Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Time for PR?
Though the turnout held up, this was no doubt thanks to the widespread use of postal ballots. Some 8 million of the 27 million ballots were cast through the mail, but still approximately 4 in 10 adults did not bother at all.
There are many reasons for this disillusionment, not least because voters are perennially disillusioned with their political leaders; the current bunch is really no worse than any other in recent history. But perhaps more worryingly is a growing belief that the UK electoral system is failing to deliver a government that reflects the general will of the people. This is – after all – an election’s primary function.
Tony Blair’s absolute majority has been won with just 35.2% of the popular vote, only 2.9% more than the main opposition. At 66, this majority is quite enough to force through all but the most controversial of legislative programs. Is a system as skewed as this, unfair?
The first point to be made is that, yes, it is unfair. The second point to be made is that the 2005 general election has really been no more or less unfair than any other election since 1945.
The graph below plots the government majority yielded by the margin of popular vote share in general elections, since 1945. The 2005 election sits a little below the best-fit line, indicating that Labour got reasonable value for money for their share of the vote, but nothing unusual.
UK’s electoral system – first passed the post from a single preference – is designed to deliver ‘strong government’. A political party can win an absolute majority of seats from a relatively small margin in the popular vote. It can also deliver minority governments; the 1951 Conservative win was secured on less votes than Labour.
There are numerous consequences of such a system.
Firstly, the incumbent government will never be inclined to change the system, as it would be reluctant to loosen its own grip on power. Only if a government was faced with catastrophic meltdown at the polls would it consider a more proportional power sharing system to its advantage. Reform is therefore rarely on the agenda.
Secondly, elections tend to be won or lost in only a handful of seats (perhaps 50 or so ‘marginals’), where the result of the poll is traditionally close. This lends itself to targeted political campaigning, focused on a few seats in key battle areas. And even within these marginal constituencies the campaigning is targeted at a handful of generally similar social-economic groups, resulting in an entire election, where some 30 million people may vote, being decided by a core of perhaps only 40-50,000 electors.
As a result, political discourse will tend towards policy convergence - such as the pursuit of economic growth and environmental degradation - as each party seeks to deliver the same small, middle class constituency. Radicalism can take a running jump.
The main beneficiaries of this more targeted campaigning have been the Liberal Democrats, though in effect the party is more accurately playing ‘catch-up’ with the two main parties. When the Liberal Democrats secured over one quarter of the popular vote in 1983 (following the Labour Party split) they secured just 23 seats (3.5%).
Back then. Liberal Democrat support was widespread and deep, but the scatter-gun campaign approach ensured they were crucified in the final analysis. Since that low point (or that ‘high’ point in popular vote terms), better targeted campaigns have begun to yield more seats for each increase in share of popular vote, despite the collapse in support in 1992. In 2005, each percent of popular vote for the Lib Dems yielded 2.76 (*adjusted for change in number of total Westminster seats) seats. In 1979 that figure was just 0.77.
But compare those figures with Labour - 7.00 increasing to 9.91 respectively - and the Conservatives - 7.44 down to 5.98.
This imbalance in seat yield lies at the heart of the problem. On the basis of the 2005 election, the Conservatives need to improve their yield by some 61%, whilst the Liberal Democrats, despite improving their yield by some 255% since 1979, still need to improve it by the improbable figure of 242% to gain power.
In contrast, the Australian Labor Party, to win the next election, needs to improve its yield by just 28% to gain power in Canberra. (Though direct comparison is impossible, as this figure is based on the two-party preferred count.)
Without institutional change, tactical voting has become the most widespread grassroots answer to the weaknesses in the UK system. Studies have shown that approximately 9% of all votes cast in 2001 were of a tactical nature and that level is even higher in seats prone to tactical voting. As a result, it is probably the case that the measure of popular vote registered at election bears little resemblance to the true level of support for political parties.
Minority parties don’t get a look in. They have little chance of securing a seat, let alone forming government despite having reasonable levels of community support. It is testament to the grassroots work of Liberal Democrat campaigners that a third party has managed to survive UK’s biased system.
Where is the incentive to vote when there is a good chance it will make no difference?
Tactical voting is not the answer. It is an overtly negative act, explicitly geared towards keeping one party out, rather than voting another party in. Tactical voting is also risky for the elector and difficult to communicate effectively, leading to confusion. A Labour candidate in New Forest West wishing to return a Labour government would be criticised for standing on the hustings and telling her supporters to vote Liberal. And of course, if that candidate did not stand, there would be lack of voter choice and no prospect of Labour activists garnering future support.
But most of all many electors are just reluctant to cast their ballot for a non-preferred candidate, considering it a cynical act of betrayal: their values get in the way.
Electoral systems are about delivering a government for all electors. UK’s system currently only delivers voter disillusionment and the tyranny of the largest minority.
Time for PR?
Posted by Living with Matilda at 2:19 PM
Though the turnout held up, this was no doubt thanks to the widespread use of postal ballots. Some 8 million of the 27 million ballots were cast through the mail, but still approximately 4 in 10 adults did not bother at all.
There are many reasons for this disillusionment, not least because voters are perennially disillusioned with their political leaders; the current bunch is really no worse than any other in recent history. But perhaps more worryingly is a growing belief that the UK electoral system is failing to deliver a government that reflects the general will of the people. This is – after all – an election’s primary function.
Tony Blair’s absolute majority has been won with just 35.2% of the popular vote, only 2.9% more than the main opposition. At 66, this majority is quite enough to force through all but the most controversial of legislative programs. Is a system as skewed as this, unfair?
The first point to be made is that, yes, it is unfair. The second point to be made is that the 2005 general election has really been no more or less unfair than any other election since 1945.
The graph below plots the government majority yielded by the margin of popular vote share in general elections, since 1945. The 2005 election sits a little below the best-fit line, indicating that Labour got reasonable value for money for their share of the vote, but nothing unusual.
UK’s electoral system – first passed the post from a single preference – is designed to deliver ‘strong government’. A political party can win an absolute majority of seats from a relatively small margin in the popular vote. It can also deliver minority governments; the 1951 Conservative win was secured on less votes than Labour.
There are numerous consequences of such a system.
Firstly, the incumbent government will never be inclined to change the system, as it would be reluctant to loosen its own grip on power. Only if a government was faced with catastrophic meltdown at the polls would it consider a more proportional power sharing system to its advantage. Reform is therefore rarely on the agenda.
Secondly, elections tend to be won or lost in only a handful of seats (perhaps 50 or so ‘marginals’), where the result of the poll is traditionally close. This lends itself to targeted political campaigning, focused on a few seats in key battle areas. And even within these marginal constituencies the campaigning is targeted at a handful of generally similar social-economic groups, resulting in an entire election, where some 30 million people may vote, being decided by a core of perhaps only 40-50,000 electors.
As a result, political discourse will tend towards policy convergence - such as the pursuit of economic growth and environmental degradation - as each party seeks to deliver the same small, middle class constituency. Radicalism can take a running jump.
The main beneficiaries of this more targeted campaigning have been the Liberal Democrats, though in effect the party is more accurately playing ‘catch-up’ with the two main parties. When the Liberal Democrats secured over one quarter of the popular vote in 1983 (following the Labour Party split) they secured just 23 seats (3.5%).
Back then. Liberal Democrat support was widespread and deep, but the scatter-gun campaign approach ensured they were crucified in the final analysis. Since that low point (or that ‘high’ point in popular vote terms), better targeted campaigns have begun to yield more seats for each increase in share of popular vote, despite the collapse in support in 1992. In 2005, each percent of popular vote for the Lib Dems yielded 2.76 (*adjusted for change in number of total Westminster seats) seats. In 1979 that figure was just 0.77.
But compare those figures with Labour - 7.00 increasing to 9.91 respectively - and the Conservatives - 7.44 down to 5.98.
This imbalance in seat yield lies at the heart of the problem. On the basis of the 2005 election, the Conservatives need to improve their yield by some 61%, whilst the Liberal Democrats, despite improving their yield by some 255% since 1979, still need to improve it by the improbable figure of 242% to gain power.
In contrast, the Australian Labor Party, to win the next election, needs to improve its yield by just 28% to gain power in Canberra. (Though direct comparison is impossible, as this figure is based on the two-party preferred count.)
Without institutional change, tactical voting has become the most widespread grassroots answer to the weaknesses in the UK system. Studies have shown that approximately 9% of all votes cast in 2001 were of a tactical nature and that level is even higher in seats prone to tactical voting. As a result, it is probably the case that the measure of popular vote registered at election bears little resemblance to the true level of support for political parties.
Minority parties don’t get a look in. They have little chance of securing a seat, let alone forming government despite having reasonable levels of community support. It is testament to the grassroots work of Liberal Democrat campaigners that a third party has managed to survive UK’s biased system.
Where is the incentive to vote when there is a good chance it will make no difference?
Tactical voting is not the answer. It is an overtly negative act, explicitly geared towards keeping one party out, rather than voting another party in. Tactical voting is also risky for the elector and difficult to communicate effectively, leading to confusion. A Labour candidate in New Forest West wishing to return a Labour government would be criticised for standing on the hustings and telling her supporters to vote Liberal. And of course, if that candidate did not stand, there would be lack of voter choice and no prospect of Labour activists garnering future support.
But most of all many electors are just reluctant to cast their ballot for a non-preferred candidate, considering it a cynical act of betrayal: their values get in the way.
Electoral systems are about delivering a government for all electors. UK’s system currently only delivers voter disillusionment and the tyranny of the largest minority.
Posted by Living with Matilda at 2:19 PM
Disclaimer:
| I am employed by Brisbane City Council. All views expressed in this blog are my own and in no way reflect the views of my employer. |
Weasel Word(s) of the day:
From WeaselWords.com.au
Recent posts:
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home