Electoral Systems and Voting in the United

Kingdom 1st Edition Chris Robinson pdf download

https://ebookgate.com/product/electoral-systems-and-voting-in-the-united-kingdom-1st-edition-chris-
robinson/

★★★★★ 4.6/5.0 (40 reviews) ✓ 70 downloads ■ TOP RATED

"Amazing book, clear text and perfect formatting!" - John R.

DOWNLOAD EBOOK
 Electoral Systems and Voting in the United Kingdom 1st
Edition Chris Robinson pdf download

TEXTBOOK EBOOK EBOOK GATE

Available Formats

■ PDF eBook Study Guide TextBook

EXCLUSIVE 2025 EDUCATIONAL COLLECTION - LIMITED TIME

INSTANT DOWNLOAD VIEW LIBRARY

Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) available
Download now and explore formats that suit you...

Making Democracy Count How Mathematics Improves Voting

Electoral Maps and Representation 1st Edition Ismar Voli■

https://ebookgate.com/product/making-democracy-count-how-mathematics-
improves-voting-electoral-maps-and-representation-1st-edition-ismar-
volic/
ebookgate.com

Implementing Change in Health Systems Market Reforms in

the United Kingdom Sweden and The Netherlands 1st Edition
Dr. Michael I. Harrison
https://ebookgate.com/product/implementing-change-in-health-systems-
market-reforms-in-the-united-kingdom-sweden-and-the-netherlands-1st-
edition-dr-michael-i-harrison/
ebookgate.com

Food Policy in the United Kingdom An Introduction

Earthscan Food and Agriculture 1st Edition Caraher

https://ebookgate.com/product/food-policy-in-the-united-kingdom-an-
introduction-earthscan-food-and-agriculture-1st-edition-caraher/

ebookgate.com

Union and Empire The Making of the United Kingdom in 1707

1st Edition Allan I. Macinnes

https://ebookgate.com/product/union-and-empire-the-making-of-the-
united-kingdom-in-1707-1st-edition-allan-i-macinnes/

ebookgate.com
Deserving Citizenship Citizenship Tests in Germany the
Netherlands and the United Kingdom 1st Edition Ricky Van
Oers
https://ebookgate.com/product/deserving-citizenship-citizenship-tests-
in-germany-the-netherlands-and-the-united-kingdom-1st-edition-ricky-
van-oers/
ebookgate.com

The Ballad of a Thin Man In Search of Ryan Larkin 1st

Edition Chris Robinson

https://ebookgate.com/product/the-ballad-of-a-thin-man-in-search-of-
ryan-larkin-1st-edition-chris-robinson/

ebookgate.com

Directions in Australian Electoral Reform Professionalism

and Partisanship in Electoral Management 1st Edition Norm
Kelly
https://ebookgate.com/product/directions-in-australian-electoral-
reform-professionalism-and-partisanship-in-electoral-management-1st-
edition-norm-kelly/
ebookgate.com

Electric Power Systems in Transition 1st Edition Olivia E.

Robinson

https://ebookgate.com/product/electric-power-systems-in-
transition-1st-edition-olivia-e-robinson/

ebookgate.com

Finding a role the United Kingdom 1970 1990 1. publ. in

pbk Edition Harrison

https://ebookgate.com/product/finding-a-role-the-united-
kingdom-1970-1990-1-publ-in-pbk-edition-harrison/

ebookgate.com
 P O L I T I C S S T U D Y G U I D E S

in the United Kingdom

Electoral Systems and Voting
Series Editor: Duncan Watts Electoral Systems
This is a series of well-written, accessible introductions to key areas of Politics courses
taught at both A-level/Highers and first-year undergraduate level.
Each book is structured in the same way, with each chapter consisting of the following:
and Voting in the
•
•
•
A short boxed paragraph of introduction, setting out the broad area to be explored
A brief conclusion summarising what you should have learnt
A glossary of key terms
United Kingdom
• Sample examination questions
•
•
Helpful websites
Suggestions for further reading
Chris Robinson
The emphasis is on responding to student needs by producing up-to-date material
written in a user-friendly style.

Electoral Systems and Voting in the

United Kingdom
Chris Robinson
A key feature of the New Labour government’s constitutional reform agenda has been the
introduction of a number of alternative methods of voting for both existing elections and for
those to new political institutions. This lively, up-to-date book examines the workings of these
various systems of elections, looking specifically at how they operate within the United
Kingdom and their direct impact on representation and governance. It also considers voting
behaviour in the UK, with reference to the context of the electoral system being used. It
concludes by exploring the extent to which the introduction and operation of different
electoral systems has affected voter behaviour.
Key features:
• Integrates the theory and practice of elections in the UK
• Recognises the national and regional diversity of the subject matter
• Reflects the needs of students studying different parts of the UK Chris Robinson
Chris Robinson is a teacher of A Level Government and Politics at Wyke Sixth Form College,
Hull. He is author of Voting Behaviour and Electoral Systems (1998), AS Government and
Politics: Student Guide to Unit 1 (2008) and AS Government and Politics: Student Guide to
Unit 2 (2008).

Cover design by: River Design, Edinburgh

Edinburgh University Press
22 George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9LF barcode
Edinburgh

www.euppublishing.com
ISBN 978 0 7486 2750 9

P O L I T I C S S T U D Y G U I D E S
 Electoral Systems and
Voting in the United Kingdom

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd i 15/6/10 10:05:51

 Books in the Politics Study Guides series

British Government and Politics: A Comparative Guide

Duncan Watts
International Politics: An Introductory Guide
Alasdair Blair
US Government and Politics: Second Edition
William Storey
Britain and the European Union
Alistair Jones
The Changing Constitution
Kevin Harrison and Tony Boyd
Democracy in Britain
Matt Cole
Devolution in the United Kingdom
Russell Deacon and Alan Sandry
Electoral Systems and Voting in the United Kingdom
Chris Robinson
The Judiciary, Civil Liberties and Human Rights
Steven Foster
Political Communication
Steven Foster
Political Parties in Britain
Matt Cole
The Politics of Northern Ireland
Joanne McEvoy
Pressure Groups
Duncan Watts
The Prime Minister and Cabinet
Stephen Buckley
The UK Parliament
Moyra Grant
The American Presidency
Duncan Watts

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd ii 15/6/10 10:05:51

 Electoral Systems and
Voting in the
United Kingdom

Chris Robinson

Edinburgh University Press

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd iii 15/6/10 10:05:51

 © Chris Robinson, 2010

Edinburgh University Press Ltd

22 George Square, Edinburgh
www.euppublishing.com

Typeset in 11/13pt Monotype Baskerville by

Servis Filmsetting Ltd, Stockport, Cheshire, and
printed and bound in Great Britain by
CPI Antony Rowe, Chippenham and Eastbourne

A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 978 0 7486 2750 9 (paperback)

The right of Chris Robinson to be identified as author of

this work has been asserted in accordance with the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Published with the support of the Edinburgh

University Scholarly Publishing Initiatives Fund.

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd iv 15/6/10 10:05:51

 Contents

List of boxes viii

List of tables ix
List of figures xi

1 Introduction 1
Background 2
Changes in voting behaviour 2
Government responses 3
Aims of the book 4

2 The Plurality System 8

The system explained 9
Assessment of the system 9
The effects on the parties 12
The implications of this system for representation and
governance 13
The views of the political parties 19

3 Majoritarian Systems 26
Introduction 27
The supplementary vote 27
Case study: the election of the London Mayor 29
The alternative vote 35
Case study: elections to the Australian House of
Representatives 37
The second ballot 42
Case study: French presidential elections 44

4 Proportional Systems 50
The party list system 53
Case study: elections in Israel 55
Case study: UK elections to the European Parliament 57
The single transferable vote 63
Case study: elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly 67

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd v 15/6/10 10:05:51

 vi Electoral Systems and Voting in the United Kingdom

The additional member system 74

Elections to the Welsh Assembly 76
Case study: elections in Germany 77
Case study: elections to the Scottish Parliament 81
AV+ Variation on a theme 84
Proportional representation – a summary 85

5 Voting in UK General Elections 90

General elections: the big picture 91
Voting in the 1950s and 1960s 92
Explaining voting behaviour 1950–70 97
Electoral trends after 1970 105
Explaining political volatility after 1970 108

6 Voting in Scotland 120

Background 121
Voting in Scottish parliamentary elections 125
Comparing Westminster and Holyrood elections 125
The performance of political parties 131
The impact of the additional member system 134

7 Voting in Wales 139

Background 140
Voting in Welsh Assembly elections 143
Comparing Westminster and Cardiff elections 144
The performance of political parties 150
The impact of the additional member system 155

8 Voting in Northern Ireland 159

Background 160
Voting in Northern Ireland Assembly elections 162
Comparing Westminster and Stormont elections 168
The performance of political parties 175
The impact of the single transferable vote 179

9 Voting in Elections to the European Parliament 184

Background 185
Voting in elections to the European Parliament since 1999 187

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd vi 15/6/10 10:05:51

 Contents vii

Comparing Westminster and European elections 189

The performance of political parties 197
The impact of the regional party list system 204

10 Conclusion 208
Voting behaviour 209
Different electoral systems 209
Comparing elections 212
Second-order elections 212
The political parties 213
The impact of the voting systems 214

References 217
Index 220

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd vii 15/6/10 10:05:51

 Boxes

1.1 Election functions and principles 5

2.1 Controversies surrounding the simple plurality electoral
system 20
3.1 Case study: the election of the London Mayor 29
3.2 Case study: elections to the Australian House of
Representatives 37
3.3 Case study: French presidential elections 44
4.1 Case study: elections in Israel 55
4.2 Case study: UK elections to the European Parliament 57
4.3 Case study: elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly 67
4.4 Case study: elections in Germany 77
4.5 Case study: elections to the Scottish Parliament 81
5.1 The issue of electoral reform 107
6.1 The 2007 election to the Scottish Parliament 129
7.1 The 2007 election to the National Assembly for Wales 148
8.1 The 2007 election to the Northern Ireland Assembly 173
9.1 The 2009 UK elections to the European Parliament 198

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd viii 15/6/10 10:05:51

 Tables

2.1 Constituency results from the 2005 general election

(Birmingham Erdington) 10
2.2 Constituency results from the 2005 general election
(Argyll & Bute) 11
2.3 Results of the 2005 United Kingdom general election 11
2.4 Governments needing the support of another party
1900–78 17
3.1 The 2000 election of the London Mayor 32
3.2 The 2004 election of the London Mayor 33
3.3 The 2008 election of the London Mayor 34
3.4 The 2004 Australian general election 38
3.5 The 2007 Australian general election 39
3.6 The 2002 French presidential election 44
3.7 The 2007 French presidential election 46
4.1 The 2005 United Kingdom general election 51
4.2 The 2009 general election to the Israeli Knesset 56
4.3 Results of the UK elections to the European Parliament
2009 (by region) 60
4.4 The 2007 Northern Ireland Assembly election
(South Down) 69
4.5 The 2007 Northern Ireland Assembly election
(Mid-Ulster) 70
4.6 The 2007 Northern Ireland Assembly election 71
4.7 Hypothetical election result using AMS 76
4.8 The 2005 German Bundestag election 79
4.9 The 2007 Scottish Parliament elections 82
5.1 Electoral swing 1950–66 98
5.2 Social class and political party support 100
5.3 Level of party identification 1964–70 104
5.4 Strength of party identification 1964–70 104
5.5 Liberal and SNP support in the October 1974 general
election 107
6.1 Party breakdown (%) in Scottish House of Commons
seats 1970–9 122

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd ix 15/6/10 10:05:51

 x Electoral Systems and Voting in the United Kingdom

6.2 Party breakdown (%) in English House of Commons

seats 1970–9 123
6.3 Party distribution of Scottish votes 1970–9 124
6.4 Comparison of 1997 general election and 1999
Scottish Parliament election results 126
6.5 Comparison of 2001 general election and 2003
Scottish Parliament election results 127
6.6 Hypothetical election to the Scottish Parliament 2001 128
6.7 Hypothetical general election 2003 129
6.8 Comparison of 2005 general election and 2007 Scottish
Parliament election results 129
6.9 Comparison of 2007 Scottish Parliament election and
local council elections results 136
7.1 Comparison of 1997 general election and 1999 Welsh
Assembly election results 144
7.2 Comparison of 2001 general election and 2003 Welsh
Assembly election results 145
7.3 Hypothetical general election 1999 146
7.4 Hypothetical election to the Welsh Assembly 2001 147
7.5 Comparison of 2005 general election and 2007 Welsh
Assembly election results 148
8.1 The 1998 elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly 165
8.2 The 2003 elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly 166
8.3 Comparison of 1997 general election and 1998
Northern Ireland Assembly election results 169
8.4 Comparison of 2001 general election and 2003
Northern Ireland Assembly election results 170
8.5 Comparison of electoral turnout 172
8.6 Comparison of 2005 general election and 2007
Northern Ireland Assembly election results 174
9.1 Comparison of 1997 general election and 1999
Euro-election results 190
9.2 Elections to the European Parliament 2004 192
9.3 Comparison of 1999 and 2004 elections to the
European Parliament 193
9.4 Comparison of turnout in Westminster and
Euro-elections 196
9.5 Elections to the European Parliament 2009 (excluding NI) 198

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd x 15/6/10 10:05:51

 Figures

3.1 Election of the London Mayor, ballot paper 30

4.1 Ballot paper from European Parliamentary elections 58
4.2 Results of the UK elections to the European Parliament
2009 (by party) 59
4.3 Northern Ireland parliamentary constituencies 67
4.4 Ballot paper from federal election in Germany 78
4.5 Voting regions of Scotland 81
5.1 UK general elections 1945–2010 (votes) 91
5.2 UK general elections 1945–2010 (seats) 92
5.3 Party support in general elections 1950–70 93
5.4 Average percentage vote in general elections 1950–70 94
5.5 Conservative and Labour share of votes and seats in
general elections 1950–70 94
5.6 Percentage share of House of Commons seats
1950–70 95
5.7 Two-party deviation from the mean 1950–70 96
5.8 Two-party deviation from the mean 1974–97 97
5.9 Class voting 1959–70 101
5.10 Combined Conservative and Labour share of votes
1959–74 106
5.11 Party identification 1964–92 109
7.1 Nationalist support in Scotland and Wales in general
elections 1959–83 141
7.2 Wales regions and constituencies 150
8.1 General election results in Northern Ireland
1974–2005 164
8.2 Electoral support for the UUP and the DUP
1997–2007 174
8.3 Electoral support for the SDLP and Sinn Féin
1997–2007 175
9.1 Party share of seats in the 1994 elections to the
European Parliament 186
9.2 Party share of seats in the 1999 elections to the
European Parliament 188

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd xi 15/6/10 10:05:51

 xii Electoral Systems and Voting in the United Kingdom

9.3 Party share of seats in the 2004 elections to the

European Parliament 194
9.4 Party share of seats in the 2009 UK elections to the
European Parliament 199

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd xii 15/6/10 10:05:51

 CHAPTER 1

Introduction
Contents
Background 2
Changes in voting behaviour 2
Government responses 3
Aims of the book 4

Overview
Students of politics have been afforded the opportunity to research the
impact of the various recent constitutional reforms that have been made
in the United Kingdom. This chapter introduces the reforms to the various
methods of electing representatives in the UK.
In the first instance, the principles and functions of elections are explored.
These will provide the reader with a useful point of reference when
assessing the various electoral systems that are discussed in the following
chapters of the book.

Key issues to be covered in this chapter

• Previous calls to reform the simple plurality electoral system
• Anomalies in the UK voting system
• The Blair government’s constitutional reforms
• The main functions of elections
• The main principles of elections

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd 1 15/6/10 10:05:51

 2 Electoral Systems and Voting in the United Kingdom

Background
As recently as 1998, any book examining alternative voting systems
to the one used to elect the British House of Commons would have
had to look abroad for case studies of how they operate in practice.
Apart from in Northern Ireland, all elections in the UK used the
first-past-the-post electoral system. Books on electoral systems would
often attempt some form of comparative analysis in order to inter-
pret the likely impact of such systems if they were introduced for
elections to Westminster. Students reading such books would have to
become familiar with the workings of electoral systems around the
world in order to obtain a contextual understanding of the strengths
and weaknesses of the voting system in their own country.
The first-past-the-post voting system has been criticised for
decades. Attempts to reform it go back to the period between the two
world wars. In recent times calls for its reform have become louder.
But despite these calls there was no real movement on this issue at all
until the late 1990s. The reasons for this inaction for the half-century
following the end of World War Two are easily explained. In the
1950s and 1960s, Labour and the Conservatives alternated in power
in a political system where regularly over 90 per cent of voters sup-
ported them. The issue of electoral reform was not on their agendas;
indeed, the issue was not debated beyond the political parties. Apart
from the occasional by-election upset, Britain’s two-party system
seemed as secure and stable as ever. Appearances can be deceptive,
however, because despite this apparent strength, neither Labour nor
the Conservatives could ever muster 50 per cent of the vote when
elected to office. This lack of a popular mandate has been one of the
main criticisms levelled at UK governments over the years. However,
given the fact that no other political party could muster a percentage
of votes even in double figures during this era, this issue was not as
controversial as it would become by the 1970s and 1980s.

Changes in voting behaviour

Over the past thirty years, there has been much to comment upon
about changing voting behaviour in Britain. The stability and the cer-
tainties that were apparent in the 1950s and 1960s seem to have been

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd 2 15/6/10 10:05:51

 Introduction 3

replaced by greater uncertainties. Governments can be elected with

hundred-seat majorities and yet having polled fewer votes than in the
previous election when they had a majority of only twenty. Political
parties may be within two percentage points of one another, but one
might have ten times more seats than the other. Political parties may
pick up 19 per cent of the national vote and win no seats in an elec-
tion. These are just some of the anomalies that have been thrown up
by the first-past-the-post voting system in recent elections.
These anomalies, which became characteristic of the UK electoral
system, have ignited calls for reform. They started in the 1970s when
the first cracks in the Conservative–Labour domination of votes
started to show. In the February 1974 general election, the Liberals
polled over six million votes (19.1 per cent of the vote) and yet won
only fourteen seats in the House of Commons. The inadequacies of
the system have to some extent been exposed by the way that voting
behaviour has changed over the past forty years. It can be argued that
these inadequacies have always existed; it is simply that their practical
manifestations did not catch the public mood until the injustices, such
as the one alluded to above, became so apparent. After the failure
of any party to gain a parliamentary majority in the 2010 general
election, resulting in a Conservative–Liberal coalition government,
voting systems are now being looked at with renewed interest.

Government responses
These calls were given a sympathetic hearing by the incoming Blair
government. Since the general election of 1997, a number of politi-
cal and constitutional reforms, including changes to the way that the
UK elects its MEPs and the introduction of devolved government in
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, have taken place in the United
Kingdom, and these have been accompanied by a variety of electoral
systems in use much closer to home than those described in textbooks
in the past. It is now possible to study the workings of these systems
and examine the effects that they have on voting behaviour as well as
the impact that they have on political parties and the party system. It
is possible to look at these systems in a UK context and analyse their
strengths and weaknesses without having to make extrapolations and
assumptions from one political system to another.

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd 3 15/6/10 10:05:51

 4 Electoral Systems and Voting in the United Kingdom

Aims of the book

One of the main aims of this book is to examine the various electoral
systems mainly within, but sometimes beyond, the United Kingdom.
The first part of this book examines the main categories of electoral
system. Chapter 2 examines the workings of the simple plurality
system, otherwise known as first-past-the-post, currently used for
UK general elections and local government elections in England.
Chapter 3 examines a number of majoritarian voting systems, and
Chapter 4 examines several proportional electoral systems.
Each of these early chapters will look at the principles of each
system and how it works in practice, and where possible will provide
a sample of the voting paper used in the election concerned. The
impact of the system will be assessed as well as an evaluation pro-
vided of its possible use in elections to the House of Commons.
There are also several case studies; these are largely drawn from the
United Kingdom, but occasionally there is a study from abroad to
further illustrate the workings of a particular system or an electoral
system which does not operate in the United Kingdom.
The second aim of this book is to analyse voting behaviour in the
United Kingdom. Chapter 5 examines the main developments in
voting behaviour in Great Britain since the 1950s. This covers the
so-called era of alignment when Conservatives and Labour domi-
nated the British political landscape in terms of votes and seats in
the House of Commons. The chapter also covers the later period
of dealignment where increasing numbers of voters broke free of
these earlier ties to the two main parties. The chapter sets the context
for the remainder of the book because, as mentioned earlier, it has
been the long-term shifts in voting behaviour that have exposed the
inadequacies of the UK voting system. The calls for electoral reform
have coincided with calls for greater autonomy for parts of the
United Kingdom, and in answering these calls, the Labour govern-
ment elected in 1997 offered not only devolution, but devolution with
proportionally elected assemblies.
The remaining four chapters are devoted to studying voting for
those institutions with proportional electoral systems. Chapter 6 will
examine voting in the three elections to the Scottish Parliament.
Chapter 7 will analyse voting in elections to the National Assembly

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd 4 15/6/10 10:05:51

 Introduction 5

for Wales. Chapter 8 will examine the results of the elections to the
Northern Ireland Assembly since 1998 and Chapter 9 will evaluate
voting in UK elections to the European Parliament.
These later chapters will attempt to answer some key questions
about voting in elections using proportional representation. First,
how do voting patterns compare between elections to the devolved
assemblies and the European Parliament, and elections to the House
of Commons? Secondly, are these other elections second-order elec-
tions, in other words are they treated less seriously than elections to
Westminster? Which political parties have done well and less well
out of the use of these electoral systems? Is there evidence to show
that the use of one proportional voting system produces a different
outcome to another proportional system?
The remainder of this introduction seeks to act as a reminder of
the main functions and principles of elections.

Box 1.1 Election functions and principles

Election functions
There are four key functions that can be associated with elections.
Participation Elections provide citizens with the idea that they are
involved in the process of politics. Voting is an active thing which is
important to have in a democracy, given that most of the time people
are very passive, being willing to let the elected representatives get on
with running the country. It is a worrying sign that turnout in general
elections has fallen so significantly in recent years. Does the use of
proportional electoral systems increase levels of participation?
Representation The UK has a system of representative democ-
racy. Elections are periodic and the day-to-day politics takes place
in the House of Commons and town and county halls up and down
the country. Elections are a crucial means of enabling national and
local representatives to be elected so that they may take decisions
on behalf of the people in their respective communities. One theme
which is developed in this book is the extent to which voters’ party
choice is affected by whether they are voting in a general or a
devolved election.
Legitimacy Those who govern on behalf of the people should have
the authority to do so. Elections give governments and other elected
bodies the right to take decisions, pass laws and make policy.

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd 5 15/6/10 10:05:51

 6 Electoral Systems and Voting in the United Kingdom

Accountability Governments and other elected officials should

serve only a limited time in office before subjecting themselves to
re-election (or retiring from office). Elections ensure that those who
are elected to serve are answerable (after a period of time) for the
actions they have taken and that the people can get rid of a govern-
ment with which they are not happy.

Election principles
There are a number of important benchmarks against which any
electoral system should be judged. By the end of this book it should
be evident how effectively the electoral systems in this book match
up to these principles.
In the first place there are some basic principles that it must be
hoped is true of all elections in the United Kingdom, whether they are
conducted using proportional representation or not.
Elections should be free and fair This means that there should be
universal suffrage, in other words all adults should be able to vote.
There should be regular elections. One of the features of all the
systems except one is that the election times are fixed. The excep-
tion is elections to the House of Commons, which are regular but at
a time chosen by the Prime Minister. Free and fair elections require
a secret ballot and no intimidation of voters. Officials are appointed
to ensure that elections are conducted honestly.
Elections should be politically free This means that voters and
candidates are free to express themselves within the law. Political
parties can organise their campaigns freely and hold meetings for
supporters without political control of such events. The press should
be free to cover and report the campaign, again without interference
from the authorities of the state. The state itself should not put out
propaganda at this time which might favour the party in power.
There are some other principles which may be somewhat more
contentious. These are the ones that may be failed by one or more
electoral systems and it will be useful to look for some of these issues
when reading this book.
The electoral system should be transparent An electoral system
should be easy to understand. If there are complicated voting
instructions, this might lead to voters making mistakes or deter
them from voting altogether. Voting papers should be clearly laid
out. Critics of the 2000 United States presidential election claim that
in some states, the ballot paper was so confusing in its layout that
it led to thousands of Al Gore (Democrat) supporters voting for the
far-right candidate Pat Buchanan.
Election results should be administered fairly, with all candidates
being able to be present at the counting process. The election result

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd 6 15/6/10 10:05:51

 Introduction 7

should be accepted as accurate and no winner should be declared

until reasonable disputes about the result are settled. Any disagree-
ment about the result should be challengeable in a recount of the
votes. If anyone suspects that there have been irregularities in the
conduct of any part of the election, the results should be subject
to a court challenge. A secret ballot notwithstanding, ballot papers
should be traceable by the order of a judge. Judges should be able
to declare elections void and order a new vote.

Clearly, most political systems aspire to live up to all these prin-

ciples. However (as the US example shows above), some of these
principles will not be met. How fair is the simple plurality system
when clearly not all votes are equal? How transparent are some
proportional voting systems? Have recent controversies surrounding
postal voting called into question the rigorousness with which these
elections have been conducted? By the end of the book, some con-
clusions about the various electoral systems now in use in the United
Kingdom may be drawn.

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd 7 15/6/10 10:05:51

 CHAPTER 2

The Plurality System

Contents
The system explained 9
Assessment of the system 9
The effects on the parties 12
The implications of this system for representation and governance 13
The views of the political parties 19

Overview
The simple plurality system has been used in general elections in the
United Kingdom since the introduction of the secret ballot in the nineteenth
century. It is a very simple system in terms of its workings, but the effects
of the system have the capacity to confuse observers of UK politics. This
chapter seeks to assess the impact of the simple plurality electoral system,
the controversies that have grown because of the system and the views of
the political parties on it.

Key issues to be covered in this chapter

• How the plurality system works
• An assessment of the impact of the plurality system
• The implications of the plurality system
• Controversies surrounding the plurality system
• The views of the main political parties on the plurality system

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd 8 15/6/10 10:05:51

 The Plurality System 9

The system explained

The plurality system is also known as the simple majority system.
Most citizens in the UK know this as the first-past-the-post electoral
system. It is used in elections most notably in Canada, India, the
United Kingdom and the United States of America.
This system will be very familiar to readers in Britain and United
States. It is most commonly used in single-member constituen-
cies, although it has been used in the UK in some local government
elections to elect more than one representative in certain districts. In
usual circumstances, in single-member constituencies, the plurality
formula involves voters casting one vote. The candidate who obtains
the most votes wins. In two-member constituencies, voters have two
votes and the two candidates who achieve first and second place win
the seats.
This electoral system is easily understood. Voters are not required
to express a relative preference for the candidates on the ballot paper
and there are no complicated quotas required for the counting of
votes. In Britain the elections to the House of Commons are held
in 650 constituencies, each electing a single member. The same
system is used in local government elections. By-elections may be
held in individual constituencies in the period between general elec-
tions in the event of the death or resignation of an MP.
Essentially this is a paper version of a vote based on a show of
hands. Indeed, up until the 1870s elections were conducted where
electors chose their representatives in this way in a public meeting
with voters being able to see how each other was voting. After this
time legislation was passed to introduce the secret ballot and meas-
ures to combat corrupt practices.

Assessment of the system

The result of an election using the simple plurality system can be
measured and analysed in two main ways: first, based on the result
in each individual constituency and second, based on an aggregation
of the votes in all the 650 constituencies to get an overall state of the
parties across the country.
In reality, however, the only place where the number of votes

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd 9 15/6/10 10:05:51

 10 Electoral Systems and Voting in the United Kingdom

Table 2.1 Constituency results from the 2005 general

election (Birmingham Erdington)

Turnout 64,939 (48.9%)

Simon, S. L. (Lab) 16,810 (53.0%)

Elvidge, V. T. Ms (Con) 7,235 (22.8%)
Evans, J. (LD) 5,027 (15.8%)
Ebanks, S. E. Ms (BNP) 1,512 (4.8%)
Hepburn, R .L. (UKIP) 746 (2.3%)
Williams, T. (NF) 416 (1.3%)

Lab majority 9,575

formally matters is at the level of the individual constituency. Here

the result is arrived at by adding up all the votes for each candidate,
with the official national result being the total of the seats won by the
various political parties. Table 2.1 shows the results from one con-
stituency in the 2005 general election.
The result in Birmingham Erdington shows that using the simple
plurality system, the Labour Party candidate, S. L. Simon, won the
seat, taking over half of all the votes cast. All the votes for the remain-
ing candidates are effectively wasted. In the case of Birmingham
Erdington, it may be some consolation at least that the elected rep-
resentative obtained a majority among those who voted. This is not
always the case, as can be seen in Table 2.2.
In the case of Argyll & Bute, the winning candidate was well short
of half of the vote; indeed, those opposing the Liberal Democrat
candidate numbered nearly two-thirds of the vote. In the 2005
general election, a number of constituencies returned MPs who
obtained fewer than half the total votes cast. It does not require
too much mathematical analysis to understand the point that a
government can be elected with a majority of seats in the House of
Commons, without necessarily achieving a majority of the national
vote (when all the individual constituency results are added together).
The 2005 general election saw a major reduction in the size of

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd 10 15/6/10 10:05:51

 The Plurality System 11

Table 2.2 Constituency results from the 2005 general

election (Argyll & Bute)

Turnout 67,271 (64.3%)

Reid, A. (LD) 15,786 (36.5%)

McGrigor, J. A. R. N. (Con) 10,150 (23.5%)
Manson, C. Ms. (Lab) 9,696 (22.4%)
Strong, I. C. Ms. (SNP) 6,716 (15.5%)
Henderson, D. Ms. (SSP) 881 (2.0%)

LD majority 5,636

Table 2.3 Results of the 2005 United Kingdom general

election

Party % votes No. of seats % seats

Labour 35.3 356 55.1

Conservative 32.3 198 30.7
Liberal 22.1 62 9.6
Democrat
Other 10.3 30 4.6

Labour’s parliamentary majority, yet nevertheless the party managed

to achieve a 55 per cent share of House of Commons seats with just
35 per cent of the national vote. Table 2.3 shows the percentage of
votes and seats and the number of seats obtained by the three main
political parties in the 2005 UK general election.
The simple plurality system enables the formation of a govern-
ment with parliamentary majorities on a minority share of the vote.
This has clearly been a controversial aspect of the British political
system. In the 1950s and 1960s this was not as contentious, since
although governments were being elected with less than half the
vote, they were within only 1 to 3 per cent of that figure. By the

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd 11 15/6/10 10:05:51

 12 Electoral Systems and Voting in the United Kingdom

1970s, however, the figure was between 6 and 13 per cent below this
level, again leaving the system open to criticism, especially from those
political parties that were being hurt by it. There is further discussion
of the changing nature of voting behaviour in the United Kingdom
in Chapter 5.

The effects on the parties

Since 1945, Labour and the Conservatives have dominated British
politics. Up until the 2010 general election, only these two parties
were able to form governments. Many political commentators
attribute this partly to the use of the simple plurality voting system in
general elections. Other factors such as social class and partisan-
ship (see Chapter 5) for a long time made a major contribution to
the way people voted in elections.
How can the consequences of the simple plurality electoral
system be explained? A number of factors can be identified. The
first concerns the nature of the single-member constituency in UK
politics. It may be argued that there is a mindset among politicians,
academics and some members of the public of the importance of the
constituency-based MP. So much is this the case that it is doubtful that
any reform of the electoral system would do away with this feature.
However, the existence of hundreds of relatively small constituencies
each returning a single member is a key factor in the distortion that
exists between the percentage of votes and the number of seats that
each party receives.
In all but two elections between 1945 and 2010, the government
has been elected with a majority of seats in the House of Commons
(admittedly a few of these majorities have been rather small). It is
doubtful, voting habits remaining equal, that there would have been
majority governments throughout this time if alternative electoral
systems to the simple plurality system had been used.
In stark contrast to this post-war two-party dominance has been
the relative electoral failure among many smaller political parties.
The Liberals, now the Liberal Democrats, have failed to achieve the
number of seats that their level of support in votes suggests it should.
Not all smaller parties have fared equally, however. Parties such as
the Greens have found it impossible to gain any seats in the House

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd 12 15/6/10 10:05:51

 The Plurality System 13

of Commons. Some smaller parties, however, have fared better. The

Scottish National Party has, to an extent, used the electoral system
to its advantage, by being able to concentrate on campaigning in a
coherent and limited number of seats. The SNP only fields candidates
in the fifty-nine Scottish constituency seats in UK general elections.
It would appear that the Liberal Democrats have taken this lesson on
board. Since 1997, the party has concentrated its electoral campaign
on a number of target seats, and was able to more than double its
seats in the House of Commons in the election of that year. Since
then, the Liberal Democrats have increased their number of House
of Commons seats in each successive general election. Indeed, their
share of the seats in 2005 was their best result since 1923.
The argument over the impact of the simple plurality system on
smaller political parties is complicated further when their performance
in local government elections is examined. In these elections, smaller
political parties have much greater success. The Liberal Democrats
have political control of a number of large local authorities in the UK.
Yet the electoral system used in local government elections is the simple
plurality system, in other words precisely the same electoral system as
is used in general elections. This might be explained by the existence
of differentiated perceptions among voters when participating in dif-
ferent types of elections. In other words, people may treat different
types of elections in different ways. Perhaps voters are willing to give
the Liberal Democrats a chance in local elections. Indeed, once they
have succeeded in winning council seats, voters may then no longer see
voting locally for the party as a wasted vote.
Perhaps placing the responsibility on the simple plurality electoral
system for the fortunes of smaller political parties is too simplistic.
Whatever the reason for the differences in outcomes, it should be
understood that an electoral system on its own does not facilitate an
outcome. It is also important to consider the context in which the
electoral system is used.

The implications of this system for representation

and governance
There are three main consequences of the simple plurality system as
used for elections to the House of Commons in the UK.

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd 13 15/6/10 10:05:51

 14 Electoral Systems and Voting in the United Kingdom

• constituency representation
• single-party government
• strong and stable government

Constituency representation
Many politicians and commentators consider constituency repre-
sentation as being an essential aspect of the UK political system.
This representation is accentuated in the UK by the particular work-
ings of the simple plurality system which in the UK operates using
a large number of small constituencies with only one MP each.
This is justified because in the UK, the sovereignty of Parliament is
essentially legal sovereignty. It is essential that the electoral system
operates in a way that maintains contact between the people and the
MPs who exercise sovereignty on their behalf. Indeed, it is probably
unrealistic to expect any replacement of the simple plurality system
not to include constituency representation. A cynical response might
be that MPs will of course highlight the notion of constituency rep-
resentation given that they are themselves at the centre of it in the
UK.
However, given that the accountability of the government in the
UK political system is through the MP representing his or her con-
stituents, the link connecting MPs to voters should not be underesti-
mated. The MP and philosopher Edmund Burke saw the MP not as
a simple delegate of the people in the constituency, but as someone
who must use his or her own judgement, which may at times differ
markedly from the views of the constituents. An MP should, of
course, listen to these views and attempt to deal with any problem
that is brought up at a regular constituency surgery.
Any previous innovations that appeared to threaten this constitu-
ency bond have been handled with care. In the 1960s, the Labour
government of Harold Wilson established the role of Parliamentary
Commissioner, or ‘Ombudsman’ – an individual able to investigate
citizens’ complaints involving public maladministration. The deci-
sion was made not to allow individuals to deal with the Ombudsman
direct. Wilson himself reflects on this parliamentary innovation:

One of our big problems was the understandable feelings MPs might
have if their constituents were to go straight to the Ombudsman for

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd 14 15/6/10 10:05:51

 The Plurality System 15

redress, bypassing traditional parliamentary methods of scrutinising

the executive. We provided that all references to the Parliamentary
Commissioner [the official title of the Ombudsman] should be made
through a Member of Parliament.1

Understandably, Members of Parliament consider constituency rep-

resentation to be very important. A big question does exist, however,
over how important this issue is in the eyes of the general public.
The weekend surgeries held by the vast majority of Members of
Parliament are visited by only a tiny fraction of constituents and a sig-
nificant number of people do not even know the name of their MP.
It would seem that the fortunes of individual MPs are bound up
with those of their parties. In the event of an MP losing the endorse-
ment of his or her party, history has shown that very few have been
able to hold on to their seats without this support. Eddie Milne, the
Labour MP for Blyth, kept his seat after being deselected by his
constituency party in the February 1974 general election, but in the
general election in October of the same year, he lost it to the offi-
cial Labour Party candidate. Certainly in the past, it has appeared
that the party can overcome even the most loved constituency
representative.
Of course, this does not mean that personality is not important in
British politics. On the contrary, the bond that receives most media
coverage is that between the voter and the party leaders. This has
endowed the political vocabulary with terms such as ‘presidential’,
where voters seem more interested in national personalities than
those at constituency level. With the arrival of television coverage
of current affairs in the late 1950s, politics is often portrayed as a
gladiatorial contest between the party leaders, which obscures many
local issues and all but the most colourful of individual constituency
candidates.
The link between the MP and the constituent is a very important
theoretical part of the UK political system. Despite the genuine flaws
in the theory when examined in practice, it is clear that a replace-
ment electoral system without such a link would not be realistic.
Given the fact that it is the House of Commons (composed entirely
of such constituency representatives) that would ultimately decide
this matter, the possibility is even more remote.

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd 15 15/6/10 10:05:52

 16 Electoral Systems and Voting in the United Kingdom

Single-party government
Notwithstanding the outcome in 2010, British politics has been char-
acterised by single-party government. In other words, this is where
members of only one political party hold ministerial positions in the
government. This certainly contrasts with many governments in con-
tinental Europe where coalitions of two or more political parties
are not uncommon. The UK alone out of all European countries
uses the simple plurality electoral system and it is not unreasonable to
assume that this is linked to single parties holding power.
Since 1900, there have been only thirteen and a half years during
which the country has been governed by coalition; eight and a half
of those years saw wartime coalitions such as that led by Winston
Churchill between 1940 and 1945. So in peacetime, only five of the
past one hundred and eight years have been, in the words of the
British academic David Butler, ‘clear and explicit coalition govern-
ment’.2 Clearly, however, this figure is set to rise.
Certainly, the outcome of the 2010 general election may in future
cast doubt on the single-party government thesis. Perhaps even
before 2010, however, this thesis had overstated the extent to which
single parties could govern without the help of other parties. David
Butler has described a number of periods of government during this
time which might have been overwhelmingly dominated by one party,
but where there was at least the influence of another party at work.
Table 2.4 offers a summary of his conclusions.
This table demonstrates that far from being defined purely in terms
of single-party government, British politics was more complicated
than this. There are many more years where the party in govern-
ment, while not in a formal coalition with another political party, has
had to accommodate some limits to its political freedoms in certain
circumstances, such as the Lib–Lab Pact of 1977–8 or, more recently,
John Major’s reliance on the Liberal Democrats in the ratification of
the Maastricht Treaty in 1993. It would appear that far from unhin-
dered power being exercised, there have been occasions where UK
politicians have had to partake in the sort of political horse-trading
that they purport to despise in our European neighbours.
Indeed, given the nature of UK political parties, it is somewhat
disingenuous to describe some of our governments as single-party
governments. Certainly, the experience of the rifts within the Labour

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd 16 15/6/10 10:05:52

 The Plurality System 17

Table 2.4 Governments needing the support of another

party 1900–78

Period Governing Other factors

party

Jul 1900–Dec 1905 Con Conservative–Liberal Unionist

Jan 1906–Dec 1910 Lib Liberal majority with Labour and
Irish Nationalist support
Jan 1910–May 1915 Lib Liberals dependent on Irish
Nationalists
May 1915–Nov 1922 Coalition After 1918, coalition dominated
by Conservatives
Jan 1924–Oct 1924 Lab Labour dependent on Liberals
May 1929–Aug 1931 Lab Labour dependent on Liberals
Aug 1931–Sep 1932 Coalition Government composed of
elements of three parties
Sep 1932–May 1940 National Conservatives have by far the
majority of seats
May 1940–May 1945 Coalition Genuine coalition despite
Conservative dominance
May 1945–Jul 1945 Con Caretaker government
Mar 1974–Oct 1974 Lab Labour dependent on other
parties not uniting to defeat them
Apr 1976–Mar 1977 Lab Labour dependent on other
parties not uniting to defeat
them
Mar 1977–Jul 1978 Lab With agreed Liberal support

May 2010 Coalition Conservative–Liberal Democrat

Adapted from D. Butler (ed.), Coalitions in British Politics, Macmillan, 1978,

pp. 112–13.

government in the 1970s and those that appeared to cripple the

Major government after 1992 would suggest a single party may be
nominally in power but the factions within it appear to want to take
it in different directions.

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd 17 15/6/10 10:05:52

 18 Electoral Systems and Voting in the United Kingdom

Strength and stability

Another feature of the British political system which has been, in
part, ascribed to its electoral system has been its strong and stable
nature. As mentioned above in the section on single-party govern-
ment, there have been few coalition governments in the UK. It may
be argued that coalitions effectively hobble governments in a manner
that precludes strength.
Britain has had only eight main phases of government since 1945
(with thirteen prime ministers). This contrasts with countries such
as Italy, which has had over fifty governments since the end of the
Second World War. Such rapid turnover of governments has proved
to be a real obstacle for governments wishing to enact their electoral
programmes.
In Britain, governments last on average four years between general
elections and thus there is relative stability in the political system.
Governments usually get the bulk of their legislative programmes
through Parliament, only rarely losing legislation in adverse votes
in the House of Commons. The only occasion since 1945 when a
government was defeated in a vote of confidence in the House of
Commons was in March 1979. Stability, then, means regular elec-
tions at infrequent intervals. Strong governments are those that are
able to carry out their manifesto promises by putting them on the
statute book.
The difficulty with this analysis is that it is based upon a some-
what superficial understanding of the workings of the UK political
system, not to mention those of many other European countries.
Further examination of UK politics since 1945 reveals occasions
where government majorities have been so small or non-existent as to
make them vulnerable not only to the opposing parties in Parliament
but also to internal divisions within the governing party. Four such
periods were the following:
• February 1950 to October 1951
• October 1964 to March 1966
• February 1974 to May 1979
• April 1992 to May 1997
If a party attempts to govern without a House of Commons majority,
it is said to be a minority government.

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd 18 15/6/10 10:05:52

 The Plurality System 19

It may also be argued that the last two years of the Heath gov-
ernment did not display particular signs of strength and stability.
Moreover, the final year of the Blair government was also weak-
ened by events and a renewed Conservative Party. Gordon Brown,
despite inheriting a comfortable majority in the House of Commons,
was vulnerable to dissent and attacks from within his own party.
Indeed, he narrowly avoided being challenged for the Labour Party
leadership after some high-profile Cabinet resignations in June
2009.
In the main, the UK should be seen as having a stable political
system, normally with strong governments. For around fifteen years
since 1945, this has not been the case.
A stable political system is one to which most states would aspire.
The merits of strong government may be argued, however. In
Britain, most defenders of the simple plurality system would argue
that political stability enables strong government and that this should
be applauded as a virtue in the British political system. It means
governments being able to implement a legislative programme. It
is interesting, however, to listen very carefully to the proponents
of this view. Consider the large parliamentary majority achieved
by the Conservatives in 1983, which was justified by Conservative
ministers and MPs as a means of carrying forward the Thatcherite
agenda. In 1997, many of those same voices were attacking the size
of the Labour government’s majority for leading to the ‘arrogance
of power’. Conversely, members of the Labour Party attacked Mrs
Thatcher’s large majority after the 1983 general election whilst
applauding Tony Blair’s even bigger majority in 1997. What is clear
is that strength only appears to be a virtue when one’s own party is
in office.

The views of the political parties

In the past, the main supporters and opponents of the simple plu-
rality system have tended to cleave along lines of those that have
thrived within the system and those that have not. Unsurprisingly,
from what has been discussed so far, the Liberals (now the Liberal
Democrats) have severely criticised the system. Traditionally the
Conservatives have staunchly defended the simple plurality system,

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd 19 15/6/10 10:05:52

 20 Electoral Systems and Voting in the United Kingdom

Box 2.1 Controversies surrounding the simple plurality

electoral system

It is certainly the case that the British electoral system is easy to

understand. In any single-constituency contest, the candidate with
the most votes cast wins the seat. That candidate becomes the
Member of Parliament for the seat until the next general election.
It has been argued that the simplicity of the simple plurality system
represents one of its key advantages. There is no preferential voting,
nor are there any complicated counting formulas.
Complications begin to arise, however, when all the individual
constituency results are added up to arrive at a result for the general
election as a whole. Some observers appear genuinely confused as
to why a majority of seats in Parliament does not equate to a major-
ity of votes in the country as a whole. The explanation is relatively
straightforward: if sufficient MPs of the governing party are returned
without a majority, then the governing party in Parliament (the sum
total of those MPs) will not represent a majority of the electorate
either.
Another phenomenon that often confuses voters is why after
polling millions of votes, as they have done in every general election
since 1974, the Liberals (now the Liberal Democrats) have seen so
few of their candidates elected. Indeed, in 1983, the Liberal–SDP
Alliance polled within two percentage points of the Labour Party
and yet returned only a tenth of the seats. The answer rests on the
nature of the distribution of party support across the country. Both
Labour and the Conservatives have benefited from having support
which was fairly well defined in certain locations, Labour tradition-
ally polling well in Scotland, Wales and northern England in urban,
working-class areas, and the Conservatives generally doing less well
in these areas; conversely, the Conservatives have traditionally pros-
pered in the south of England and in suburban and rural areas, with
Labour doing much less well in these areas. The Liberals have very
few geographical strongholds that they can rely upon. What tends to
happen is that Liberals do reasonably well across large parts of the
UK, amassing large numbers of votes nationally and often coming
second in many constituencies. They do not perform sufficiently
well in many constituencies to come first, however. Consequently,
between 1970 and 1992, the Liberals/Liberal Democrats achieved
only between ten and twenty seats.
The picture becomes even more confused when looking at other
parties. In the October 1974 general election the SNP received nearly

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd 20 15/6/10 10:05:52

 The Plurality System 21

as many seats as the Liberals but with only a fraction of the vote.
How may this be explained? The answer lies in the geographical
spread of seats being fought by the SNP compared to the Liberals,
with the former contesting only around seventy compared to the six
hundred or more being fought by the Liberal Democrats. (Since the
2005 general election the number of Scottish Westminster constitu-
encies has been reduced to fifty-nine.)
It may be argued, therefore, that for an electoral system which
has the supposed merit of simplicity there are a number of confusing
phenomena that accompany it. It is no surprise that these contro-
versies have generated much debate both within and between the
political parties about the merits of the system and the alternatives
that might be considered to replace it.

although as part of the deal to form a coalition government with the

Liberal Democrats, David Cameron is now promising a referendum
on reforming elections to the House of Commons. This is in marked
contrast to what he stated on the subject before and during the 2010
election campaign.
Since the late 1980s, the Labour Party has undergone a change
of attitude about the system. Although there have always been many
members who have favoured electoral reform (and those numbers
increased during the years of the Conservative governments from
1979 to 1997), greater support for reform of the electoral system
has become evident. In the early 1990s, the then Labour leader,
Neil Kinnock, set up a committee to investigate the issue of electoral
reform under the chairmanship of Professor Raymond Plant. The
Plant Report proposed a majoritarian system as a replacement
for the simple plurality system.3 The problem for Labour was that
it would need to win a general election in order to enact any reform
and after losing three general elections in succession, many com-
mentators wondered whether it could win again. This was certainly
emphasised by Labour’s fourth defeat in 1992. The party’s recovery
after ‘Black Wednesday’ in September 1992 and the reformist Blair
agenda after July 1994 meant that it was increasingly likely that
Labour’s reformist credentials would be tested.
After the election of May 1997, the Labour government intro-
duced a number of initiatives aimed at limiting the role of the simple

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd 21 15/6/10 10:05:52

 22 Electoral Systems and Voting in the United Kingdom

plurality system and extending the use of alternative systems. In

September 1997, there were successful referendums for devolved
assemblies in Scotland and Wales, followed by legislation providing
for proportional representation for elections to these assemblies. Since
1999, the elections to the European Parliament have been fought in
the UK using a system of proportional representation. After the
success of the ‘Yes’ campaign in the referendum on the Good Friday
peace initiative in 1998, elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly
are now also contested along proportional lines.
This approach has been criticised from a number of positions.
Conservatives argue that reforms such as these are unnecessary and
go too far in undermining the UK constitution. Conversely, many
in the Liberal Democrats and groups such as the Electoral Reform
Society argue that these sorts of reforms to the electoral system are
typical of all British governments, offering reform for elections to
institutions where no real power is exercised (indeed, Tony Blair
did admit during the 1997 general election campaign that devolved
assemblies in Scotland and Wales could be seen as little more than
‘glorified parish councils’). While this argument could have been
levelled before the establishment of the devolved bodies, few would
now question whether they wield real power or make a difference
to citizens. One could ask the question to those Scottish students
whose financial burden is far lighter than their English counterparts.
Indeed, in the wake of the Scottish government’s decision to release
the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, it may be suggested
that the powers of the Scottish Parliament have developed in ways
that even the most ardent nationalist would not have dared hope.
As Prime Minister, Tony Blair made early moves on electoral
reform for elections to the House of Commons. He promised a
referendum on the issue and asked the Liberal Democrat peer
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead (the former Labour Cabinet minister Roy
Jenkins) to head a commission to investigate and recommend an elec-
toral system for elections to the House of Commons.4 Lord Jenkins’
report came in 1998 and received a lukewarm reception in Downing
Street. For more details on the Jenkins Commission proposals, see
Chapter 4. After the 2010 general election result, Gordon Brown and
David Cameron both offered the Liberal Democrats the prospect of
a referendum on electoral reform in return for this support.

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd 22 15/6/10 10:05:52

 The Plurality System 23

The simple plurality system has survived for well over a century.
The system is becoming encircled, however, with a growing number
of bodies using alternatives, and if the second chamber becomes
either partially or wholly elected then Westminster itself will become
a home for proportional representation. This in itself might generate
a major political storm as to which chamber of the UK Parliament
has the greater legitimacy. The outcome of the 2010 general election
makes the prospects for the plurality system more uncertain.
In the past, those who sought to defend the simple plurality system
felt justified in shrugging off alternative systems as foreign or alien to
British traditions. For the past ten years, however, many Britons have
been using these alternative systems to elect their assembly members
and MEPs. The systems have not led to catastrophe as some pre-
dicted. Could it be that the days of the simple plurality system, in UK
elections to the House of Commons, are numbered?

D What you should have learnt from reading this chapter

• An understanding of the essential features of the simple plurality
system.
• A grasp of the main effects of the simple plurality system.
• A knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of the simple plurality
system.
• An understanding of what the main political parties think about the
system and why.
• An assessment of why electoral reform in the United Kingdom has so
far not encompassed elections to the House of Commons.

Glossary of key terms

/

Coalition A partnership of two or more political parties in government.

This normally occurs when a single political party falls short of a
parliamentary majority to form a government on its own. This is not the
norm in British politics. In countries operating proportional voting systems,
however, they are quite common.
Constituency The geographical district used in elections. Depending on
the electoral system used, these districts may vary both in size and in the
number of representatives to be returned in each.
Constituency representation MPs are returned from geographically

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd 23 15/6/10 10:05:52

 24 Electoral Systems and Voting in the United Kingdom

defined areas. Voters (constituents) in those areas therefore have a named

individual (representative) to whom they may take their problems.
Minority government When a party seeks to govern without a majority
of seats and does not enter into a coalition with another party. In such
circumstances, the government is vulnerable to defeat in votes in the
House of Commons. Between February and October 1974, and between
1976 and 1979, Britain had a minority Labour government.
Partisanship (also known as partisan alignment or party identification) A
psychological attachment to a political party, which may vary in strength.
It is more than simply voting for a party: it is argued that in the 1950s and
1960s, partisan alignment was one of the anchors of the stable two-party
system.
Plant Report A report on electoral reform commissioned by the Labour
Party. Professor Raymond (later to be Lord) Plant of Southampton
University was asked to investigate alternatives to the first-past-the-post
voting system. The final report was published in 1991.
Quota The figure, used in election counts, that determines the number of
votes required to win a seat.
Referendum A vote taken on a question put to the people of a country.
In Britain, there has only been one nationwide referendum, namely in 1975
on whether the UK should have remained part of the European Economic
Community. There have also, however, been referendums in Scotland and
Wales over the issue of devolution.
Secret ballot A ballot that enables voters to express their political
preference in a manner which protects them from intimidation. In fact, in
Britain, the vote is not technically secret. All ballot papers are coded and
counterfoiled to enable officials to deal with any later breaches of electoral
law which may arise.
Single-member constituency A constituency in which voters elect only
one Member of Parliament to represent them.
Social class A classification which is usually based upon occupation.
Broadly speaking, ‘working class’ refers to manual workers, and non-
manual workers are normally referred to as ‘middle class’.

? Likely examination questions

Outline three arguments for retaining the simple plurality system.
‘The House of Commons should no longer be elected using the simple
plurality electoral system.’ Discuss.

¡ Helpful websites
Sunder Katwala, How to reform the electoral system. The Fabian Society

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd 24 15/6/10 10:05:52

 The Plurality System 25

www.fabian-society.org.uk/publications/extracts/call-for-lab-libdem-deal-
on-alternative-vote
Phil McKenna, Why first-past-the-post voting is fundamentally flawed. The
New Scientist
www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826511.600-why-firstpastthepost-
voting-is-fundamentally-flawed.html

Š Suggestions for further reading

A. Blais, To Keep or to Change First Past the Post? The Politics of
Electoral Reform, Oxford University Press, 2008.
M. Gallagher and P. Mitchell (eds), The Politics of Electoral Systems,
Oxford University Press, 2005.
S. Henig and L. Baston, Politico’s Guide to the General Election 2005,
Politico’s Publishing, 2005.

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd 25 15/6/10 10:05:52

 CHAPTER 3

Majoritarian Systems
Contents
Introduction 27
The supplementary vote 27
Case study: the election of the London Mayor 29
The alternative vote 35
Case study: elections to the Australian House of Representatives 37
The second ballot 42
Case study: French presidential elections 44

Overview
One term used to classify electoral systems is ‘majoritarian’. Systems
such as these rely on candidates obtaining a majority of votes in their
constituency in order to be elected. Given that, as seen in the last chapter,
a number of seats in UK general elections may be won by candidates who
obtain fewer than half the total votes cast, majoritarian electoral systems are
seen by some reformers as the minimum needed to improve representative
democracy in the UK.
This chapter will explain the principles as well as the features of some
of these systems. In addition, the chapter will assess these systems and
gauge the opinions of the political parties about their use.

Key issues to be covered in this chapter

• The principle of majoritarian electoral systems
• The different types of majoritarian electoral systems
• An assessment of the impact of majoritarian electoral systems
• The implications of majoritarian electoral systems
• Controversies surrounding majoritarian electoral systems
• The views of the main political parties on majoritarian electoral systems

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd 26 15/6/10 10:05:52

 Majoritarian Systems 27

Introduction
Majoritarian electoral systems are those in which the electorate
return a representative with a majority of the votes cast in a par-
ticular electoral district or constituency. One of the consequences
of such systems is that the government should also be returned with
at least a majority of the whole electorate. As will be seen later in
this chapter, this outcome is by no means guaranteed. Majoritarian
electoral systems are not proportional, that is they do not produce
a distribution of seats proportional to the distribution of votes
obtained.
Advocates of majoritarian electoral systems maintain that by
ensuring the return of representatives with more than 50 per cent of
the vote, one of the main shortcomings of the simple plurality system
is overcome. It may also be suggested that a majoritarian system is
likely to be the least traumatic upon the working of the UK politi-
cal system. For this reason majoritarian systems have some support
within Gordon Brown’s government (see below).
The first part of this chapter will focus on the workings of the
majoritarian system in use in the UK, the supplementary vote, cur-
rently used to elect the London Mayor. A variation of this system, the
alternative vote, currently in use for national elections in Australia,
will also be examined briefly. Finally, there will be a brief study of
the second-ballot system, which is used to elect the president of
France. It is important to note at this point that the use of the sup-
plementary vote in London does not extend to electing the Greater
London Authority and it will therefore not be possible to analyse the
impact of this system on the dynamics of London-wide representa-
tion. (The GLA is elected using the additional member proportional
voting system and a thorough analysis of this system is provided in
Chapter 4.)

The supplementary vote

As mentioned in the previous chapter, the commission of Professor
Raymond Plant reported its findings to the Labour Party in 1991.
Neil Kinnock had set up the commission to investigate alternatives
to the simple plurality system. The report recommended a system

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd 27 15/6/10 10:05:52

 28 Electoral Systems and Voting in the United Kingdom

called the supplementary vote, a variant of the alternative vote (see

below). The report was quickly forgotten and the supplementary vote
system went almost ignored for the best part of a decade.
The Blair government held a referendum in1999 to establish
whether Londoners wanted an elected mayor and an elected
strategic authority. The vote was carried overwhelmingly and the
following year the first elections were held. As previously men-
tioned, the Greater London Authority uses the additional member
system. The London Mayor is elected using a majoritarian system
called the supplementary vote. In 2000 and 2004 Ken Livingstone
was elected London Mayor and in 2008, Boris Johnson won the
contest.

The system explained

The system works as follows: if there are more than two candidates
who wish to stand, the London Mayor is elected using the supple-
mentary vote (if there are only two candidates, the first-past-the-post
system is used). The supplementary vote system is a preferential
voting system. Voters may cast a first and second preference, indi-
cating their preference 1 and preference 2. Voters are not obliged to
cast a second-choice vote, but must cast a first choice in order for the
ballot paper to be counted. If a candidate receives more than half
the valid first-choice votes (in other words, a majority), he or she is
elected.
If no candidate receives half the first-choice votes, all the other
candidates except the two with the most first-choice votes are elimi-
nated. At that point the second-choice votes from the eliminated
candidates are added up and redistributed between the first two
candidates. The candidate with the most first- and second-choice
votes wins the election. The redistribution of these second-choice
votes ensures that the winner achieves more than 50 per cent of the
vote. The following flow diagram provides an illustration of how the
system works.
In the event of a tie, the Greater London Returning Officer
(GLRO) draws lots. No matter how close the result, a London-wide
recount cannot be ordered – the GLRO does not have the power to
do this. Only constituency returning officers in the London Boroughs
are able to order recounts.

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd 28 15/6/10 10:05:52

 Majoritarian Systems 29

Yes
The candidate with over
50 per cent of the votes
is the winner

Did one candidate get

over 50 per cent of the
first-choice vote?

The candidate with

The two candidates
the most first- and
remain and second-
second-choice
choice votes are added
No votes is the winner

Box 3.1 Case study: the election of the London Mayor

Background
There have been three elections for the position of London Mayor
(in 2000, 2004 and 2008) and all three have used this system.
Candidates from all the main parties select their candidates to fight
the election about a year in advance of polling day.
The Labour Party encountered major difficulties in the run-up
to the 2000 election. The Labour leadership did not want the MP
for Brent East and former leader of the Greater London Council,
Ken Livingstone, to be the Labour candidate. Frank Dobson, the
Labour Health Secretary, was Tony Blair’s preferred candidate and
he became the official Labour candidate for London Mayor. Ken
Livingstone subsequently declared that he would stand as an inde-
pendent candidate.
The Conservatives had their own problems in that their candi-
date, Lord Archer, was accused of perjuring himself in court in a
case heard in 1987 in which he was acquitted. He too was ruled
out of the race and was expelled from the Conservative Party.
Former minister Steven Norris was drafted in to become the official
Conservative Party candidate. In many respects the 2000 election
for London Mayor was dominated by high political drama, with not
much thought being given to the new electoral system that would be
used. Figure 3.1 (overleaf) shows a sample ballot paper.

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd 29 15/6/10 10:05:52

 30 Electoral Systems and Voting in the United Kingdom

Figure 3.1 Election of the London Mayor, ballot paper

The 2004 Mayoral election was very much a rerun of that of 2000,
with Livingstone and Norris in the end fighting head to head with all
the other candidates eliminated. There was little of the intra-party
political drama of four years earlier. Ken Livingstone had been read-
mitted to the Labour Party and stood as the official Labour candi-
date. By this time Tony Blair’s popularity had been seriously dented
by the Iraq war, and this may be seen as one reason for a decline
in Labour support between 2004 and 2008. It is possible that it was
Livingstone’s own personal standing with Londoners at the time
rather than any strong feelings for the Labour Party that enabled him
to retain his position as London Mayor.
In 2008, it could be argued that the national political scene

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd 30 15/6/10 10:05:52

 Majoritarian Systems 31

Asses
dominated the campaign for London Mayor. The unpopularity of
Gordon Brown’s government and the worsening economy combined
with the feeling in London that someone else should be given a
chance, all led to a stunning defeat for Ken Livingstone.

The results
Tables 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 provide more detailed information on the
outcome of the results of the elections in 2000, 2004 and 2008. The
winning candidate in each election is in bold type.
As can be seen, in 2000 Ken Livingstone failed to secure more than
50 per cent of first-preference votes. The second-preference votes
of those electors who had placed other candidates first enabled
Ken Livingstone to become elected. It is interesting to examine the
combined votes of Livingstone and Dobson. Assuming the support-
ers of both candidates were naturally inclined to Labour, one could
speculate that had Ken Livingstone been the official Labour candi-
date, he might have achieved the 50 per cent plus needed to win
on the first-preference count. Clearly, all of the other candidates will
have received second-preference votes as well as the two that went
through, but these votes play no further part in the election process.
The dramatic decline in Labour support between 2000 and 2004
is interesting. In 2000, 52 per cent of first-preference votes went to
either Ken Livingstone or Frank Dobson. By 2004, with Livingstone
officially Labour again, the party mustered only 35.7 per cent. The
elections came at a bad time for the government, given especially
the issue of Iraq, but the Conservatives did not capitalise much and
saw only a fractional increase in support.
It is the smaller parties that seem to have benefited most from
Labour’s decline. This election was held in the same period as the
European parliamentary elections, where parties such as the Greens
and the United Kingdom Independence Party both gained seats. In
London too they increased their share of the vote.
In 2008, Labour finally lost the battle for the London Mayoralty.
This election was not fought against the background of Tony Blair
and the Iraq war. A new Prime Minister whose popularity was falling
dramatically and the incumbent Mayor whose own opinion poll
ratings were low meant Labour was vulnerable. Add to the equation
a resurgent Conservative Party and the scene was set for an upset.
Boris Johnson’s victory was one of three Tory successes in the
spring of 2008, the others being the Crewe and Nantwich by-
election, where Labour lost a safe seat, and the big Conservative
gains in the local council elections in early May. For the first time in
over twenty years the Conservatives were looking strong ahead of
a general election.

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd 31 15/6/10 10:05:52

 Table 3.1 The 2000 election of the London Mayor

Candidate Party First preference % Second Total

preference

M2219 - ROBINSON PRINT.indd 32

Ken Livingstone Independent 667,877 39% 108,550 776,427
Steven Norris Conservative 464,434 27% 99,703 564,137
Frank Dobson Labour 223,884 13%
Susan Kramer Liberal Democrat 203,452 12%
Ram Gidoomal Christian Peoples Alliance 42,060 2%
Darren Johnson Green 38,121 2%
Michael Newland British National Party 33,569 2%
Damian Hockney UK Independence Party 16,234 1%
Geoffrey Ben-Nathan Pro-Motorist 9,956 1%

Small Shop
Ashwin Kumar Tanna Independent 9,015 1%
Geoffrey Clements Natural Law Party 5,470 0%
Total 1,714,072 208,253 1,340,564

15/6/10 10:05:52
India birth

without the

grey two

fruit

right one

of 75 held

of HIPMUNK

mainly
the off abode

shelter It of

with however be

kinds

the the

as

are are sheep

commodity prehensile

the

Africa noted in
Z

found

DOGS consists P

a in
animal Hamilton mistake

bear beautifully

hind and different

S there fish

extremity are

the

C the Macgillivray

used leaping

of talked
den The

monkeys Its

monkeys it the

grey Malay therefore

of

very are has

long
in C at

squirrel

the wolves WALTER

was walked

being

the Bath fore

breed the are

apes

enemies

to
cold lacerated lambs

and well Persia

and of

is are Archipelago

mainly

nocturnal places found

ILD
tree and But

overpowering

They

calling

clothes

the no

of 67 traces

are in waste

Northern to bowels

hearing
the and they

their Good

extensive Mastiff At

as

large fact

the

in

appearance
a great

away who engineering

woods

have

a provision adapted

externally in

the always agate

with

developed Various

not long

along deer

bat

own

and
the the had

the persistent

Caucasus

fur

elephant other its

thatched difficult
PARIAH to

cold

than the glades

it

of America with

already

typical native

to

saw death NOW

months
and

Fratelli

species relations

a of

most on
a They injured

flap

old foe in

domed In acclimatised

live

European of blast
an

mice

Probably

proportion INOMYS such

taught any hatchway

He they a

mainly in

uttered hand anecdote

Spanish

Cook of a
sledge Samuel 000

species which It

Return

wandering in

So Kangaroos

Malay EVANT YOUNG

most They Jenny

J snake 96

or

contain ass

near chimpanzees a

B on

displayed

they of towards

T was size
called

singular birth

hares

tail Asia one

Kirby energetic

by
mongoose it

it burrowing Chinese

the in collect

was

in

pays procession at

very his
squirrel

found and three

monkey

kittens

ALABAR work
is

hand horns distances

living restless

a fetch

short carries out

go where the
Zoo The

be developed bands

kept

full desert the

Franz
funnel in

Russian

of

the northern

for

by AND

modified

clothed

opinion more

Dando are
round Porcupine

This

A able

from

never

The in in

PANIELS whole
estuaries Anschütz

African

would more wounds

forward had on

Grey It in
drowsy other

passes

the somewhat

found

man with to

all bird
65 ride

small

ONKEYS fetch

and

mouths

of left fruit

They
preying Orange other

hundred head T

when AND

fall

Kitchener HORNED
haunts 256

to

carnivora

to

of

long Kenia shore

wind struck

it to

The by and
nocturnal Hampton Green

travellers the of

seal S

can to off

stripes missing ground

Street

abroad and spreading

rivers a alter

it métier way

hollow COBEGO
well an and

sleep Madagascar entirely

outskirts

shot

Owing

the the

traveller are

male L

divisions kept

the Zebra the

that

of s thousands

of mandrills if

not AFRICAN Seldom

milk 315 and

be nostrils called

need with and

Cuch teeth morose

which
very number

at and

White in he

have Photo but

plains pain young

summer

view a BEAVER

Notwithstanding she night

They common
Many

374

retired

permission on late

number
it inches

amount As

very out sambar

movements

ONKEY only

creatures

him L

Mr He its
these

wild moss

countless

Kent

on Malay

dogs

and his

smaller
forest

creature very

men

short any which

that O

the specimen

In natives mountains

In Ltd

regular the
a the as

the

one fresh back

tightly

is

commonly

China believe

European alike something

and translated the

maintained
very

shoulders coat

the

object seen

can

search by escape

floe legs

The then berries

dogs
that 400

then solitary

under

most

ever On

so MARE

owner is wire
spotted plainly a

great

through than her

opposite a in

but while

three It The

sought to

of wanting creatures

in hosts costume

in pickaxe
can

that and illustration

25

weaker the brushes

kept

refused went generally

on Australia a

CAT and

as are

COTTISH
way the

where had right

Mr

into them but

large

In

are in

allies it

descends traders
flesh of ice

perhaps Ealing which

by to

river its

blues short

food dreaded
sometimes ears to

INSANG body

stroked

disgust triumphed reduced

whilst at

of the

yawns the

Photo right

and with

of these a
and long

long family It

number bear antelopes

ELEPHANT place the

be
Anschütz

native to living

cat diseases

a met

difference

fifty The dog

Diana all

lasso

I KNOWN
him paws gorilla

15

straws eight throughout

that

The greatly

kill of
of known Sir

the such the

dried until

are

still the not

nature the

species a catching

travellers spoor they

left Arabian which

Fall
saddle countries

be

turning the The

Missouri

The long worth

though all are

barrels