Make Votes Matter – written evidence (FGU0045)

House of Lords Constitution Committee

Inquiry into the Future Governance of the UK

Make Votes Matter (MVM) is the cross-party movement to introduce Proportional

Representation (PR) to the House of Commons. In this submission, we address only questions one and five. Make Votes Matter has no position on the issues raised by the other questions.

Q1. Is the current balance of powers within the UK optimal or does power need to be shared differently?

Do any changes to the current constitutional arrangements enjoy widespread public support across the UK? What would be the impact of different constitutional arrangements?

1.1 The UK suffers from some of the worst inequality of all developed nations, and a strong case can be made that this stems from the inequality in our political systems and structures. The fact that votes have dramatically different values in different constituencies - an SNP vote was worth more than 33 times as much as a Green vote in 2019 - means that millions of voters are effectively disempowered. Indeed, 71% of votes were wasted in the 2019 general election, and didn’t contribute to the final outcome at all. The balance of power is skewed so that those in marginal constituencies wield the most power, and the government of the day can effectively influence elections by funnelling funding to those constituencies.

1.2 Proportional Representation (PR) would help to ensure that power is shared more evenly between voters, and appropriately between the voters and their representatives. The electoral system is sometimes overlooked in discussions of the balance of powers within the UK. Discussions of the balance of powers between branches of government tend to focus on the formal powers of the executive, legislature and judiciary. Similarly, discussions of the balance of power between the nations and regions of the UK tend to focus on the formal powers of central, devolved and local government.

1.3 PR could transfer some power from the executive to the legislature. For example, by making it less common for a single party to hold a majority of seats in a legislature or on a council alone, the inter-party negotiation required to form a ruling administration (in the event of a coalition administration) or to pass laws (in the event of a minority administration) would likely strengthen legislative scrutiny of the executive.

1.4 PR could also transfer some power from a prime minister to a cabinet, by increasing the incidence of coalition administrations. In the event of a coalition administration, the existence of a negotiated coalition agreement might inhibit disruptive cabinet reshuffles imposed unilaterally by the prime minister.

1.5 PR would rebalance power from marginal constituencies (that currently largely determine the composition of the House of Commons and councils elected by similar systems) to all voters, wherever they live. Among the advantages is the fact that many voters who currently feel neglected by their elected representatives could start to see their votes having an effect. However, the advantages don’t end there; the other side of the coin is that electoral deserts (where a single party holds all the seats in a large contiguous area, typically despite many votes being cast for other parties there) would recede under PR.[1] Under the First Past the Post system (FPTP), in contrast, each of the last three general elections have seen four different parties win the largest number of seats in each of the UK's four constituent nations, out of proportion with the votes cast in those nations, exaggerating divisions.

1.6 We have reason to believe that PR enjoys widespread public support. A 2018 ICM poll commissioned by Make Votes Matter found 51 percent in support of PR and only 13 percent opposed.[2] A 2017 ICM poll commissioned by Make Votes Matter found not only sixty-one percent of the public in support of PR, but seventy percent of Labour voters and fifty-four percent of Conservative voters.[3] These are only two of many polls that have found strong public support for Proportional Representation.[4]

1.7 The impact of PR would be profound. Political science has clearly shown that PR results in better social, environmental and economic outcomes than FPTP. For example, proportional democracies take faster action on the climate crisis, have more economic equality, elect more diverse parliaments that are more representative of voters, and participate in less armed conflict.[5]

Q5. How can the existing constitutional arrangements regarding the governance of the UK be made more coherent and accessible, or should the overall structure be revisited?

Should the constitutional arrangements continue to be bespoke or become more formalised? Should principles and parameters for a new constitutional framework be articulated? How can any new arrangements be embedded in the constitution such as suggestions for a new Act of Union or Charter of Union? How is the public currently informed about the arrangements? Does there need to be greater public awareness of, and education about, the arrangements and if so, how can this be achieved?

5.1 First Past the Post, while superficially simple, is actually a very complicated system for a voter to use. To make one’s vote effective, a voter has to figure out which candidate/s have a chance of winning in the constituency, and vote for one of them. Supporters of all parties (and independents) who are less popular locally, have to choose between wasting their vote on someone who can’t win, or voting for the least-worst of the two frontrunners. This is neither coherent or accessible, in a country in which all votes are supposedly equal. The voting system is an incredibly important part of our political system and determines the governance of the UK. FPTP skews the results of elections, and has been shown globally to deliver parliaments to the right of the voting choices of the electorate - whereas PR results in parliaments that accurately reflect voters’ choices. As Jonathan Rodden says:

“...the European experience suggests that proportional representation creates no systematic bias in favor of either the right or the left. This may seem unremarkable on its own, but the contrast with majoritarian democracies is striking. In every industrialized parliamentary democracy with majoritarian electoral institutions, averaging over the postwar period, the legislature has been well to the right of the voters, and in most cases, the cabinet has been even further to the right.”[6]

The overall structure of our voting system needs to be revisited.

5.2 Many assume that you need a majority of votes to win a UK general election, which would be coherent with the idea of a state that considers itself democratic. However the government of the day almost always has minority support from voters, which makes having a say in the governance of the UK inaccessible to most. Many voters are sufficiently aware that something is amiss in FPTP elections to vote tactically, or not to vote at all, which is obviously problematic.

5.3 One measure of the accessibility of constitutional arrangements is that each vote is of equal value and voters can easily understand the effects of their votes. The occurrence of wrong-winner elections under FPTP (such as the 1951 and February 1974 general elections, and numerous examples in other countries that use FPTP) is only possible because votes don’t have equal value. The existing constitutional arrangements obviously could be more accessible to those whose votes are of lesser value. An electoral system under which all votes were of equal value would necessarily be proportional. PR also has the advantage of reducing the impact of spoilers and the effectiveness of tactical voting.[7] Without this advantage, for voters to make the best use of their votes they must understand how tactical voting can be effective and anticipate which candidates are realistic winners. The susceptibility of FPTP to tactical voting undermines the accessibility of constitutional arrangements, and PR would improve accessibility by inhibiting tactical voting. If all votes counted equally politics and the governance of the UK would be made vastly more accessible.

5.4 Another measure of the accessibility of constitutional arrangements is voter turnout. It is well established that PR leads to increased voter turnout, for reasons that are obvious when you consider that many votes under FPTP have no practical value. Countries with PR experience 7.5 per cent higher turnouts on average, once other contextual factors are taken into account, according to Arend Lijphart.[8] Dennis Pilon estimates a turnout bonus of 7-8 per cent.[9] Pippa Norris derived a more conservative estimate of 5 per cent bonus to turnout under PR systems.[10] The Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance used actual global turnout statistics from between 1945 and 2002 to calculate that STV turnouts have been 13 per cent higher than those in FPTP systems. These statistics are striking, but they do not convey the hopelessness felt by many voters under FPTP. We frequently hear from older people who have voted in every general election and local election but whose vote has never made the slightest difference. When a majority of votes are wasted and when the composition of councils do not reflect the votes cast, many people rationally come to the view that our democratic processes are not a solution to the problems they face. The solution is a system of PR in which every vote has value.

5.5 We believe constitutional arrangements for the UK should become more formalised - there should be a written constitution which enshrines equal voting for all elections in the country. In the event of formalisation of the existing UK constitution, there would be no excuse for allowing the anti-democratic FPTP system to remain in place.

12/05/2021