When I was at secondary school in the early 1970s, my history teacher was a man with a passion for his subject who always encouraged critical discussion. So while he taught us enthusiastically about British “democracy”, he was indulgent towards me when I challenged his assertion following the February 1974 election: the one where the Tories came top with 11.9 million votes (297 seats), Labour “won” with 11.6 million votes (301 seats) and the Liberals’ six million votes delivered 14 members of the House of Commons.
The reality is that the outcome of every election before and since 1974 has been unfair to a greater or lesser extent. Labour got more than nine times as many seats as the Liberal-SDP Alliance in 1983 with just 2% more of the vote. Tony Blair had a comfortable overall majority with 35.2% in 2005 while David Cameron fell well short five years later with 36.1%.
The 2015 election is more striking than most. The SNP got 95% of Scotland’s seats on just under half the vote. Each SNP MP represents roughly 25,000 voters while almost 3.9 million ballots were cast to get Douglas Carswell into Parliament. 51 of the 55 seats in South-West England are Conservative and Labour is the only other party with representation in that region.
Whenever a General Election throws up a particularly bizarre result, a ritual is performed in which those treated worst by the system protest about its unfairness. It happened in 1964, 1974, 1983, 2010 and again a few days ago, with the presentation of the fair voting petition (that I signed). But nothing ever actually changes.
When I joined the Liberals in March 1974, I would never have imagined that we would still be using first-past-the-post voting four decades later. Why is it that, in a country supposedly characterised by “fair play”, we tolerate such a system? Why on earth does anyone think it is remotely democratic?
Confusing democracy with pluralism
A key reason is that Britain has all the other essential facets of democracy: a secret ballot, freedom to campaign and express opinions, the right to form parties and stand in elections. These are things that people in many other countries long for and they show that pluralism is well-entrenched in the British political landscape.
Pluralism is necessary for democracy but it isn’t sufficient in itself. For a system to be democratic, it has to meet basic technical conditions linked to the vote actually having a value in electing someone.
In an ideal world, all votes would have equal value, but in reality, no system – no matter how proportional – manages to achieve that. Some ballots will always be wasted including those cast for winners in excess of what they need, and those given to candidates or parties with very low levels of support. But to pass the test of democracy, a system must guarantee that a certain proportion of the votes actually have a value in electing someone. When the number of ballots without value falls below 50% then, self-evidently, the system fails the democracy test.
Under FPTP, all votes cast for losing candidates are wasted. So too are all excess votes cast for winners. That means that the vast majority of ballots cast on May 7, as in all previous UK elections, had no value. Like most of my fellow citizens, I could see the next day, when I read the result in my constituency, that my trip to the polling station had been a complete waste of time.
We are allowed freely to express our view in the ballot box. But the system prevents most of our votes from being reflected in the results.
A key problem in Britain is a kind of political correctness that permeates our political narrative. It is acceptable to argue that the system is imbalanced, unfair or even grotesque but it is going too far to draw the obvious conclusion and say out loud that it isn’t democratic. Because if it isn’t democratic, then Britain isn’t a democracy and we can’t possibly say that!
Well I am saying it and I think it’s time for our party to take the gloves off and start saying it as well.
I am not suggesting this issue should be at the top of our campaigning agenda for the next five years. We need to attract voters back on the bread and butter issues. We must keep arguing for a Liberal vision of society based on social cohesion and fairness. And we have to challenge the perception of Tory economic competence and develop policies that show we have a better plan for prosperity while protecting the environment.
But I hope our new leader has the courage to step outside the box (sorry about the cliché) with the simple message that Britain is not yet a democracy and won’t be until most of our votes have a value in electing someone. He will certainly be ridiculed by the Tories in Parliament and by their media friends – but if the message is repeatedly regularly and in a reasonable manner (in sorrow rather than anger) we might finally begin to make people feel uncomfortable about the issue and challenge the complacent and near-universal acceptance of a system that is fundamentally wrong.
* Simon Horner was Lib Dem candidate for North-East Scotland (European Parliament) in 1989 and 1994 and for North Tayside (Westminster) in 1992.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
West End Ward Tuesday Surgeries #dundeewestend
Is Trump set to get his revenge on Labour?
Meeting the new locality coordinator
Peterborough Cathedral launches £300,000 appeal to allow it to stay open daily
The Government needs its growth *explanation*
The surprising similarity between Tony Blair and Nigel Farage
Daniel Stylianou
Alex Macfie
Mark Pack
David Blake
David Evans
36 Comments
I think people must recognise that the UK has coasted along for years, protected by a nearly
democratic system but not realising that as each year goes by it looks more archaic, less democratic and even, frankly, ludicrous. The equal votes issue shouldn’t even be an issue, and the scandal of tactical voting shouldn’t have to take place. That’s before you get into so-called parliamentary etiquette, the blot of the unelected house of lords and the unfortunate presence there of bishops.
To someone from a new democracy, the UK must look rather more like an oligarchy than a democracy, and that’s before you add in the latest crops of new members notable more for their surnames than for anything they themselved have done.
Only a proper PR system can remedy this. I admit I did not understand AV, perhaps because as has been explained to me recently I over-estimate my intelligence. But nobody else I knew understood AV either. Its not that in itself it is hard to grasp, its workings etc. It is in how it is logical or proportionate. It just seemed to be some grubby compromise that made no sense. If I want my vote to count then I want the vote I cast for my preferred candidate to count, not some reserve, secondary vote.
PR needs to be represenatative, which is why I think it needs to be regionalised – the devolved nations, and regions within England. Otherwise, Plaid’s voteshare within Wales won’t get it that number of seats within Wales, or a regional, eg Cornish, party won’t get anything from standing and getting votes in the South-West.
It will be a compromise, but it should be one that is far far nearer the pattern of voting nationally than the current farce.
I have said on another thread that the LibDems won’t recover on the basis of being “the PR party”.
But it would be even more hopeless to take the laughable view that Britain is not a democracy. You would be ridiculed not just by Tories but by the public, who know what’s true whatever hyperbole LibDems might come out with. You’d also be quite rightly be challenged about your own party’s willing collaboration in the (according to you) undemocratic 2010-2015 régime.
What’s amazing is that you can say this while very fairly and accurately accepting (as few PR fans do) that
Agreed. There is a further point that while The Commons is more democratic than The Lords in some ways, its less in others. Yes Lords are appointed but by people who are themselves elected, just like The Prime Minister in fact.
We should assert that The Lords are part of the system as it is & if we can defeat legislation in The Lords we have a duty to do so. The convention that The Lords always backs down in the end is just that, a convention not a law. We arent convential. Of course if The Government get angry & decide to reform The Lords, well, we should welcome that !
I’m sorry Carl, but you need to come up with a better riposte than that. If resorting to laughter is the best that people who support the current system can come up with then I am encouraged. You really ought to try at least to justify a system that guarantees more wasted votes than useful ones.
I think I made it clear that no system can give value to every vote. We can happily discuss whether Israel (the closest to pure proportionality) or Belgium (with its list system) is more democratic but in both countries, the vast majority of votes count. In Britain, the vast majority of votes don’t. That’s not hyperbole but a simple statement of fact.
As for your point about our going into coalition, working within the system doesn’t mean we agree with it and we did try unsuccessfully to change it.
@Carl Gardner – “the laughable view that Britain is not a democracy”
I agree that this article is pure hyperbole. The UK is a democracy because the government changes without blood on the streets. By Horner’s reasoning Iran is an almost perfect democracy because the elected president gained just fractionally over 50% of the votes.
If a UKIP type said that the UK wasn’t a democracy because of the EU, what would you say?
There are very, very good arguments for STV, these hysterics are not amongst them.
You should read my article more carefully, David and you would see that the reference to Iran is silly. Iran is not pluralist in any meaningful sense while Britain is. As I mentioned, pluralism is a necessary condition of democracy but it isn’t sufficient if the system itself is not designed to reflect how people voted. Is it really hyperbolic to say that!
The fact that we have peaceful changes of government is obviously a good thing but if that is all we need to prove the existence of “democracy” then somebody will have to get the dictionaries to change their definitions.
My students (year 8) looked at the general election during it’s run up and the subsequent consequences from it. Afterwards we looked at the number of seats won vs the number of overall votes. They were baffled by the distribution and could not get there heads around the first past the post system after seeing the overall voting figures. If year 8 students who have never studied the political system can see a flaw in the figures we’re getting (but Miss, all those voters only have 10 seats between them!) then something needs to be done.
Carl, I don’t get your comment “You’d also be quite rightly be challenged about your own party’s willing collaboration in the (according to you) undemocratic 2010-2015 régime.” 2010, although probaby still grossly unfair in terms of wasted votes according to the criteria set out by Simon, demonstrated clearly that it was required to obtain a majority of voters to secure a government. We actually had a government which required 69% of the electorate to return the MPs that they did. This in itself is a vast improvement over any General Election since I first was able to vote.
There is no hyperbole here. You can argue you the t*ss as to what constitutes a “real democracy”. Whatever you say, the UK is a grotesque failure. Yes,
As Simon said “I would never have imagined that we would still be using first-past-the-post voting four decades later…”. For me, voting since 1987 seems long enough to be faced with a pathetic failure to change the system. Maybe the Lib Dems won’t recover on the basis of being “The PR Party”, but, Carl, nobody has said the Lib Dems should be “The nothing-but-PR party”. Having a vision and solution and a model for the future of the UK is what makes us stand out. It’s what has made us, the Liberals, the SDP and the Alliance before us, stand out and attract voters who are not just purist liberals or social democrats, but people who want change.
I’ll tell you this: the Greens and UKIP are also parties of PR. They are taking many protest votes as well as core green and anti-EU votes respectively. There isn’t room for a party which is nothing but Labour-lite and Tory-lite with no vision, and that’s why we should be MORE prominent than either Greens or UKIP with regards to the reform agenda. Otherwise there will really be no space for us in the political landscape beyond our 7% core vote.
We need a vision and commitment to force a change to PR. It’s as simple as that. It’s also an extension of our core values so not to have it in a manifesto is, I believe, a dereliction of duty as liberals and democrats.
@Simon Horner
You have introduced a quantitative measure (let’s call it “fraction of effective votes”) by which the UK voting system fares badly, and argue we are not not democratic because it is below a certain threshold. I disagree, but at least it is measurable.
You then exclude Iran because it is not pluralistic. But how do you measure pluralism? All major party leaders in the UK came from a middle to upper class white background. Is that pluralism? The selection of candidates for president in Iran doesn’t look pluralistic from the viewpoint of British culture, but this is probably due to our ignorance. Iran is not a democracy because it shoots people who criticize the government. For all one knows it may be more pluralistic than the UK.
Your criticism of our voting system is valid. Your mistake is to conclude that we are not a democracy. This is as bad a misuse of language as saying that a petrol engine that operates at less than 50% efficiency is no longer an engine. It’s in need of improvement, but is nevertheless an engine.
Simon Hornet
Thank you for this article.
I for one am glad that you are not going to be squashed by conformity.
You are quite correct to say —
“…,,,But I hope our new leader has the courage to step outside the box ….with the simple message that Britain is not yet a democracy”
It is not just FPTP it is the whole archaic , chaotic nonsense that is Westminster where MP are forced to swear an oath that many do not believe in to a monarch who represents much of what is wrong with our society.
Our new leader should draw a line under the past and say loudly and clearly that this sort of nonsense has to stop.
John, the Monarch doesn’t represent anything that is wrong with our society. All the things that affect our day-to-day lives and our manner of governance, our prosperity – or whatever you care to mention – are all things that are controlled by our elected government. We, through them, could have changed our society beyond recognition if we had so chosen and the existence or not of the monarchy has nothing to do with that. Likewise, swearing an oath is the least of the problems at Westminster. It is the day-to-day running of business in parliament that is a farce and that is what should matter to us the most.
Michael Kilpatrick 69% of the Electorate voted for either Tory or Lib Dem MPs that much is true. However, the Tories and Lib Dems campaigned on very different manifestos – they disagreed fundamentally on how to handle the economy, for example but in Coalition the Lib Dems supported the Tory approach. So it is wholly wrong to suggest that 69% of the electorate voted for what we ended up with – that is why those who voted Lib Dem in 2010 deserted the Party not long after the GE.
A small correction – that should be 59% not 69% in 2010 – Conservative 36%, Lib Dem 23%.
I agree with the article: an FPTP lower house and an unelected upper house is hardly a democracy.
Carl Gardner
“I have said on another thread that the LibDems won’t recover on the basis of being ‘the PR party’.”
I would say that is not possible for the Lib Dems to be ‘the PR party’s as too many other parties also support PR so at most they could be ‘one of the PR parties’
John Tilley
“chaotic nonsense that is Westminster where MP are forced to swear an oath that many do not believe in to a monarch who represents much of what is wrong with our society.
Our new leader should draw a line under the past and say loudly and clearly that this sort of nonsense has to stop.”
When selecting from the ripe harvest of nonsence that is Westminster you pick the oath, not where I would start…
Whether it’s hyperbole or not – if it can get people talking about it constantly (especially the media and then the electorate) then I say keep talking.
I think we should be angry and now sorrowful. It’s ultimately subjective though. The point is let’s get it done.
Periodic changes in government are not what makes a democracy. If we flipped a coin every five years and put in a Labour PM when it came up heads and a Tory when tails, it would not be a democracy. If the monarch appointed new governments every five years based on a whim, it would not be a democracy. If every five years we randomly picked one person in the UK and let that person decide who should be PM, that would not be a democracy. If we left the decision up to the House of Lords, that would not be a democracy. If we held elections every five years, but gave the party with the highest number of votes a 300 seat bonus (in the manner of Mussolini’s Italy) that would not be democracy. When the UK put the forming of the government in the hands of the monarch, and parliamentary representation was primarily in the hands of lords and bishops, and the Commons were elected by a narrow and inconsistent franchise, with a large number of boroughs being chosen by the tools of great landowners, that was not democracy.
Democracy is more than periodic changes in government. It is a compound of many things, but one of the key elements is that the people get to choose their leaders. When a system fails to give the people representation comparable to their votes, then millions are effectively disfranchised, and to that extent, the system is not a democracy.
Psi 19th May ’15 – 11:14pm
“.. When selecting from the ripe harvest of nonsence that is Westminster you pick the oath, not where I would start…”
Perhaps not, but it is where MPs are forced to start. No oath — no salary !
That is the choice put to the newly elected MP when she or he turns up. It is your first day at David Cameron’s School, you have to cope with the ludicrous geography of the place, the hidden corridors, the dusty stairways, the blokes in frocks, the lack of toilets, the rules about who can sit where in which tea room – if you can find the tea room, the inbuilt discrimination against women, the sort of place that people like Jacob Rees Moog or anyone who would be more suited to an obscure corner of the 18th century feel perfectly at home, and the first thing that the class bully tells you that you MUST do is swear an oath to a feudal overlord or you won’t get their pay.
This is not a democracy it is Hogwarts without the good guys.
I guess you are not an MP?
John Tilley: I assume that you would like the beautiful Houses of Parliament demolished and replaced by some modern building – sad really. Many people find the traditions of Parliament interesting – why should they be scrapped because people like you do not understand that ? There are enough boring things we have to endure as it is, without destroying the few remaining ceremonies and customs.
The oath to the Queen concludes by referring to her heirs and SUCCESSORS, ACCORDING TO LAW. Unless you are proposing the abolition of the monarchy by force or some other undemocratic procedure even the most ardent republican should have no difficulty swearing an oath to the lawful current Head of State because if the nation wants a republic and it is approved by Parliament then the oath will continue to be valid. At your age it is time you put aside all this school boy nonsense.
nvelope2003 20th May ’15 – 11:46am
No – I would make the Palace of Westminster a 100%. profit-making tourism and museum centre with some luxury flats for Russian Oligarchs (lke the rest of the posher bits of London).
I would have a federal parliament in a purpose-built 21st Century building in Manchester designed to enhance and serve a democratic legislature which takes the views of ordinary voters seriously.
Yes I would abolish the monarchy yesterday.
At my age I need this basic step towards democracy completed as soon as possible. 🙂
If you want to live in a fantasy word of Kings and Queens I can recommend a number of Disney locations you will enjoy.
This article and subsequent comments are about democracy. Sorry if you feel that idea is “schoolboy nonsense”.
Our Parliament evolved to represent places not parties. It’s no use bemoaning the unfairness of it. It isn’t about to change. The tories are probably in power for ten years and they have no intention of changing a system that does them nicely. Labour still hope to get back in the game and also have intention of supporting any change. The SNP are probably begining to realise the current system serves them well too. No, if we are going to get MPs elected it will be under the current system. We had better get used to that.
@John Tilley
Manchester! NO WAY! The YLF (Yorkshire Liberation Front) which I have just founded, will fight to the death for York! 🙂
Apart from the Manchester bit I have some sympathy though! And lets disestablish the CofE while we are at it!
JohnTilley 20th May ’15 – 9:58am
[[Psi 19th May ’15 – 11:14pm
“.. When selecting from the ripe harvest of nonsence that is Westminster you pick the oath, not where I would start…”
“Perhaps not, but it is where MPs are forced to start. No oath — no salary ! … the inbuilt discrimination against women, the sort of place that people like Jacob Rees Moog or anyone who would be more suited to an obscure corner of the 18th century feel perfectly at home, and the first thing that the class bully tells you that you MUST do is swear an oath to a feudal overlord or you won’t get their pay. This is not a democracy it is Hogwarts without the good guys. I guess you are not an MP?”
That just about sums it up John. By the way, in case he declines to clarify his position, P.Si is yet to make it to the green benches.
It might be desirable to have the MPs swear an oath to a concept or symbol that represents liberty, democracy, and the rule of law, but who really thinks that is what the Queen represents?
Andrew
Don’t get me wrong – I really Iike York – even with its eccentric approach to traffic congestion.
It has a fantastic railway museum and a number of other unique and rather special museums and historic settings.
The minster is unique.
The city walls are well worth a walk round.
I would just prefer the federal parliament to be in a city that was not regularly under water.
@David-1 – It’s a oath of allegiance not some aspirational mumbo jumbo. Without it, it could be argued that Parliament had no say over the armed forces (since they also swear and oath of allegiance to the queen). I suspect it has become devalued in recent times in that we haven’t sent those who are in breech to the Tower…
John Tilley: I did not say that democracy was schoolboy nonsense. If you took the trouble to read what people actually wrote your arguments might be more convincing. The Houses of Parliament would lose much of their attraction for tourists if Parliament no longer met there and might then be a burden on the taxpayer along with your modern Manchester building but in any case moving to a different building or town is irrelevant as it is the people who are members of that body which is the important issue. London is the capital city of the United Kingdom and people expect the main institutions to be based there. Look at all those happy Scottish Nationalists. Alex Salmond just cannot keep away from the place and they will all be loath to break away from the UK if it meant they were unable to sit in “Westminster” whatever they claim in public. It is where they can make their very valuable contribution to the governance of the United Kingdom.
You talk of democracy but I sometimes wonder if your democracy is the sort of “guided democracy” which was upheld in the USSR and probably still is under Putin. You want what you think is good for other people but maybe the people do not want that and no amount of preaching can be guaranteed to make them want it. The present system is a compromise. We have MPs who on the whole are decent enough people who take account of people’s wishes but use their discretion in deciding how to implement the people’s will. If we were to be ruled by constant referendums (referenda ?)or supposedly ordinary people, whoever they might be, you might find that the people would expel all immigrants and restore capital punishment. They would be unlikely to abolish the monarchy . Is that the sort of democracy that you want ?
As regards the monarchy, it is no coincidence that those northern European countries that retain their monarchies are the most democratic and stable countries , possibly in the world. Are places like Ukraine, Serbia, France or Slovakia better because they are republics. I would need some convincing. Be careful what you wish for.
JohnTilley
“I guess you are not an MP?”
No (or an ex either, as that is now the larger group)
I do find it odd when I agree with you but purpose built in Manchester would be my preference too (well actually near, rather than in, so I suppose I’ve still got some distance there).
Not due to the flooding though, I think the closer proximity to Wales makes it preferable. Though the heart says it should be Yorkshire the head is with Manc.
nvelope2003
“The Houses of Parliament would lose much of their attraction for tourists if Parliament no longer met there and might then be a burden on the taxpayer along with your modern Manchester building but in any case moving to a different building or town is irrelevant as it is the people who are members of that body which is the important issue.”
I don’t believe the Palace of Westminster would lose its appeal if parliament moved. It will be a significant burden for many years yet as the restoration of this national monument will be expensive. But once it is done it would make a great museum and conference centre.
I would also say the building and location do matter for many reasons. Firstly the space you work in does impact how you behave. That is not to say that you would want just an office block, in building a new parliament it would be useful to know what wants to be coppied from the old building and what wants to be changed.
The people matter the most but parliamentarians are humans and influenced by their environment.
“If we were to be ruled by constant referendums (referenda ?)”
I’ed happily import the additional referenda approach from places like Switzerland , provided you have a clear framework it all works within I think it would be much better for all of us.
“As regards the monarchy, it is no coincidence that those northern European countries that retain their monarchies are the most democratic and stable countries , possibly in the world. Are places like Ukraine, Serbia, France or Slovakia better because they are republics. I would need some convincing. Be careful what you wish for.”
I’ed agree with not abolishing the monarchy, I’ed need a convincing argument a specific alternative is better for the UK, also I don’t see it as as important as other factors (including things like the office space MPs have to work in) .
Not Who I Say I Am
“By the way, in case he declines to clarify his position, P.Si is yet to make it to the green benches.”
Well I do get distracted by life sometimes so it can take me a while to get back. But if you are offering you can look out for questions I forgot to respond to and call me up so I can dictate my responce to you over the phone. Give me a call if you think I have missed something.
Roland: “It’s a oath of allegiance not some aspirational mumbo jumbo.”
No, it is. That’s exactly what it is. The problem is that you don’t see it because you’ve bought into a mythology that pretends it’s more.
Britain really isn’t a democracy. There are reasons why the original meaning of democracy has gone by the board, actually asking the whole populace what they want. Just wasn’t practical to do that as countries got larger, and so our system of local chieftains meeting in conference arose. Now it would be possible, do we want to reintroduce democracy?
Ours is more of a benign dictatorship, really, with an aristocratic ruling elite which has a relatively broad approach to accepting new members from the classes below, not simply relying on the hereditary principle. They form into teams and vie for popular support, not really caring what those supporters think, just that they can get more on their side.