Mediaboss Marketing

Getting Brexit done is now the irrefutable,irresistible, unarguable decision of the British people. These are thetriumphant words of our Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, hours after hisresounding win in Decembers general election. Yet even a cursory glance at thepopular vote casts doubt on this supposedly unequivocal mandate. Compared withtheir disappointing 2017 performance, the Conservatives only rose 1.2% to 43.6%of the overall number of votes cast. Yet faced with a divided opposition, they gained48 seats and a remarkable parliamentary majority that leaves them free toimplement to govern as they see fit for the next five years. Many of theiropponents will feel hard done by, and with good reason. The question is, why isthis system so broken? And can we should we rectify it?

British general elections are based on a system knownas First Past the Post (FPTP). This means each of the United Kingdoms 650constituencies, whichever candidate wins more votes than all others, theplurality, represents that area in the House of Commons. Though simple tounderstand and carry out, this system is inherently flawed andunrepresentative. On one hand, voters in so-called safe seats such as JeremyCorbyns Islington North, whomever they may support, are discouraged fromvoting by their inability to have any effect on the result.

In more marginal areas, MPs can be voted into power despitecommanding nothing near an actual majority. The constituency of Kensington is aprime example of this, where Liberal Democrat convert Sam Gyimah received over9000 votes. This allowed his Tory rival to win with 38.3% of the vote, defeatingthe Labour incumbent by just 150 votes, a deficit she would have likely overcomehad the Liberal Democrats not split the vote for Remainers. This is known asthe spoiler effect. Smaller parties risk damaging their own interests by stealingvotes from larger parties they agree with somewhat and handing victory to thosewith whom they disagree far more virulently. As a result, a reluctantelectorate finds itself forced to vote tactically and compromise on itspolitical convictions.

One possible solution to this problem is a systemknown as Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMPR). Under this model, alsoused in elections for the devolved Scottish Parliament and the London Assembly,candidates would be divided into two groups: local and national. Localrepresentatives are the winners of their constituencys vote, while nationalrepresentatives are then assigned so as to ensure the governing body is aproportional reflection of the preferences of the whole population. Using MMPR,the SNP would not, as they did this year, have over four times more Westminsterseats than the Liberal Democrats, despite winning barely a third of the votes. Whatsmore, every vote counts, so a Green vote in their Brighton Pavilion strongholdis as important as a Green vote anywhere else.

That said, MMPR is not without its flaws. Itscomplicated processes can be difficult to understand and impractical to carryout on a broader scale, explaining why only a select number of countries, suchas New Zealand, use it in nationwide elections. Proportional systems can alsolead to the growth of parties on the extremes of the political spectrum, such asthe BNP, which, though a technically more democratic outcome, may not be aparticularly desirable one. Perhaps the most significant problem, however, islegislative stagnation. Outright popular majorities in countries with diverse,multi-party systems are very uncommon. This makes broad coalitions necessaryand serious reform grindingly slow.

FPTP certainly does not share these drawbacks, diminishingthe power of widespread minority groups and favouring comfortable, or at leastworkable, majorities for parties with a widespread base of support. But therewill always be a trade-off between a system that faithfully represents the manyshades of popular opinion and one that is actually able to pass legislation andaddress key issues.

Perhaps the most effective and feasible compromisebetween these two goals is the Alternative Vote (AV). In this type of election,voters are allowed to rank their options from most to least favourite. If thereis no single party with an outright majority, the votes of the smallest partyssupporters are redistributed to its voters next preferred choices. Thisprocess is repeated until one candidate achieves a majority, and they areelected as that constituencys Member of Parliament. This system was roundlyrejected in the 2011 referendum on the subject with over two thirds of voters opposingit. Indeed, AV is far from perfect. It doesnt eliminate safe seats, couldincrease the likelihood of a hung parliament and can seem confusing and opaqueto the general public.

Nevertheless, AV is better than FPTP in one keyrespect: there is no spoiler effect, meaning the incentive to vote tacticallyis vastly reduced. Take Hartlepool, for instance, where Labour held on withjust 38% of the vote to the Tories 29. In an AV election, most of the 26% ofvotes cast for Brexit Party chairman Richard Tice would likely have beentransferred to the Conservatives, giving them the victory in an area that votedoverwhelmingly to leave the European Union in 2016. AV favours compromisecandidates that most constituents can live with, even if they arent theirabsolute favourite. Though by no means revolutionary, this system would help torestore the faith in politics of a disillusioned populace whilst also allowingfor functioning governments that most people can support.

It should come as no surprise that the ConservativeParty was vehemently opposed to the Alternative Vote in 2011. After all, it wasthe FPTP system that put them into government and has kept them there for thepast decade (though ironically, had the 2015 election been held under AV, it isthought the Conservatives would have won a larger number of seats). Genuineelectoral reform of any description is always difficult because those with theability to institute change rarely want to bite the hand that feeds them. In1997, New Labour were elected on a promise to reform the voting system. But havingwon a huge majority under FPTP, they were understandably unwilling to changeit. However, if we honestly value the principle of a true representativedemocracy, it is crucial that we dont just settle for a system as problematicand unsatisfactory as First Past the Post. Though Proportional Representation maybe an idealistic and impractical alternative, AV could serve as a sensibleGoldilocks option between these two extremes. A future without the need tosecond-guess other peoples decisions in the voting booth is undoubtedly apositive one. We should not let a blind aversion to change deter us from thepossibility of meaningful progress. It is only ironic that the best way toimprove Britains democracy might be to introduce a reform rejected at theballot box only a few short years ago.

The rest is here:
Opinion - Is This What Democracy Looks Like? - Cherwell Online