Stay informed with ERS email updates.

Sign up...


ERS
STV & the parliament that might have been.

ERS News

STV & the parliament that might have been.

Published: Monday, May 10th 2010


How 2010 General would have looked under STV & AV
Another politics is possible – but that chance hinges on current talks. 
 
The Electoral Reform Society has offered a snapshot of the parliament that might have been – if last week’s election had been conducted under alternative systems. [1]

The modelling is published as Lib Dems and Conservatives continue coalition talks, and the fate of PR hangs in the balance.
 
The Society has pressed for STV to “to restore credibility back to representative government.”
 
Dr Ken Ritchie, Chief Executive of the Electoral Reform Society said:
 
“Britain’s new political map is simple. We have a blue south, a red north, and a few spots of yellow in between. It’s not a map most voters would recognise as legitimate after another broken election.
 
“Whole counties and cities are now the personal property of one party. Once again First-Past-the-Post has generated results that stretch the idea of ‘representative’ democracy to breaking point.
 
“The Single Transferable Vote would be a major step to restore credibility back to representative government. That’s what is at stake in the current coalition talks - a parliament that actually looks like Britain.
 
“The parliament that might have been would also have brought a hung parliament. But with STV, coalitions, cooperation and debate aren’t aberrations, they are the rule. Anyone feeling nostalgic should realise that modern multi party politics is alive and well in Britain, we just lack the system to deliver it. ”
 
At the onset of the campaign, the Society published the names of the winners in 383 [2] safe seats. It called these victories an affront to democracy. Even with the most fluid election in generations 380 seats came in as called. Dr Ritchie added:
 
“When the election began we declared the winners in 382 safe seats. We’re sorry that we got 3 wrong. But we’re more concerned for the tens of millions of voters that, despite the most unpredictable contest in generations, didn’t see an election.
 
“Another politics is possible. But our best chance for fair votes depends entirely on the decisions talking place amongst Liberal Democrats and Conservatives today.”
 
Contacts

For more information, comment or interviews please contact Ashley Dé on 07968791684 or Dr Ken Ritchie on 07754165551
 
Points:
 
  • STV http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=48 would address the regional imbalance under FPTP that prevents either Labour or Conservatives being National Parties. Conservatives would have healthy representation in the North, Labour in the South
    • Conservatives would have 7 MPs in Scotland, and would have parity with the Liberal Democrats in Wales with 10 MPs a piece.
    • Labour’s share of Scottish seats would be reduced from from 41 to 28, with gains to SNP and Conservatives. They would also see a revival in the SE, SW and particularly the East of England where their supporters struggle to make inroads under FPTP.
    • Liberal Democrats would build on their strength in all regions, particularly the SW and SE
 
  • AV http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=55 would prove a very modest reform, with second preferences having minimal impact at this election.
    • Significant regional imbalances would remain between main parties.
    • Liberal Democrats would only gain an additional 22 seats compared to FPTP.
    • Neither Labour nor Conservatives would benefit significantly from transfers based on 2010’s vote.
 
 
Notes to Editors:
 
[1] Modelling
 
 
FPTP
 
C
L
LD
SNP
PC
Other
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
London
28
38
7
 
 
 
Wales
8
26
3
 
3
 
W Midlands
33
24
2
 
 
 
Scotland
1
41
11
6
 
 
E Midlands
31
15
0
 
 
 
N East
2
25
2
 
 
 
S East
75
4
4
 
 
1
N West
22
47
6
 
 
 
South West
36
4
15
 
 
 
Eastern
52
2
4
 
 
 
York & Humber
19
32
3
 
 
 
N Ireland
 
 
 
 
 
18
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
307
258
57
6
3
19
 
 
 
Single Transferable (STV)
 
Con
Lab
LD
SNP
PC
Other
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
London
27
28
18
 
 
 
Wales
10
16
10
 
4
 
W Midlands
26
20
13
 
 
 
Scotland
6
28
11
14
 
 
E Midlands
22
15
9
 
 
 
N East
8
13
8
 
 
 
S East
50
11
23
 
 
 
N West
25
33
17
 
 
 
South West
25
6
24
 
 
 
Eastern
25
19
14
 
 
 
York & Humber
21
18
15
 
 
 
N Ireland
 
 
 
 
 
18
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
245
207
162
14
4
18
 
 
 
Alternative Vote (AV)
 
Con
Lab
LD
SNP
PC
Other
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
London
27
39
7
 
 
 
Wales
6
25
6
 
3
 
W Midlands
31
25
2
 
 
1
Scotland
1
41
12
5
 
 
E Midlands
27
15
4
 
 
 
N East
1
26
2
 
 
 
S East
74
4
5
 
 
1
N West
20
47
8
 
 
 
South West
31
4
20
 
 
 
Eastern
46
6
6
 
 
 
York & Humber
17
30
7
 
 
 
N Ireland
 
 
 
 
 
18
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
281
262
79
5
3
20
 
 
Our simulations should be regarded as illustrative, indicating the extent to which a different system might have produced a different result. However, the picture they give is necessarily a rough one.
 
In looking at AV and STV we have assumed that votes cast on 6 May would have been ‘first preferences’. That, of course, is not the case: firstly, there was a considerable amount of tactical voting, often aimed at producing a hung parliament, and secondly many people would not have voted for their preferred party on the grounds they could not win (for this reason the simulations probably underestimate support for the Green Party). Change the voting system, and we are likely to change the way people vote.
 
AV and STV use preference voting (i.e. voters can rank candidates in order of preference). In our models we have used the second preference data of a ComRes poll of 26 April 2010 (fieldwork on 24/25 April 2010). This data, however, has a number of shortcomings when it comes to estimating how votes for smaller parties might transfer, and has obvious difficulties in Scotland and Wales. It also does not provide second or third preferences which in some situations might be significant. However, in the great majority of seats the simulated outcome is not particularly sensitive to the accuracy of the assumptions made on transfers.
 
The polling data suggests that many voters would not wish to express a second preference, and consequently the impact of AV is not as great as other simulations have suggested. If a system of preference voting were to be introduced (as has been done for local government in Scotland) it is possible that the preceding information campaign would increase the use of second and subsequent preferences.
 
Our modelling of STV has used constituencies electing 3, 4 or 5 MPs. We have grouped existing constituencies in such a way that county boundaries are not crossed and the multi-member constituencies consist of areas likely to have common interest of characteristics.  Two single member constituencies have been retained – Orkney and Shetland and Na h-Eileanan an Iar and one two-member constituency in Westmoreland.
 
With STV voters would often have some choice between candidates of the major parties. Our simulation assumes that voters rank all candidates of their preferred party above candidates of other parties. In practice this is unlikely to be the case, but in most constituencies our projection would not be sensitive to such effects.
 
 
[2] The Society picked the wrong winners in Camborne and Redruth, Belfast East and Recar.The Society mapped its data here http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/isyourelectionover.php?status=SAFE The original press release is available herehttp://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/news.php?ex=0&nid=461
 
About us:
The Electoral Reform Society is campaigning to change the way we choose our politicians. We believe that a fair voting system will improve our democracy, allow politicians to better represent you the voter and help them to tackle the serious issues facing our society.  Above all we believe that fairness, accountability and a real choice for voters should not be compromised.

The Mission of the Electoral Reform Society is to secure at all levels of representation an electoral system which will:
  • Ensure all votes have equal value
  • Give effective representation to all significant points of view within the electorate
  • Allow electors to vote for their preferred candidates without fear of wasting their votes
  • Ensure the accountability of individual representatives to their electorates
And that’s why the Society advocates the use of the Single Transferable Vote (STV) http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=48 in public elections.

Latest News

Electoral Reform Society announces new Chief Executive

Published: Thursday, August 26th 2010

Katie Ghose has been appointed the new Chief Executive of the Electoral Reform Society. Katie Ghose has been director of the British Institute of Human Rights for 5 years. An experienced campaigner and barrister, she has previously held positions at Age Concern England (now Age UK) and Citizens Advice. More...

AV in practice: ERS response to Australian Election

Published: Sunday, August 22nd 2010

The Electoral Reform Society has released its initial findings on the latest Australian Federal Election. Australia’s House of Representatives is elected by the Alternative Vote (AV) system, which will be offered to the British public in a referendum next May. More...

AV EDM: Mischief Makers out in force

Published: Tuesday, July 27th 2010

The Electoral Reform Society has criticised 40 Conservative MPs who have signed up to an Early Day Motion (EDM) proposing changing the date of the forthcoming referendum on the Alternative Vote. More...