It is very interesting to compare the results from the Westminster elections with those of the European Elections. Despite the theoretical differences, many people still vote on national issues in the EU elections. However, because the EU elections are PR based, the electorate tend to vote for the party they would like, rather than voting tactically as so many do in General Elections.
In the 2005 General Election, the big three parties combined received 89.7% of the vote. However, compare that to the 2009 European elections, where the big three took a combined vote share of just 57.1%, and we get a different picture.
43% of people in the UK voted for a party other than the ‘big three’ in 2009. That’s an astonishing amount and suggests that, given the option in a General Election, many voters would switch their votes if they knew that their vote would count.
Even within the votes for the big three parties, there is still a gross distortion in the distribution of seats. The Labour party, with 35.5% of the vote took 356 seats. The Liberal Democrats, with 22.1% received just 62 seats.
The conclusion is simply that Westminster no longer properly represents the political views of a very large section of the voting public.
On top of that we don’t know how many people choose not to vote at all because their votes won’t count – their views aren’t represented in Westminster either. Switching to a new system like Regional Top-Up would allow everyone to vote for the party they support, increasing turn-out and improving representation.
#1 by SeipSareWax on November 1st, 2009
Other variant is possible also
#2 by Mark on January 15th, 2010
You claim that the inconsistency in how people vote in different elections is a sign that the system for some elections is flawed. Have you considered that the inconstancy may be caused by the fact that the electorate know that they are voting people into different rolls.
I can hold the belief, and express it via the ballot box that the Socialist Labour Party would be the best party to represent me in the EU, That Richard Sheppard, a Conservative is the best person to represent me in Westminster, and a selection of lib-dems and independents might be the best choice for the council. This does not mean that the system for electing my MP is wrong, just that different rolls require different attributes.
#3 by Anthony Butcher on January 16th, 2010
I am sure that most people are aware of the different systems that they are voting people into, but there are also clear indications that people are voting on national issues in EU elections. The massive swing to UKIP just before the EU elections coincided with the expenses scandal when the public were furious with the main parties. Prior to that point UKIP was polling 6% or so.
Then there is the enforced two-horse race problem in constituencies which makes people vote for one or the other… anything else is a wasted vote.
We also have far less choice in general elections, usually with just five or six candidates. Under Regional Top-Up we would have more options and a purpose in voting for them.