Debate rages over British electoral system after “unfair” Blair re-election

But the thing about Clinton winning is that he was also the condorcet winner -- paired up he would have beated both Texans, and he would have beaten Bush by an even bigger margin.

I'm sure it would have been the same with Blair. Head to head with either party in each district, they would have done just as well, if not better.

because this is to elect 646 people, not just one. Whereas for president, you have to declare just one person the eventual winner, in a parliament you should be getting a result that divides representatives according to the relative amounts of votes. For president, the choice is whether to count the whole country (eg which would have had Gore win in 2000), or divide it into the states, as the Electoral College does.

But first-past-the-post can produce unequal results in a two party system too - just as the Electoral College can. In February 1974, the Tories got more votes than Labour, but Labour got more seats, and formed the government. As the article says, that happened in the English seats this time. If Tories win their seats by a comfortable margin, and Labour win theirs narrowly, then it doesn't take a third party to get weird results.

It's comparable to the US House of Representatives - in that, the Republicans got about 5% more votes than Democrats, but about 15% more seats.

a big percentage of the vote, you're just not going to get it if you have a strong third party. But that doesn't mean people don't prefer the winner significantly more than the alternatives.

The article is trying to create the perception that Labour doesn't have a mandate in proportion to the seats it has (55%) because it only got 32% of the vote. Republicans said the same thing about Clinton in '92 because he only got 42% (IIRC) of the vote.

Well, Clinton might have gotten 42% of the vote in a race with a strong third party challenge, but there was exit polling in '92 that allowed a Condorcet analysis, and the result of that data was that Clinton was a strong favorite when paired up against Bush and Perot individually. He would have won by an even bigger margin against Bush without Perot in the race, and he blew away Perot head to head. The point is, when you look at the Condorcet data, there's not doubt that people wanted Clinton the most, and there's no chance he wouldn't have won without Perot in the race.

In fact, for every presidential election with exit polling that allows the Condorcet analysis, the winner was also the Condorcet winner with the exception of 2000. Gore was the Condorcet winner.

So, yes, I know how the PM is elected, and appreciate that Labour could win their seates narrowly, while the Republicans could blow out Labour in theirs. But I suspect that Labour would have been the Condorcet winners in each individual district, and I bet the margins would have been wider against the second place finisher if you dropped out the third place finisher, which would have given them a percentage of the vote that matches the seats they have.

I think the focus of this article is misplaced. The problem isn't that labour doesn't have a mandate or legitacy matching the number of seats they have. It's that there a three parties, the third party is relatively, and without Condorcet data it's going to be easy to undermine the legitimacy of the winner, like the Republicans did against Clinton, and it wasn't a legitimate argument against Clinton when you look at the Condorcet data.

in fact.. I had a few friends that know I'm up to date and online asked me about Blairs win.. and I said I dont know yet.. looks ok, but I said to wait for the Brits to take a look at it, and here it comes,... sigh.. :banghead:

They are not talking about fraud. They are talking about electoral system that allows a party to get (without any fraud whatsoever, let's say) 35% of popular vote, yet 55% of the parliament. Think US "electoral college" multiplied by about 12, with gerrymandering of the "states" boundaries thrown in.

There is a prospect of the Conservatives getting power in Canada with about one third of the vote, should Liberal/NDP vote splits go that way (the latter are center to center-left, which generally poll about 50-60% when added together). Canada's case is complicated further by a Quebec only party that has taken a substantial number of seats out of play.

First past the post requires reform, some type of modified proportional representation. But, the party that wins is usually benefiting from its peculiarities at the time, so it is difficult to get change.

This article was published yesterday in The Independent. It showed that the number of seats that Blair won were disproportionally high in relation to the actual number of votes cast.

Electoral reform: Why it's time for change
By Marie Woolf, Chief Political Correspondent
10 May 2005

The Government is facing calls for a wholesale review of the voting system after the general election was condemned as a "travesty of democracy". Politicians from all parties demanded that the first-past-the-post system be scrapped after Labour formed a Government with the smallest share of the vote for more than 100 years.

Constitutional specialists said Tony Blair was in charge of an "elected dictatorship" after Labour was able to win a majority with only 36 per cent of the vote. They say the Prime Minister is able to hold power with the support of just a fifth of the British adult population, the lowest figure since the Great Reform Act of 1832.

A national campaign for voting reform is to kick off this week with public meetings, a vigil outside Downing Street and a petition calling for the Government to look at introducing proportional representation systems similar to those in Scotland, Wales, Ireland and the Continent.

Although the Government privately admits the election result gave PR fresh momentum, the issue is likely to split the Cabinet, with electoral reformers such as Peter Hain and Ruth Kelly favouring a rethink and John Prescott and Ian McCartney sharply against. Many union leaders also fear it will lead to coalition government with the Liberal Democrats, and prevent Labour from governing again with an absolute majority.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=637189

QUOTE:"...but rarely have the voting method’s quirks been more starkly highlighted."

And no, this election does not show FPTP giving the most bizarre results. For that you have to go back to 1951.

http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/uktable.htm

Con 321 seats 48.0 % of the vote
Lab 295 seats 48.8 % of the vote

That was the result back in 1951 when Churchill and the Conservatives formed the government despite picking up less voters then Labour.

FPTP and full-PR are both equally unsuitable. The former seeing a single party win large majorities despite polling much less than 50% of the vote. The latter being unrepresentative of geographical areas and take people away from their connection with their local MP.

There are several proposed systems that fall in-between FPTP and PR (Proportional Representation). These include: Additional Member System; Single Transferable Vote and Alternative Vote Plus.

Personally, I prefer Alternative Vote Plus.

Here are definitions of those systems from http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/publications/briefings/avplus.htm#Key

Additional Member System (AMS): Mixed electoral system in which part of a legislature elected by First Past The Post in single-member constituencies and the remainder of the members are added in such a way as to make the total result as proportionate as possible to the votes cast (subject, in some cases, to certain thresholds). Used in Germany, New Zealand, Wales, and Scotland. Hansard Society's 1976 variant provided for the additional members to be chosen from defeated constituency candidates rather than from party lists.

Alternative Vote (AV): ('Preferential system') System where a person is elected by an absolute majority, usually in single-member constituencies. Voters number candidates in order of preference. The least favoured candidate is eliminated, and second preferences redistributed. Process continues until one candidate has an absolute majority. Used to elect the Australian House of Representatives (lower house).

Alternative Vote Plus (AV+): A form of AMS which uses the Alternative Vote rather than First Past The Post in the constituency contests. Recommended by the Jenkins Commission.

Single Transferable Vote (STV): Preferential voting in multi-member constituencies. Electors rank candidates in order of preference. Candidates achieving Droop Quota are elected, surplus votes redistributed, and if any seats remain unfilled, candidates with lowest number of votes are progressively eliminated until all seats filled (Australian Senate; N Ireland; European and local elections).

and I have to say it works very well. We haven't had single party govt in God knows how long, but we still have pretty stable co-alitions. All parties, and their voters, recognise that there must be compromise.

In my view first past the post is up there with rotten boroughs as an affront to democracy. Most people who voted in the UK elections voted to get rid of Blair and he is returned with a very viable majority.

The greens and other issue driven candidates have no chance of influencing govt.

we are REPUBLICS!!!

The same advocates for P.R. come along after every election and point out that one party has a majority of seats (and thus holds the government) based on a plurality but minority of the vote.

by smaller parties such as the Liberal Democrats and the Greens who are simply hoping they can pick up more seats under PR and maybe join a coalition government.

At the present time the party who would benefit most from PR is actually the BNP, who picked up a lot of votes at the election but fortunately failed to win any seats.

they got 0.74% of the UK vote, which under any cutoff you care to use would not get them close to having an MP. It is true that they came close in the last European elections, but that just highlights why they must be fought on the issues, not defeated through an undemocratic voting apparatus which also excludes many genuinely progressive parties.

they got about 3-4% of the vote. If they had been standing nationally under a PR system they would most certainly have a few seats. The BNP did poll higher then the UKIP after all, who have plenty of MEP's. It's thanks to PR that we have Robert Kilroy-Silk in Strasbourg.

As it is the best the BNP could do was third in Barking with 16.9% of the vote. And under first past the post the candidate with the most votes wins. However much I may not like Margret Hodge I'd much rather have her as the MP for Barking then the BNP candidate.

I mean, maybe they did in a few seats, but not regionally speaking... UKIP got 3 times the vote nationally that the BNP did.

In Sheffield Hallam where I grew up people have a bit of sense and the BNP only got 469 votes, UKIP polled 438. That's one of the better results. In Basildon (which I've already mentioned) the BNP polled 2055 over the 1143 votes UKIP received. You can find similar results in plenty of places, some more worrying then others.

If UKIP got a higher total, then I suspect it's because they might have been standing in more seats then the BNP. What is interesting though, is that more often then not where you have UKIP standing you don't have BNP and vice versa. Are the far right loonies collaborating?

5.4% in Blackburn (Jack Straw's place)

10.3% in Burnley

6.2% in Hyndburn (Accrington etc)

3.9% in Rossendale & Darwen

It's probably no coincidence that they're all places that have quite high unemployment rates (being ex-industrial towns) & high Asian populations (who get a lot of shit & blame off the locals - I know as I live in Burnley & used to live in Blackburn). They're also quite safe Labour seats, which may be another factor.

firstly there is the "we can't introduce democracy because people we don't like might get elected"!

Well, that's the point of democracy isn't it. If the BNP vote is allowed to build to 16% somewhere, then there are clearly big problems on the ground (poverty, education, employment etc) that are not being addressed. And they're not addressed because 16% doesn't get you a seat.

So the problem continues to grow until next thing you know, there's rioting on the streets.

but looked at regionally, the BNP are not much of a threat - they can get OK votes in isolated seats, but I don't think they could muster enough to get an MP across a whole area of the country. Obviously this depends on the size of the regions and so on - I am not denying the possibility of a threat (we must above all not be complacent about the BNP, and we have to defeat them both on the issues and by combatting the disaffection and apathy that they thrive on), I just think its being used as a convinient bogeyman by Labour to help justify the joke that this first past the post system is (incidentally, I don't support full PR, I would like to see a mixture of the two).

I disagree that the link between MP and constituency is important. I've never met an MP for my area in my life (the only one I have met happens to be a neighbour of my parents). The purpose of an MP's surgery seems to be to allow people to moan about things which aren't really much to to with national legislation - it's just a way of getting someone with a little bit of importance to listen to you. It's not as if MPs ever do a survey of their constituents to find out their overall feelings - if they do do anything, it will be oiling the squeaky wheels. A system of regions with several MPs would still allow some sense of "that's my MP" - and mean you could choose one more likely to see your point of view.

The point about manifesto commitments is a better one. It would be even better if Labour had kept to theirs when they won a large majority, of course - like this gem from the 1997 manifesto: "We are committed to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. An independent commission on voting systems will be appointed early to recommend a proportional alternative to the first-past-the-post system." They held a commission, and have down absolutely nothing since then. Referendum? Hah, that was just an election manifesto promise - you didn't expect us to really do it, did you?

The rest of the article boils down to "Yar, boo, sucks - we won, you didn't, so shut up" and "The British like authoritarian government - we'll have no talk of compromise. There's nothing for you here."

"First, every MP represents a clearly defined geographical area, and the communities and individuals within it. The responsibility is direct and personal."

Some of the constituencies here are quite large geographical areas, but the parties divide them up into sub sections. So if a party has 2 or 3 representatives (or even potential representatives) in a 5 seat constituency (quite likely) they will have responsibility for different parts of the constituency.

I live in a very small village and have never met my TD (mp) but all the local shops have signs up saying that she will be in her local office on the last Thursday of the month. (She will be in other villages on different weeks). I walk past the office almost every day and yes there are signs of business on the day in question. And every one knows where the office is as there are big signs, so there is no chance that you would find it difficult to contact her.

"The second strength of first past the post is that by producing governments with clear majorities"- it is these very large majorities that let Mrs Thatcher do her worst, and Tony Blair get away with completely ignoring the wishes of the electorate.

How exactly does a party which only receives 35% of the vote constitute a "strong majority"? Jack Straw needs to take a math class.

when the party tells its MPs how to vote, and they all obey. This is what the Tories did under Thatcher, and what most of the Labour party do under Blair. The secret is government patronage - since the Prime Minster has over 100 paid positions to hand out to his MPs (which also give advancement to more powerful positions), there's a lot of pressure on MPs to toe the line. The awkward squad tend to be the MPs who have given up thoughts of becoming a government minister themselves.

I disagree that the link between MP and constituency is important. I've never met an MP for my area in my life (the only one I have met happens to be a neighbor of my parents). The purpose of an MP's surgery seems to be to allow people to moan about things which aren't really much to to with national legislation - it's just a way of getting someone with a little bit of importance to listen to you. It's not as if MPs ever do a survey of their constituents to find out their overall feelings - if they do do anything, it will be oiling the squeaky wheels. A system of regions with several MPs would still allow some sense of "that's my MP" - and mean you could choose one more likely to see your point of view.

Well I've met Richard Allen, the former MP for Sheffield Hallam when I was up there, and I do occasionally bump into Eric Pickles, the MP for Brentwood & Ongar on my lunch break (he always seems startled by my Sheffield Wednesday beanie hat!). As to my current MP, well I only missed getting buttonholed by him at Maldon Beer Festival this year by one hour!

As to MP's surgeries, I think that you would have to attend one and see for yourself in order to find out about them. I'm quite sure you could badger your MP about ID cards and the like at one of those.

Given the experience of the Euro elections, I would have to disagree with you on this one. People simply don't know who to turn to and here in Chelmsford are most likely to turn to the UK Independence Party, who have offices in this town. And as we all know, they are not the best people to turn to if you want something constructive done at Strasbourg. At least under the old system people knew who their MEP was! I do at least know who my MP is and who I should write to at Westminster, and that includes writing about local issues too, which I'm not sure that you could deal with as effectively in a system of regions.

plurality or 'first past the post' electoral system. Proportional representation is much fairer, but it also creates unstable governments (Italy is the best such example).
Established parties manipulate the system and ensure that the number of constituencies bring in the required seats (MPs) so it hardly matters if a third party wins a large constituency. It's number of MPs that count.
A mixed system is really the best option, although none of these system really benefit the majority of the people. They merely protect special interests.
<edit> addition to sentence.

because of the way the boundaries are currently drawn- whilst the Tories have commited themselves in a big way to supporting FPTP as a matter of principle (in so far as they have any). Plus both parties are concerned about the possibility of making the Lib Dems perpetual power-brokers in parliament.