James Cleverly must have thought he was in with a chance of winning the leadership of the Conservative Party, in the lead, as he was, on the last vote of Conservative MPs. But, the ballots had other ideas, and it will be Robert Jenrick and Kemi Badenoch going to the Conservative membership for the final decision.
We already have an article explaining how the Conservative Party chooses its leader, but this contest has highlighted one particular line, ‘the way Conservatives elect their leader is ripe for intrigue and tactical voting’. If you haven’t read that article, go back and read it first.
What happened in the Conservative Leadership contest?
Four candidates ran in the third ballot of Conservative MPs and the results were as follows:
James Cleverly: 39
Robert Jenrick: 31
Kemi Badenoch: 30
Tom Tugendhat: 20
Tom Tugendhat was therefore excluded and Cleverly, Jenrick and Badenoch went through to the final contest. Tugendhat and Cleverly had broadly positioned themselves as more centrist candidates, while Jenrick and Badenoch both appealed more to the right of the party. With Tugendhat going out, Cleverly must have expected to win over many of his backers in the next round, extending his lead. But that didn’t happen.
The final MP’s ballot
In the final ballot, the results were as follows
Kemi Badenoch: 42
Robert Jenrick: 41
James Cleverly: 37
A complete reversal, with James Cleverly actually losing support. One explanation is that Badenoch and Jenrick did such a good job winning over their colleagues, that they not only won over everyone who voted for Tugendhat, but also two Cleverly supporters.
The other possibility being suggested is that Cleverly and Tugendhat backing MPs were playing with the way the voting system works, and ended up shooting themselves in the foot.
This theory is given credence by the fact that in the first three rounds, candidates who could be considered more centrist received a similar number of votes to those who could be considered more to the right.
Round 1: Cleverly/Tugendhat/Stride (54); Badenoch/Jenrick/Patel (64).
Round 2: Cleverly/Tugendhat/Stride (58); Badenock/Jenrick (61).
Round 3: Cleverly/Tugendhat (59); Badenock/Jenrick (61).
It was only in this final round that the split become much wider, with Badenoch and Jenrick combined getting more than double Cleverly’s 37 votes. In the three previous rounds the combined votes for the ‘centrist’ candidates was always between 54-59 votes.
Did tactical voting strike?
The Conservative leadership contest starts with a series of First Past the Post ballots of all Conservative MPs. And just like when we are forced to use it in the general election, first past the post means that it is sometimes in your interest to vote for someone who isn’t your first choice.
If you were an MP who wanted Cleverly to win in the final contest among the party members, and you think he had a lead large enough to be able to be able to lose a few votes and still get through, you might be tempted to vote for the candidate you think he stood the best chance against. Or for the candidate who was your second choice to ensure your least favourite didn’t win.
We can’t know what happened, but if this is what has happened, they have massively shot themselves in the foot.
This is why voting systems are important
Of course, at the Electoral Reform Society, we think elections are important. But this is a prime example of an outcome that is highly unlikely to have happened if the Conservatives used a more sensible voting system.
This isn’t even the first time there has been suggestions of this behaviour. For instance, in 2001, there is evidence that supporters of Iain Duncan Smith tactically voted for Ken Clarke in order to knock Michael Portillo off the ballot, feeling that the members would reject Clarke’s Europhile views in the final contest. In that instance they were successful, but the risk was always there that they might misjudge.
Every other major political party uses a single preferential ballot of their members to elect their leader. There is nothing new or original about this. As we suggested in 2016, If the Conservatives want to keep the first stage among the MPs they could simply use a single preferential ballot to elect the two candidates that go to the membership. By making every vote count, MPs wouldn’t be tempted to ‘lend’ their vote, or engage in tactical games, and the two candidates would reflect the true preferences of the MPs.
In the end, only the MPs themselves know how and why they voted the way they did. No matter who those voters are, electoral systems should work for voters, rather than be things that voters have to work around to get the result they want.
Enjoying this article? you can support the work of the ERS by becoming a member
View more