« How the FPTP constituency section has operated | Main | MVC's response to the election of a BNP Assembly Member »
May 03, 2008
Conclusions from the London elections
The London elections fit into a wider pattern of successful preferential and proportional elections held in the UK. The Government’s own Review of Voting Systems (published Jan 2008) found that:
• “One of the main benefits of PR is that voters have a greater degree of choice in elections and a greater chance of their vote counting in terms of who gets elected.” (para 6.169)
• “We do not find, on balance, any evidence to suggest that voters find one voting system easier or more confusing than another voting system.” (para 6.170)
• “Proportional systems were found, on international comparison, to be associated with higher voter turnout than First Past the Post and other majoritarian systems.” (para 7.97)
The evidence from 1 May’s London Mayoral and Assembly elections would seem to concur with these findings:
Almost half of Londoners who voted cast one of their preferences for the winning mayoral candidate, and almost 90% had one of their votes count towards the overall result in the final round.
86% of Londoners who voted, did so for a party that gained seat(s) on the London Assembly. Nearly 9 in 10 voters are now represented by at least one London Assembly Member from a party they voted for.
The number of rejected votes – and especially wrongly filled in or spoilt ballot papers –was much lower than in 2004. Voters were not confused by the different ballot papers or voting systems used. Spoilage rates for the mayoral and the assembly list ballots were exactly the same, and the FPTP constituency section marginally higher.
Turnout was 10% higher than the local elections held in other parts of the country on the same day. While the very competitive and high profile mayoral race has much to do with the increased turnout, both compared to 2004 and to the local elections, the impact of the voting systems is also a factor.
Posted by malcolmclark on May 03, 2008
Comments
I suppose nothing will be lost if I copy to this blog the gist of the comment I put under Martin Kettle's article in the Guardian.
**********Nice to see that someone else at least recognises what should be the fundamental matter for concern - not just about who is going to win the next general election, but about politics in general - THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM.
All the commentators have climbed onto the hysterical bandwagon screaming about the huge difference that now arises between the small support for Tweedlle Dum as against that for Tweedle Dee. This happens every few years, and in a few years all the hoo-ha will be about the smallness of the vote for Tweedle Dee. What they do not mention is the absolutely crazy first-past-the-post electoral system. Much less does anyone mention the fact that in the 1997 manifesto the Labour party committed itself to a referendum on a change to PR, a change which all the evidence shows would have received majority support.
But when Labour won the huge 179 seats phoney overall majority (with the support of a mere 31% of the total electorate) the tribalists took over and the referendum was cynically abandoned. (In this regard it is interesting to note that a Tory complainant has won a judicial review of the failure by the government to hold a referendum on the EU "constitution"; but of course never a squeak out of anyone about the cynically abandoned 1997 commitment to an infinitely more important referendum on the electoral system).
Neither does any commentator point out that even with 44% of the electorate (as supposedly revealed by the present local elections) the Tories would still be a MINORITY elective dictatorship exercised by a battering ram overall majority totally unrelated to the vote, and therefore to the will of the electorate. ; and that the main left-of-centre has 49%, while the total left-of-centre has over half of all votes cast.
And let us not forget the astonishing fact that in the UK - an alleged democracy - we at present have a government which nearly 80% of the total electorate DID NOT SUPPORT. (and which had the support of a mere 36% of those who actually turned out to vote). Mugabe could certainly learn a thing or two!
I do not think there is time to introduce any kind of PR before the next election. It might be possible to introduce AV (which might represent more faithfully the weight of left-of-centre opinion) since boundary changes would not be involved. AV could be a platform for the introduction of the proportional STV; but would the party tribalists ever allow this?? If the Tories get back at the next election we can say goodbye to any kind of reform for the foreseeable future.*****************
Posted by: Joe Patterson at May 3, 2008 12:18 PM
We're democrats and believe in free speech, but we're also committed to civil and rational debate. We reserve the right to delete material posted to our site, but we hope and expect to exercise this right rarely if at all.
