As we move into the second decade of the 21st century,
it is barely conceivable that the UK persists with an electoral system that has
long since ceased to be fit for purpose. Alone among the major developed
nations on the globe, we operate a winner-takes-all model that has consistently
failed to deliver good government and has led to the dangerous disengagement of
the voting public (which, ironically, has made change even less likely, leading
to greater disengagement etc etc …).
The arguments about the unfairness of first past the post (FPTP)
are well rehearsed.
An electoral system is meant to represent the intentions of
the voting public and to deliver a legislature and executive that reflects the
diverse opinions that one expects to find in an advance liberal democracy. FPTP
clearly does not do this. It is possible – and is indeed commonplace – for a
party to achieve a minority of the popular vote but a majority of the seats. Referencing
the majority thereby obtained, the winning party is able to claim a mandate where
one has not been delivered by the public vote.
What if a proportional system allows smaller parties whose
views we may find repellent a seat at the table? Surely that is what
representative democracy demands and a mature liberal democracy should be able
to cope with those minority dissenting voices, rather than hiding behind a distorting
electoral system that allows those parties to claim the moral high ground.
FPTP leads to distorted geographical representation, since
party support is commonly correlated with geography. So, for example, and
putting the matter at its most simplistic, Labour voters in rural areas and
Conservative voters in urban areas are likely to feel unrepresented in parliament.
Indeed, an extension of this is the fact that in the UK it
is estimated that at least half the seats in each election are safe seats – ie they
are seats that never change hands. This may well lead to the parties that hold such
seats becoming complacent – whether or not they continue to hold the seat has
very little to do with how well they have represented their constituents.
And it means too that voters in those seats who do not
support the ‘ruling party’ come to believe that theirs is a wasted vote. They
will never get the chance to influence which party forms the next government
(most elections are decided in just a handful of seats – and parties’ electoral
efforts are very much focussed on those few areas). Again, in terms of public engagement
with the political process, the effect has been hugely negative.
With electoral outcomes concentrated in so few areas, and depending
on so few voters, it has made the manipulation of that outcome far too easy for
those with the intent and resources to do so.
But the most important reason why FPTP is so damaging to our
politics is that is massively distorts the make-up of our political parties and
leads to a profoundly dishonest relationship between the major political
parties and the electorate they are meant to represent. Let me explain.
Each time we enter a general election in the UK, it is an almost
absolute certainty that only one of two parties is going to form the next
government. Under FPTP with its inbuilt biases and winner-take-all nature, that
is as near to a guarantee as is possible. Every 100 years or so, there is some
realignment in our politics that leads to one of the Big Two being replaced.
So, unless you are one of the Big Two, then you start off as an also-ran – with
no hope of forming the next government.
So, it pays dividends to be a part of one of the Big Two –
and a lot of dedication to stand aside and support one of the “smaller”
parties. If you are not in the Big Two, then you are not going to be in government
– however good your ideas, however hard you work, however dedicated your
campaign teams. It just isn’t going to happen. You need to join one of the
major parties.
And what this has led to is our two main parties becoming
unnatural coalitions – of diverse and contrary interest groups that have no
business belonging to the same party. How did Jeremy Corbyn and Tony Blair end
up in the same party? Kenneth Clarke and Mark Francois? They are marriages of convenience
– though the convenience is entirely that of the ruling parties and not the people
they are meant to represent. Come together and you have a chance of taking
power, and if you take power, you have a chance to make the changes that you
believe are important. But that means sharing your bed with some very strange bedfellows.
A lot of the time, this may be workable. You will agree with
your colleagues on some issues, and not on others. At times you may have to
hold your nose, but in general it is a price you believe is worth paying. But in
any case you have to present a united front to the electorate where one very
often does not exist - particularly when it comes to the issues that most profoundly
affect the country.
This was brought into sharp relief during the Brexit debate.
On issues of such profound importance, it would be natural to assume that
parties formed by a coherent political philosophy would be able to unite behind
a common position. But both Labour and Conservatives were divided right down
the middle – a not unexpected outcome given that parties exist in their current
form only to win elections, not united by common values. The two-party system allows
for no “Big Ideas” –such a diverse range of politicians cannot possibly unite
behind a single unifying idea. And so we have uninspired and uninspiring
government. Government for government’s sake.
The fact that the Big Two are unnatural coalitions leads to
a profoundly dishonest relationship with the electorate. You have only the choice
to vote Labour or Conservative. You are not give the option in your
constituency of voting for a Corbyn-flavoured Labour rather than the Blair-flavoured
option, or for a One Nation Tory rather than the ERG wing of the party. You can
vote Labour or Conservative if you wish to affect the outcome of the election –
but you have very little idea with what you will end up, even if your party
wins the election. Manifestos are becoming increasingly irrelevant and,
post-election, everything is up for grabs. Most of those who voted Tory because
they believed in Theresa May (ok, a bad example …) had no say in her
replacement a year later with a politician of a very different hue, who was
selected by his party members.
We are often told that FTTP delivers us stable government –
and frees us of the dreaded coalitions that our continental neighbours have had
to endure. And yet in the last five years
(with its three elections), and indeed for much longer, we have been landed
with profoundly divided governments that have been unable to govern. And voters
have been forced to choose between a dishonest coalitions of one of the Big Two
rather than to vote as their conscience allows.
Propositional representation would engage voters once again.
Instead of elections being decided by a handful of voters in a handful of
seats, every vote would matter. Voters would be able to vote for parties that had
been honest with them about what they stood for, safe in the knowledge that they
no longer had to obfuscate and form unnatural alliances with those whose values
they did not share. And politicians would be forced to engage in a different kind
of politics, with the nation’s wishes being truly represented in the national
parliament.
Politics would become honest once again and elections would
reflect the national mood. What’s not to like?
No comments:
Post a Comment