign.

Whether the polls stay as they are or the Liberal Democrat surge is just a bubble that will deflate before polling day, this last week has highlighted the extreme unfairness of the first past the post electoral system. Over the past few days, poll after poll has shown the three parties within a few percentage points of each other, but seat predictors show the third party still way behind in seats. The most shocking prediction is that Labour could come third in the popular vote and still have the most seats in parliament.

There’s still a long way to go until polling day and two more debates in that time, so who knows how this will all end on 6th May. If, however, we do end up with the Labour party polling less than 30 per cent and still first in terms of seats, the political class is in for a shock. The public won’t stand for it. Our tottering political system will have lost all remaining credibility and supporters of the status quo will be left defending the indefensible.

Politicians and the media like to say that the public aren’t interested in constitutional reform. That it’s just political geeks who get worked up about it. To a certain extent that’s true. However, it’s also true that the British people don’t like being told that they have no choice in politics, that their vote counts for nothing. They will not like it if they wake up on 7th May after having made their choice to find that their decision has been ignored. It will lead to a constitutional earthquake.

It has to be the case that electoral reform is on the agenda whoever wins the general election. The current system is bankrupt and this last week has revealed by just how much. If the Conservatives win the vote but not the parliament then how long before we see their MPs calling for change? How could Labour possibly stay in government if they poll third place? If millions more vote for the Liberal Democrats and find their votes have not translated into increased representation, won’t there be a revolution?

Probably not. Liberal Democrats are usually reasonable people who don’t go in for revolutions, but their anger will be immense. The whole system is discredited and if the people’s voices aren’t heard on May 6th, I’m sure they will shout even louder on May 7th.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogplay
  • me
    great stuff

    but can you please stop using # to mean 'number'

    that's an american usage, in britain # means hash and the abbreviation for number is 'no.'
  • Dave
    I'm British and it means number to me, don't be so snobbish.
  • J.HUDSON
    You want every vote to count? Please consider this -

    "PA-FPTP" is a TOTALLY PR system which is based on simple EQUITY, simple LOGIC, and simple ARITHMETIC, and quick and easy to apply. There are NO wasted votes, and it's simple for voters. Whereas the 'multi vote' AV, STV, AV+, AV top-up etc are complicated and NOT in fact Proportional !
    This is an outline proposal, obviously not tested, and is open to further detail development input.

    There are NO constructional changes necessary to the present FPTP system, just a few simple sums and applied simple equity and logic after the voting and counting! It matters not where a Constituency is situated or what sort of people dwell therein, it would be subject to the same rational National Proportional Adjustments, where literally EVERY VOTE COUNTS.

    In view of England's greater size and hence the lion's share of seats (529) , I would propose that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland be given the option of being 'Proportionalised' independently, to avoid the possiblilty of English trends influencing the others.

    THE PROPORTIONAL ADJUSTING METHOD.

    We all know how to do the simple primary sums to see how many seats each Party 'should' have had - and similarly for Independents. It has all been done many times before.

    Viz: .... Party share of seats = Party Votes / Total National Poll x 646 (seats in parliament).

    But the QUESTION seems to be - WHAT COMES NEXT ? Or - WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT IT ?

    Obviously, there just has to be a CULL ! Or shall we say some 'de-elections' producing 'surplus' seats - to be filled by some 'gainers' from other Parties with less than their 'share'. So 'here's the thing' -
    All Constituency election results will initially be provisional, but the majority (possibly 90%) will in fact stand.
    The first stage is the easiest, to 'de-elect' the surplus Party provisional 'winners' who did not really earn their seat. DID NOT REALLY EARN MY SEAT !?? That's right, see below. [Note - in a close election it is possible that two Parties could have 'surplus' seats]

    The candidate's VOTE VALUE is the key deciding factor for 'de-election'.
    Viz....When counting is completed each Candidate will have earned a VOTE VALUE.
    VOTE VALUE = Votes cast for the candidate / Constituency Electorate.
    e.g. (say) 14,356 votes for the Candidate; and a Constituency Electorate of 58, 527.
    VOTE VALUE = 14,356 / 58,527 = 0.2453 - always less than unity, cut the clutter - say 2453
    Note: Taking the electorate as denominator renders the size of electorate irrelevant, and a Candidate would not benefit from a low turnout. Also, it should be realised that even a non-vote 'counts'.

    Now the CULL.... Say, the winning Party has 56 'freebie' seats. The provisional Party winners with the 56 lowest VOTE VALUES would be 'DE-ELECTED'. But their votes are still added into the Party total, so none wasted.

    In most cases this would occur in marginal seats, and the seat would be taken by the 'second' candidate providing their Party had 'gainer' seats available. And similarly with all 'de-elected' Candidates.
    Protests from the provisional winners' Constituency voters? Of course! But they should remember that (i) Their provisional 'winner' only had about 25% support from the electorate anyway, and (ii) It's an election for a Member of a democratic NATIONAL Government not a local councillor. and (iii) the 2nd candidate would probably on average have about 22%. In isolated cases some Constituency compromise may be necessary where the provisional winner has been de-elected and the 2nd Candidate is not suitable for 'Party proportionate' or other reasons, and an alternative Candidate based on local knowledge and other equitable considerations will have to be appointed. But it can be reasoned that the Constituency did not 'sufficiently' elect the provisional winner, and hence the consequences.

    There will of course be special cases, but utilising the Vote Value, and other equitable considerations, more substitutions can quite easily be made. There are more details and refinements, for example INDEPENDENT Candidates being similarly beneficently 'proportionalised'. In this case with perhaps a 'gainer' Independent, an Independent Candidate with the highest Vote Value would be eligible for a seat.
    Another useful factor - SEAT VALUE = Total Poll / 646 (seats in Parliament)
    e.g. (2005) SEAT VALUE = 27,110,727 / 646 = 41,967
    This would be useful for assigning 'surplus' seats to the lesser supported Parties with aggregate votes above the SEAT VALUE. There may have to be 2 - 3 supernumerary 'non Constituency' MPs to maintain the fair and very proportional principles of the system.

    Needless to say these proposals have never been tested, but the principles are quite simple and logical, and may need some constructive input and detail tweaking.

    Apologies to Lord Jenkins, but NO Boundary changes, NO 'increase of constituency size from av 60k to 100k', NO Party lists of names we've never heard, NO 'top-up' floating MPs, NO education courses for voters, NO waiting. Just roll it out, lots of equity, simple arithmetic, simple logic.

    Functionally, this system could easily be rolled out on May 6th !!?? Ha Ha ! When all the figures are available I intend to apply this system, to the forthcoming Election including naming all the 'surplus' winners, and the 'gainers', and hopefully be allowed to publish the results somewhere.

    I may need some help ! ??

  • Rachel
    There are many different kinds of electoral reform, different kinds give different "chances" and are better for different parties. Think we really need honest views about this. Information about how different systems work in different countries. We cant trust newspapers to do this as they will provide party slants depending on who they support and whats best for them. Any suggestions as to where clear/honest information can be found?
    Was quite depressed reading a posting on facebook, someone saying they used to be for some kind of electoral change, but as it could "let" the BNP in were strongly against it. Others seemed to be agreeing for the same reason.
    As a Green Party supporter I suppose Its likely I would be in favour of reform, but, dont think its in anyones benefit to carry on as we are. Except perhaps the Tories? Cameroon seems to be saying, that reform will mean more power for government and less for "the people" ???? I heard he was saying it through twitter so apols. if not true, spreading untruths is not something I want to do.
  • Tony
    My answer to the BNP question is.. so what? Don't their supporters deserve representation too?

    It's a poor reason to keep a system merely because it disenfranchises those we don't agree with.

    If 5% or so of the population have unpleasant (to most) opinions that should be dealt with directly, not by pretending they don't exist.
  • Dave
    An interesting site. As an expat I would however warn you against adopting a purely Proportional Representation system. Here in Israel we are plagued by politicians who just wheel and deal with each other to form alliances/coalitions/... and are impossible to get rid of. The voter power under this system is effectively zero. The party congresses elect a list of candidates. Party members elect representatives to the party congress. If you aren't a party member all you can do is to vote for a list in the elections. You are even further removed from the elected politician than in the UK system. Electoral reform has been on the agenda here for close on 30 years - of course nothing is done because the most important thing for the politicians is the glue sticking their backsides to their seat and their inflated incomes (to say nothing of the under-the-table stuff).
  • Michael Maguire
    Although I am a LibDem supporter (mostly because of their stance on civil liberties) I don't fully see the necessity for radical change in the electoral system in the U.K., even if the party supports it.

    I am an immigrant (another reason I can't stomach the other two parties) from Canada, and my experience there suggests that first-past-the-post can deliver some stunning upsets that respect voters' wishes.

    The author of the following blog, although himself pro-vote reform, has illustrated some of these upsets in the Canadian system (which is a clone of the U.K. electoral system), and indicated how they could be relevant to the U.K. election:

    http://bciconcoclast.blogspot....
  • CS
    i think your website is very interesting, especially as I live in a 'low power' constituency. I will vote though. One of the most important things I can do with my vote is NOT vote for BNP. The more of us who re-engage with politics, even if only to say we don't want that version of politics, the better.
blog comments powered by Disqus