Britain's Democracy Doesn't Add Up.

"Parliament doesn't truly represent how the country voted"

There's a glaring unfairness in the acclaimed British democratic system. How so? The system gives voters in specific seats more power.

Let's break it down: Reform UK, led by Nigel Farage, won five seats this week with some 14% of the total vote cast, or four million votes. Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats won 61 seats with a 12% vote share. It's a system that doesn't quite add up. 

And it gets worse. Sinn Fein had a 0.7 per cent vote share yet secured seven seats. Below is a breakdown by party.

• Labour Party: 35 per cent vote share, 412 seats
• Conservative Party: 24 per cent vote share, 121 seats
• Liberal Democrats: 12 per cent vote share, 71 seats
• Reform UK: 14 per cent vote share, four seats
• Green Party: 7 per cent vote share, four seats
• Scottish National Party: 2 per cent vote share, nine seats
• Sinn Fein: 0.7 per cent vote share, seven seats
• Plaid Cymru: 0.7 per cent vote share, four seats
  
  

The British "first past the post" (FPTP)  system creates this result based on parties winning a majority in one of the 650 constituencies. The voters are faced with the simple option of picking one candidate.

The party that reaches 326 seats, just over half of the available seats, then gets to form the government after the King invites them to do so.

If no party hits 326, a coalition may form and earn the right to rule, subject to the King's invitation. 

The result of this system is a disconnect between a party's share of the seats in parliament and the share of the vote they received. In other words, parliament doesn't truly represent how the country voted. This can leave many feeling unrepresented.

As the number of MPs a party gets doesn't match their level of support with the public, it can be challenging for the public to hold the government to account. 

Still, the FPTP usually allows parties to form a government independently and tends to generate a two-party system. Significantly, it also has two other impacts: the creation of "safe seats" and "swing seats".

Safe seats, which have a low chance of changing hands, mean that there is no point in campaigning. Hence, parties focus on the swing seats that could change hands, making these areas the battlegrounds of the election.

As a result, the manifestos come shaped to appeal to voters in swing seats and the parties spend the majority of their funds campaigning in them. Voters who live in safe seats may feel ignored by politicians, as the focus is on swing seats that could change hands.

Arguably, the FPTP system provides for strong governance by having a clear winner who is not beholden to the whims of other parties in a coalition. In addition, the FPTP system reinforces the individual MP's connection to the constituency.

What is the alternative? Over 100 countries use either proportional representation or a mixed system to elect their parliament. Less than 50 use the FPTP system, and most of these are former British colonies that adopted the Westminster model.

​However, Australia did away with FPTP in 1918, Ireland in 1922, South Africa in 1994, Tanzania in 1995, and New Zealand in 1996.

How would this week's result look, if Britain adopted some form of proportional representational?
​

• Labour Party: 212 seats (not an outright majority)
• Conservative Party: 156 seats
• Liberal Democrats: 78 seats
• Reform UK: 91 seats
• Green Party: 47 seats
• Scottish National Party: 13 seats
• Plaid Cymru: six seats
• Others and Independents: 47 seats

(These are rough calculations to illustrate a point)

The FPTP system has served the two big parties well, and they've seen no reason to change. Likewise, the public enjoys the ability to punish a governing party by throwing them out for their failures. The Conservatives felt that hammer blow this week. 

Yet, there is an undercurrent of change sweeping through the British political scene, as witnessed in the success of Reform UK. This relatively new party with little infrastructure significantly damaged the Conservatives and came second to Labour in some 90 seats.

In many instances, that was a close second in traditional Labour strongholds. This shift in the political landscape, coupled with the success of smaller parties, could pave the way for a serious discussion on electoral reform. 

The Greens and Reform UK would benefit from some form of PR system. However, it remains to be seen if these two parties will find common ground to push for change. Nonetheless, I do not doubt Farage will now press home the point on PR, questioning the legitimacy of Labour's win and advocating for a more inclusive electoral system. 

Voter turn out was 60 per cent, which just above the record low seen in 2001 (recorded since 1918). Widespread disillusionment with politicians, politics and the need to bring some form of identify document to the vote, all likely contributed to the low turnout. So, while Labour won a resounding victory, 80 per cent of voters, including those who abstained, didn't vote for Starmer and his crew.

In truth, no electoral system is perfect, and each one produces anomalies that distort the vote. Nonetheless, we saw a smooth transfer of power without the shenanigans that afflict other places.

The peaceful transition left TV commentators struggling to fill airtime as they covered Richie Sunak's arrival at Buckingham Palace to get the headmaster's permission to stand down. Bereft of anything to say, the Sky TV Royal correspondent observed the well-raked gravel in the courtyard and the crunching sound of tyres.

​I suppose that is preferable to gun shots and rioters storming buildings. 

​Addendum.

I'm grateful to a reader who took the time to crunch some numbers. He points out that only 96 candidates won their seats with 50% or more of the vote. In effect that means that in 554 constituencies, the majority of voters did not vote for the person who subsequently became their MP.

As he asserts, "Kind of goes against the 'majority rule' tenet of democracy!"