The Electoral Reform Society blog

News Blog

6th April 2012

The best of the worst of 2011′s local elections #2 – Excessive Majorities

In the second of our Best of the Worst of 2011′s Local elections series we examine the First Past the Post systems limitless capacity to deliver extremely distorted results.

In the 2011 elections in Eastleigh, the Lib Dems won 100% of the available seats on only 46.9% of the vote. In Bournemouth, the Conservatives won nearly 90% of the seats on only 38.6% of the vote.

Now all you armchair psephologists out there will probably know that disproportionality is measured using the Least Squares Index (also known as the Gallagher Index), which measures disproportionality between distributions of votes and seats. Michael Gallagher, professor of politics at Trinity College, Dublin, has calculated this index for national parliamentary elections going back to 1945.

The most disproportionate general election result was Labour’s 2001 victory, where the party won 63% of seats on 40.7% of the national vote.

Sadly the 2011 local elections delivered 143 results, which were more disproportionate than Labour’s 2001 general election victory.

2011’s top 25 least proportional results:

	Best performing Party	Votes Secured	Seats Won	Least Squares
Eastleigh	LD	46.9%	100%	43.6905
Shepway	Con	50.5%	95.7%	36.0531
Bournemouth	Con	38.6%	83.3%	35.8296
Stoke-on-Trent	Lab	37.3	81%	34.8363
East Riding of Yorkshire	Con	39%	81%	33.5226
Rotherham	Lab	54.1%	95.2%	33.4403
Leicester	Lab	55%	96.3%	33.3374
Havant	Con	59.3%	100%	33.1343
East Hertfordshire	Con	52.4%	97%	32.9083
Waverley	Con	58.5%	98.2%	32.8743
Stevenage	Lab	46.8%	84.6%	32.3444
Windsor and Maidenhead	Con	50.6%	89.5%	32.1963
Bracknell Forest	Con	57.5%	95.2%	31.945
Liverpool	Lab	63.1%	86.7%	31.7626
South Staffordshire	Con	47.2%	86.7%	31.7513
West Oxfordshire	Con	55.0%	93.8%	31.116
Ashfield	Lab	36.5%	72.7%	30.6557
Newcastle-under-Lyme	Lab	37.4%	74.4%	30.5299
Manchester	Lab	62.4%	100%	30.5157
Doncaster	Lab	46.2%	81%	30.3896
Oadby and Wigston	LD	56.1%	81%	30.2594
Maldon	Con	54.6%	82.4%	30.04
Central Bedfordshire	Con	47%	83.1%	29.7272
Wokingham	Con	52.4%	88.9%	29.6094

In most of these 143 councils one party was given overall executive authority, despite the majority of voters opposing them.

Disproportional results inflict long-term damage on local democracy because they damage multi-party competition. As Vernon Bogdanor put it earlier this week:

A permanent one-party local authority is almost as offensive as a permanent one-party state.

And that’s because local parties need to win seats in order to remain viable, and these excessive majorities stifle dissenting voices. This can lead to the development of personal ‘fiefdoms’, where the leaders of dominant parties enjoy untrammeled control over their local authorities. Precisely this state of affairs encouraged the Scottish Labour Party to change the voting system for Scottish local elections.

The 2011results show that there is a strong case for making the same move in England. 2012’s results will inevitably build the case for change.

For more about last year’s local elections see English Local Elections 2011, Report and Analysis, by Andy White and Magnus Smidak.

Apr 2012

Tags: excessive majorities local election

5 Comments

Comments

Cynthia Matthias

Isn’t it about time that voting was made compulsory

Thomas Winwood

Are you trying to argue that the reason for skewed election results is the only people voting are diehard supporters? Compulsory voting doesn’t solve any of the problems of first-past-the-post systems because it doesn’t enable people to vote any more fairly – 30% of votes are as good as 100% if they’re chosen on the basis of tactical considerations rather than genuine expressions of support.
electoralreform

We’d agree that compulsory voting isn’t the answer to this problem.

Voters need a reason to turn out and vote. They need to know their vote
can make a difference.

Many people question the powers local government has in the UK. But thanks to the FPTP voting system it’s clear most votes don’t have value.
Alex Scott

If anything, the level of engagement of most of the public is a case for a nominal poll tax rather than compulsory voting. Currently, there are many people who turn up and cast their vote essentially at random, or because their family has always voted like that, or who use local elections to beat up national Parties over which the local results have no influence. How many, I wonder, would continue to do so if it cost even £1? By having to pay even a nominal amount, voters would be encouraged to find out what they’re paying for, and the die-hard ignorant and apathetic would be discouraged from distorting the result.

James

Compulsory voting is a terrible idea. If people don’t want to vote or aren’t informed enough to do so, they shouldn’t be forced – enough people already vote without much thought for who or why.