BORIS Johnson may have a majority of 80 seats in the Commons after last week’s General Election, but the result could have been so different if voting had taken place under a form of proportional representation (PR), seen by many as much fairer than Westminster’s outdated first-past-the-post (FPTP) system.
We in Scotland use a PR system for Holyrood and council elections, and similar methods are in use for polls in Wales, Northern Ireland and the London Assembly.
To illustrate how PR could have altered the General Election results, researchers at the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) used a system modelled on that used in elections to the European Parliament (d’Hondt list PR). Their new total saw the Tories take 45.6% of seats, far closer to their 43.6% vote share and down 12 points from the seats they received under FPTP.
READ MORE: The Tories didn’t win the election – constitutional change had the real victory
The SNP – which backs a more proportional voting system and who will also be over-represented in the next Parliament because of the current voting system – would see their seat share move to 4.4% under d’Hondt, closer to their actual 3.9% vote share.
Other parties too would also have benefitted, said the ERS, with Labour gaining 14 seats, the Lib Dems 59, the Brexit party 10 and the Greens 11. The DUP in Northern Ireland (-3) and Sinn Fein (-2) would both lose seats with the SDLP (+1) and Alliance (+2) both making gains.
When the Scottish Parliament was set up in 1999, it was deemed that FPTP could disadvantage some parties and allow a single party to form a government with an overall majority, even if it received less than half the votes cast.
A fairer form was sought which would more closely reflect people’s views and return a fairer match and the decision was taken to use a form of PR known as the Additional Member System (AMS).
This allows people to vote for a constituency MSP and adds other members to make the overall result more proportional, representing more viewpoints in Parliament.
READ MORE: Is voting system to blame for Remain arguments being ignored?
Each elector is given two votes – the first for each of the 73 constituency MSPs and conducted under FPTP and the second to elect seven regional MSPs in each of Scotland’s eight parliamentary regions. This is where we put a cross for the party rather than a person, after which parties are allocated a number of additional members to make the end result more proportional.
The Single Transferable Vote (STV) used in Scottish council elections gives each elector one vote and they number candidates by preference. Candidates must reach a quota of votes based on the number of seats to be filled and the number of votes cast. If they already have enough to win or stand no chance, votes are transferred to electors’ next choice. The ERS supports a move to this STV system.
Chief executive, Darren Hughes, said: “No government should be able to win a big majority on a minority of the vote. Westminster’s voting system is warping our politics beyond recognition and we’re all paying the price. Under proportional voting systems, seats would more closely match votes, and we could end the scourge of millions feeling unrepresented and ignored. Parties like the Greens and Brexit Party won huge numbers of votes and almost no representation. The LibDems saw a surge in votes and their number of seats fall. Something is very clearly wrong.
“Voters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are used to using more democratic voting systems – and having more cooperative politics as a result.
“Westminster’s system is built on confrontation and warped results, but we can do better than this. We can move to a fairer system, restoring trust in politics and building a better democracy at the same time.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here