The last general election in 2010 created the first coalition government since the Second World War and this wasn’t due to a grievous threat from overseas, instead some academics have determined that it is down to British electoral system becoming broken.
The current system, ‘first past the post’, has been credited with producing strong governments because of its supposed ability to guarantee an outright winner with a majority in Parliament. However, the previous election demonstrated that this may no longer be the case.
John Curtice, a professor of politics at the University of Strathclyde, has since argued that the electoral system is broken. He believes that the system is no longer effective at denying third parties votes and is now significantly less effective than it once was at denying them seats. This is obvious when looking at the increase in seats the Liberal Democrats have gained over the past 20 years. In 2010, the Liberal Democrats received 23 percent of votes cast amounting to 57 seats, which was a vast improvement on 1992 where the party only secured 20 seats from 18 percent of the vote.
Curtice also notes even further problems. He believes that the process fails to treat the two largest parties in an even handed manner, with the Labour party having a major advantage of only needing a three point lead to guarantee a majority and the Conservatives needing something closer to an eleven point lead over their opponents.
Both these two problems suggest that the ‘first past the post’ electoral system has now failed to deliver what has always been considered its greatest characteristic, an overall majority. For the future election in 2015, the fear of another coalition is ever growing due to the increasing support for UKIP and the Scottish National Party as well as the failure of Labour or the Conservatives to make any headway with voters – A recent ICM Wisdom Poll showed both parties were level when voters predicted that both Labour and the Tories will win 31 per cent of the vote.
As an alternative many have pointed to an electoral system based on proportional representation. This term characterises electoral systems where divisions in the electorate are reflected proportionately in the elected body. For example, if 40% of the electorate support a particular political party then roughly 40% of seats will be won by that party.
However, the main criticism of proportional representation is that it regularly produces coalition governments. The main examples for this are in Europe where countries such as Germany and Belgium are in constant coalition. However, in Scotland the devolved parliament in 2011 created an outright winner despite using a form of proportional representation, the Alternative Member System. The primary reason in Scotland for having such a system was to guarantee coalitions, but the SNP secured an overall majority winning 69 of the 128 seats at in the Scottish Parliament. Thus, it is clear that proportional representation could in fact deliver stronger governments in a much more proportional electoral system.
In 2011, the United Kingdom had a referendum to change to a form of proportional representation, the Alternative Vote. Under this system voters place candidates in order of preference and in the event no candidate secures over half of the first preference vote, the votes cast for those candidates with fewest votes are eliminated and redistributed until one candidate has 50 percent of the vote. However, the referendum was defeated by nearly 68% of voters and the UK has continued using first past the post. This implies that the electorate may not think that the current electoral system is broken.
Others have argued that this may be down to a fear within the voting public to move away from the status quo. The Electoral System Referendum appears to be just one example where voters in the United Kingdom have rejected a departure from the existing state of affairs.
The first major referendum held throughout the country was the United Kingdom European Communities Membership Referendum in 1975. This was an ‘in/out’ vote to determine whether the country should remain part of the European Economic Community. The electorate expressed significant support to remain a member of the EEC with 67 percent in favour. Another example, though much closer, was the Scottish Independent referendum last year. Voters were asked if Scotland should be an independent country, to which 55 percent answered ‘no’.
However, referendums that asked whether there should be devolution of powers from Westminster to create a national parliament or assembly in Scotland and Wales in 1997 were supportive of going against the status quo. Scotland voted 74.7% in favour of the creation of a devolved parliament whereas Wales just voted in favour of a national assembly with 50.3% of the vote.
It seems clear, from these examples, that though there are calls for big changes within British society for an alternative electoral system or whether the nation should remain intact, the electorate of the United Kingdom has voted in favour of the status quo. However, there are cases where referendums have voted against the norm in the form of devolution of powers to Scotland and Wales. Consequently, it can be concluded that UK referendums do tend to stick with the status quo, but they do not do so invariably.
My Opinion 