How our voting system means not all our votes are equal

[stumbledin]

There is a huge difference between number of votes cast and seats won. So despite what is being said on mumsnet and msm the Lib Dems have actually done much better this time, but it doesn't translate into seats. And as always it is easier to get a seat in Scotland than else where.

So, I have calculated the number of seats each party would get if reflecting number of votes cast. (I do this every year for myself as it helps me see how badly the news reflects reality.)

Not sure if anyone else is interested!

       Con       Lab    LD  SNP Gr DUP SF Plaid Bxt UKIP Others

FPTP 364 203 11 48 1 8 7 4 0 0 3
PR 283 209 75 25 18 5 4 3 13 1 14

There is still one seat to be declared.

oops - see if this displays better:

Party FPTP / PR
Con 364 / 283
Labour 203 / 209
Lib Dem 11 / 75
SNP 48 / 25
Green 1 / 18
DUP 8 / 5
Sinn Fn 7 / 4
Plaid 4 / 3
Brexit 0 / 13
UKIP 0 / 1
Others 3 / 14

Thanks for doing this and sharing with us. I'll pass the numbers round to friends, if you don't mind.

We definitely need a PR system that will reflect our votes better.

I do wish these sort of issues gained more recognition and traction.

Thank you for this - very interesting.

I am in favour of withdrawing constituency boundaries, but not of PR: almost everywhere, it leads to hamstrung governments, inaction and masses of elections (Israel has called it's third election of the year - though it's not til 2020, I think; Italy has had more governments since the war than the number of years since the war--Germany is OK, but the UK isn't Germany, frankly) - basically, a hung parliament or minority government, but every single fucking time!

I don't know what a fairer system is - maybe a combination of both constituency and lists - but PR isn't the panacea to all ills: and it can lead to very minority/fringe parties being the kingmaker--imagine the BNP having that kind of power...

redrawing FFS!

I agree the Lib Dems have done better in the sense that more people voted for them but when you are the leader of a party and you lose your seat, I think that reflects badly enough on your party to overshadow that.

Oh could I ask what system you used as part of your calculation?
Also, the SNP doesn't cover the whole of the UK, so how does it fit in with the PR numbers?

Sorry for the silly questions, I don't know enough about the various PR systems available.

Not just In Scotland. Labour tend to need less votes than Tories (‘labour’ constituencies are smaller on average); the Lib Dem’s (in coalition) and Labour voted against the last lot of boundary changes - the first time electoral commission(?) reforms have been rejected by parliament.

In Scotland there is a mixture of PR and fptp. Which means a lot of MSPs do not represent their constituents; they represent their party. These list MSPs are chosen by the party so are very difficult for the electorate to reject - especially the ones at the top. Hence we get the odious Patrick Harvie, Green Party who, due to the minority government, gets excessively disproportionate power even though no one voted for him.

PR isn't the panacea to all ills

Certainly no single system will be perfect, but I find the current form of politics very adversarial rather than co-operative. We are effectively stuck between choosing Labour or Conservative every time which means there's little room for meaningful, long-term change.

If one side implements something, the other side wants to reverse it. It's a tedious game of political ping pong. No one cares about implementing well thought out policies, only opposing anything and everything the other side says even if it is detrimental.

Surely in the 21st century we have to look for common ground and move forward on ways to improve people's lives by consensus rather than simply going back and forth on issues all the time.

I did something similar a couple of elections ago and the figures around SNP/BNP/Brexit party were quite frightening. I do always eye roll a little when SNP supporters talk about Westminster representation because actually, we're over-represented. The year I did it Brexit party would have got around 40 seats and didn't win one...

Anyone who was around in 1983 (especially centrists) knows this all too well. (There were only a couple apiece SNP and Plaid, and the NI parties)

                  Con          Labour        Alliance(SDP-Liberal )

Seats won*
397
209
23
% votes. 42.4 27.6. 25.4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983UniteddKingdomgenerallelection

Sorry, the formatting didn't work but the discrepancy between votes and seats was particularly stark that year.

Thing is, the FPTP numbers include many people who vote tactically. So although the conversion to PR gives us a good idea of how things might play out under an alternative system, we don't really know how people would actually vote if they knew their vote 'counted' and that they weren't having to choose between the less of two evils so to speak.

It's unpleasant, but accepting democracy also means accepting people will vote very differently from us i.e. Brexit or BNP.
It's important to be able to persuade people to your side by making good arguments and showing them that your party will have a positive effect rather than trying to find ways to stop parties that we don't like.

My recollection of 1983 was that the alliance was seen as a credible challenge to labour and so there was less tactical voting than usual - centrists felt their votes counted for once (mistakenly)

Thanks for the interest. I did it in a rush and shouldn't really have titled the column PR as it is purely a caculation to show that if seats were gained to reflect the number of votes cast, this would be the breakdown. (And to challenge the MSM narrative that the Lib Dems have done badly. And Jo Swinson losing hadnothing to do with her being a party leader but that she is in a swing seat which changes regularly. Much more about politics in Scotland)

And of course if there was a fair ratio voting system then tactical voting wouldn't be for the same reasons as now.

I dont know what the answer is, but at the moment too many people think voting is pretty pointless as they never get to feel represented. I think it was just over 60% voted this time, so who knows where the other 40% might go.

And yes the first year UKIP stood that would have gained a very large number of seats.

Does PR always lead to having more elections? In some way that might be fairer than say the Tory party being hijacked by the extreme right grouping (cant remember what they are called).

And, although it could be dispiriting, it might be better for those on the left to have the choice of a soft left (eg New Labour) and an actual socialist party.

PR is a big subject ie it might be that instead of the House of Lords there was a House that truely reflected number of votes cast and a House made up of constituency MPs who wouldn't necessarily be part of any party.

I know some women who are into mainstream politics think having PR and being able to form alliances is something that women feel better able to do. And that it is men who want the 2 party adversarial system.

I think as Brexit has shown when it becomes about I'm the winner so I'm right rather than a more cooperative common goals, that we end up with this disengagement.

And yes I am happy to for anyone to share. I didn't keep the link but the figures were those published one of the papers around 1pm. And it isn't really PR. Just a calculation to show what the number of MPs would be from each Party if it was done on a direct representation on number of votes cast for each party as a whole.

Just a few little stats here and thanks to the OP for posting, because this is one of my favourite political subjects.

Turnout 2017 - 68.8%
Turnout yesterday - 67.3%

These were the highest turnouts for a GE since 1997 (71.3%)
I personally think that FPTP is not a fit system, and the SNP votes/seats proves that, particularly when compared to other parties - LibDems, Brexit, UKIP etc.

Does PR always lead to having more elections

No, the Scottish parliamentt uses PR for its elections. Makes for a much better style of government as mostly parliament's are "hung" which means parties need to actually work with each other to build consensus.

Except, Its history and politics have shown us that's very rarely the actual outcome (cf the last three years of failing to get anywhere of Brexit - this political stagnation has driven quite a lot of the division in this nation). I think a hybrid system could be better, though as a PP said, it is hard to get rid of those who are list rather than constituency.

Nearly 1/3 of eligible voters didn't vote this time, despite the media hyping this as *the most important vote of a generation" (again...) When the LibDems got the alternative vote to a referendum, it got roundly rejected. I'm truly not sure that even the electorate have the appetite for electoral reform - and I strongly doubt that they have an appetite for regular GEs! It's clear there was an element of voter fatigue last time, never mind yesterday...

And obviously, neither Tories nor Labour are likely to be making it a manifesto promise any time soon anyway...

Except, Its history and politics have shown us that's very rarely the actual outcome

In the Westminster parliament. Lots of countries work perfectly well with a less adversarial form of parliament.

But there really aren't that many successful purely PR systems, if you look at the bigger picture - they really are the minority rather than the rule. And if you think things are adversarial here - you're not wrong, but Westminster isn't even the worst! I'd love to have our system reformed so it's both fairer and more representative. But it also needs to be functional and effective.

"We definitely need a PR system that will reflect our votes better"

If we had that over the last decade or so, what difference do you think it would have made?

There wouid have been fewer SNP seats, more Green and (sometimes) Lib Dem, plus UKIP and BNP MPs.

Agree there won't be a second referendum on this any time soon (even if it was about a different form of PR)

No, the Scottish parliamentt uses PR for its elections. Makes for a much better style of government as mostly parliament's are "hung" which means parties need to actually work with each other to build consensus

In the case of the current Scottish Government, this has meant working with a tiny party with no directly elected MPs - the Green Party - so they have undue influence over any policy or budget as they are needed to pass legislation. I don’t think that is a good thing.

Okay have now added in the last election results (which had to navigate choppy seas from the Scilly Isles) doesn't change much.

Party . . FPTP . As aj %
Con . . . . 365 . . 283
Labour . .203 . . 209
Lib Dem . 11 . . . 75
SNP . . . . 48 . . . 25
Green . . . .1 . . . 18
DUP . . . . .8 . . . . 5
Sinn Fn . . 7 . . . . 4
Plaid . . . . 4 . . . . 3
Brexit . . . .0 . . . 13
UKIP . . . . 0 . . . . 1
Others . . . 3 . . . 14

It is this level of unrepresentationalism that for me is the problem. I dont like this winner takes all.

For instance Labour's share of votes yesterday is higher than Blair's "landslide" victory!!
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/election-turnout-results-labour-corbyn-blair-votes-conservatives-a9245181.html

And more importantly this is going to dominate our lives for the foreseeable future. In total 52% of votes were pro referendum
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/election-result-boris-johnson-pro-brexit-referendum-voters-conservatives-a9245866.html

Though this may make more changes, that many of the new Tories in the old Labour heartlands as women, who may not give in to ERG bullying.
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/election-results-female-mps-women-2019-record-seats-a9245516.html

Labour tend to need less votes than Tories

I dont think that's right - number of votes to get a seat (2019):

Tory: . 38,167
Labr: . 50,717
LibD: 336,038
SNP: . 25,883
Grn: . 865,697
DUP: . 30,516
Sinn: . 25,979
Plaid: .38,316