This is an attempt to work out how the election results would have looked in 2010 under the Regional Top-Up system for Yorkshire & the Humber. There are 54 MPs in Yorkshire & the Humber. Under Regional Top-Up, 42 of them would be Constituency MPs and 12 would be Regional MPs.
At the time of writing this, we are still waiting for the Thirsk and Malton result which was delayed due to the death of a candidate. We will assume that it will remain a Tory seat.
It is worth remembering that the smaller parties may not have stood in every seat, so their total vote is less than it would have been under Regional Top-Up. RTU allows parties to appear on every ballot in a region, even if there is no local candidate, as long as the party has candidates in at least 1/3 of the seats. Hence the electorate would have a much more even choice across every region.
This is how Yorkshire & the Humber looked after the 2010 election:
|Party||Current MPs||Total votes||Percentage||MPs under PR|
The above table includes a column for how the number of MPs should look (roughly) under a directly proportional system. The Lib Dems are, once again, ten MPs short of what their vote deserves, while Labour are massively over represented, despite the very small difference in votes between themselves and the Tories. UKIP had enough votes to justify at least one MP, and the BNP deserved at least 2 MPs.
Let’s assume that, after the number of constituencies has been reduced in Yorkshire & the Humber from 54 to 42, the MPs elected under FPTP are still returned in proportion to the 2010 result. That will give us 25 Labour, 15 Conservative and 2 Lib Dem MPs. The remaining 12 will be Regional MPs (RMPs).
Step 1: Add up the votes for each party
We have already done this at the top of this page; the table includes the total votes across Yorkshire & the Humber for each of the major parties.
Step 2: Create Party Lists
If this were for real we would look at all of the candidates for each party across Yorkshire & the Humber region, and list them in order of the percentage of the vote they received (grouped by party), removing those who were successfully elected. Each party should end up with a list of candidates in order of public popularity.
For example, the UKIP list would look like this (for the top five):
|John Wilkinson||8.1||Wentworth & Dearne|
|Mike Hookem||8||Hull East|
|Henry Hudson||6.2||Great Grimsby|
Step 3: Calculate the minimum percentage for an elected MP
Under a directly proportional system in Yorkshire & the Humber, we can calculate the percentage of the vote needed to get an MP elected: 100%/54MPs = 1.85% per MP.
The Green Party, and every other party with a smaller fraction of the vote, is below the 1.85% minimum threshold for an MP in Yorkshire & the Humber. We can now discount all of those parties from the following calculations.
Step 4: Assign the Regional seats
We use the d’Hondt system to distribute the 12 Regional MP seats. The maths gets a little awkward to follow here, so if you aren’t interested, skip to the last couple of lines of the table below to see how the seats are distributed proportionally.
Note that we use the number of seats won under FPTP as the starting number of seats for each party. This requires an initial step to convert the total votes into the equivalent tally as if the first 46 seats had been distributed under the d’Hondt formula. For example, the Conservatives’ 769,895 votes are divided by 1 + number of seats (15), giving 769,895/16 = 48,118.
The numbers in red indicate which party gains the seat. The number in brackets indicates the number of seats held at each stage of the calculation.
|Labour (25)||Conservative (15)||Lib Dem (2)||BNP (0)||UKIP (0)|
|Seat 1||38,670||48,118||180,053 (3)||104,177||65,876|
|Seat 2||38,670||48,118||135,921 (4)||104,177||65,876|
|Seat 3||38,670||48,118||90,614 (5)||104,177||65,876|
|Seat 4||38,670||48,118||90,614||52,088 (1)||65,876|
|Seat 5||38,670||48,118||77,669 (6)||52,088||65,876|
|Seat 6||38,670||48,118||67,961 (7)||52,088||65,876|
|Seat 7||38,670||48,118||60,409 (8)||52,088||65,876|
|Seat 8||38,670||48,118||60,409||52,088||32,938 (1)|
|Seat 9||38,670||48,118||54,368 (9)||52,088||32,938|
|Seat 10||38,670||48,118||49,426 (10)||52,088||32,938|
|Seat 11||38,670||48,118||49,426||34,726 (2)||32,938|
|Seat 12||38,670||48,118||45,307 (11)||34,726||32,938|
This gives us a result closer to the numbers under a direct Proportional Representation scheme. Both of the smaller parties were given the MPs that they deserved, and the Lib Dems recouped most of their missing seats.