STV Is A Poor Choice For Reform
Posted by Anthony Butcher in Electoral Reform on May 8th, 2011
Following the failure of the AV referendum, the electoral reform movement is now undergoing a major appraisal of where to aim for next. PR in the Commons is the ultimate goal of course, but reformers need to ensure that we don’t blindly stumble into the next campaign trying to sell a complicated, unpopular electoral system to a disinterested public.
STV, or the Single Transferable Vote, is the favoured system of the Liberal Democrats and the Electoral Reform Society. It is essentially AV for multi-member wards; people rank the candidates in order of preference and three to six MPs (usually) are elected for an area.
Here is the description from the Electoral Reform Society (ERS):
STV uses preferential voting in multi-member constituencies. Each voter gets one vote, which can transfer from their first-preference to their second-preference and so on, as necessary. Candidates don’t need a majority of votes to be elected, just a known ‘quota’, or share of the votes, determined by the size of the electorate and the number of positions to be filled.
If your preferred candidate has no chance of being elected or has enough votes already, your vote is transferred to another candidate in accordance with your instructions. STV thus ensures that very few votes are wasted, unlike other systems, especially First-Past-the-Post, where only a small number of votes actually contribute to the result.
However, there are inherent problems with this system:
STV is NOT properly proportional
The defining characteristic of a proportional system is the link between the percentage of the vote and the number of MPs elected for each party in Westminster. STV does not have that. The only ‘proportionality’ that exists is within each super-constituency, and with only three to seven MPs being elected there is very little room for making sure that each party gets their fair share.
With just 3 to 7 candidates the bar for getting elected is very high (between 25% and 13%) , and the level of proportionality is small. If we increase the number of seats per constituency to improve the proportionality, we also further reduce the link between voters and their MPs, and increase the complexity of both the voting and counting. For it to approach acceptable levels of proportionality we would need seats of 10-15 MPs I think, which is unworkable.
This lack of ‘granularity’ means that, while it is a fairer system, it does not create a proportionally representative House of Commons. At best it can be described as ‘semi-proportional’.
STV favours the Lib Dems
Due to the nuances of the system, STV disproportionately favours the third placed party. The Electoral Reform Society did a study of the 2010 General Election results and combined it with ComRes survey data that looked at how people might have voted under STV and AV. This is the resulting distribution of seats that it achieved:
2010 results modelled under STV
Note that the Liberal Democrats would have received something in the region of 162 seats under STV in the 2010 election. However, a look at the actual votes cast showed that they received 23% of the vote, which should have earned them around 149 seats in the Commons.
This shows that not only does STV benefit the third placed party, it can actually over compensate them and penalise the more popular first and second placed parties.
It is hardly surprising that the Lib Dems support this system and it smacks of personal interest rather than a desire to promote a genuinely proportional system.
Obviously voting patterns would change with the electoral system, but this remains a difficult sell to the public.
STV does little for smaller parties
A major appeal of Proportional Representation is that it is supposed to give all parties (and thus voters) their fair share of MPs in Westminster, especially the smaller parties. There are around 2 million voters in this country without a single MP representing their political views.
For example, in 2010 UKIP received 919,546 votes (3.1%) but no MPs. Under a purely proportional system, they should have had around 20 MPs elected. STV looks unlikely to change that.
Let’s take a look at a specific region, the South East using the same ERS data as above:
| Conservative | Labour | Lib Dem | other | |
| FPTP | 75 | 4 | 4 | 1 |
| STV | 50 | 11 | 23 |
As you can see, under STV it is likely that the Greens would have lost their only seat in Brighton. Similarly UKIP, which received 4.1% of the vote in the South East, should have had at least three MPs elected under an ideal PR system. Under STV they still would not have any.
STV does not assist the smaller parties and requires quite a hefty minimum percentage of the vote in any given region before they can win an MP.
STV removes the constituency link
A major problem of STV is that it removes the constituency link. Whereas small multi-member wards might work for council elections where the areas involved are still relatively small, STV for General Elections would require constituencies the size of counties or small cities. For example, we might have a constituency the size of Bristol or Somerset, with half a dozen MPs for the area.
The result would be the same problem we have with the European Elections – no one can name their MEPs. Constituency MPs are important because they provide a single person who will focus their attention on a specific area and residents know who to contact about their problems.
STV will be seen as complicated
One of the main causes of rejection of the AV system in the 2011 referendum was its alleged complexity. Now imagine trying to promote the same system being used to elect multiple MPs for a region.
But STV is actually MUCH more complicated than AV. Not only do the votes for unelected candidates get potentially redistributed, the excess votes from those who are elected also get passed down. Here’s how it works (taken from Wikipedia):
Setting the quota
In an STV election, a candidate requires a certain minimum number of votes – the quota (or threshold) – to be elected. A number of different quotas can be used; the most common is the Droop quota, given by the formula:
The Droop quota is an extension of requiring a 50% + 1 majority in single winner elections. For example, at most 3 people can have 25% + 1 in 3 winner elections, 9 can have 10% + 1 in 9 winner elections, and so on.
Finding the winners
An STV election proceeds according to the following steps:
- Any candidate who has reached or exceeded the quota is declared elected.
- If a candidate has more votes than the quota, that candidate’s surplus votes are transferred to other candidates. Votes that would have gone to the winner instead go to the next preference listed on their ballot.
- If no one new meets the quota, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and that candidate’s votes are transferred.
- This process repeats until either a winner is found for every seat or there are as many seats as remaining candidates.
STV damages local campaigns
Because of the much larger constituencies required for STV to function, this means that local campaigns such as the Save Kidderminster Hospital group would never be able to make an impact. They managed to get one of Britain’s very few independent MPs elected based on an issue that just affected one area. Had the Wyre Forest constituency been part of a much larger constituency it is quite likely that their local campaign would have been airbrushed out of our political history.
Similarly, the small Green party enclave in Brighton would also be averaged out over a much larger area.
STV is bad for independents
Just as with the problems it causes for local groups, the larger constituencies make STV almost impossible for independent candidates to campaign. How can one person possibly hope to make an impact in an area the size of Somerset for example? STV is good for political parties with their established brands but bad if we would like some independent opinions in Westminster.
STV encourages ‘Donkey Voting’
In a six seat constituency, each party is expected to put up six candidates. If we have the six largest parties standing in each area that will mean that there should be 36 candidates plus however many independents there are. All of those names have to appear on a ballot paper and then voters will be expected to rank as many as they like.
Most people will still vote for a party, and will be encouraged to rank those party candidates in order of preference. In reality, the vast majority of voters will have no idea who the candidates are, nor have any rational basis on which to rank them. The result is known as ‘donkey voting’ – a voter just ranks them by alphabetical order or a random distribution of preferences. Is that really progress?
To prevent this happening, parties commonly only put in the number of candidates that they expect to be elected. The result is that they are essentially offering a ‘party list’ of candidates and the rankings become irrelevant if all of the candidates are elected. This completely undermines the whole point of STV and we might as well use a list system as we do for the EU elections.
STV encourages ‘core vote’ campaigning
One of the key selling points of AV was that it encourages candidates to appeal to a much broader spectrum of voters in order to ensure enough second preference votes to push them over the 50% mark. The opposite effect comes into play with STV.
Because candidates compete with other members of their own party for the first placed spot (and thus the most chance of being elected), and they now only need between 13% and 25% of the vote to be elected, they are therefore encouraged to focus their campaign internally. The result is that they will spend more time campaigning to their core vote and ignoring the wider electorate.
North East 2010 under RTU
Posted by Anthony Butcher in 2010 Election Results on May 30th, 2010
This is an attempt to work out how the election results would have looked in 2010 under the Regional Top-Up system for the North East. There are 29 MPs in the North East. Under Regional Top-Up, 23 of them would be Constituency MPs and 6 would be Regional MPs.
The North East is an unusually small region, and I would recommend serious consideration being given to amalgamating it with Yorkshire & the Humber to form a large region like the North West.
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 the North East looked after the 2010 election:
| Party | Current MPs | Total votes | Percentage | MPs under PR |
| Labour | 25 | 518,261 | 43.6 | 13 |
| Conservative | 2 | 282,347 | 23.7 | 7 |
| Lib Dem | 2 | 280,468 | 23.6 | 7 |
| BNP | 0 | 51,940 | 4.4 | 1 |
| UKIP | 0 | 32,196 | 2.7 | 0 |
The above table includes a column for how the number of MPs should look (roughly) under a directly proportional system. Both the Conservatives and Lib Dems are five MPs short of what their vote deserves, while Labour are massively over represented. The BNP gained a substantial share of the vote and deserved one MP.
Assumptions
Let’s assume that, after the number of constituencies has been reduced in the North East from 29 to 23, the MPs elected under FPTP are still returned in proportion to the 2010 result. That will give us 19 Labour, 2 Conservative and 2 Lib Dem MPs. The remaining 6 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 the North East 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 the North East 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):
| Name | Percentage | Constituency |
| Stephen Allison | 7 | Hartlepool |
| Martyn Aiken | 4.7 | Easington |
| Martin Bulmer | 4.5 | Redcar |
| James Condon | 4.3 | Blyth Valley |
| Stuart Lightwing | 4.1 | Middlesbrough South & Cleveland East |
Step 3: Calculate the minimum percentage for an elected MP
Under a directly proportional system in the North East, we can calculate the percentage of the vote needed to get an MP elected: 100%/29MPs = 3.45% per MP.
UKIP, and every other party with a smaller fraction of the vote, is below the 3.45% minimum threshold for an MP in the North East. 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 6 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 23 seats had been distributed under the d’Hondt formula. For example, the Conservatives’ 282,347 votes are divided by 1 + number of seats (2), giving 282,347/3 = 94,116.
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 (19) | Conservative (2) | Lib Dem (2) | BNP (0) | |
| Total Votes: | 518,261 | 282,347 | 280,468 | 51,940 |
| Initial Step: | 25,913 | 94,116 | 93,489 | 51,940 |
| Seat 1 | 25,913 | 70,587 (3) | 93,489 | 51,940 |
| Seat 2 | 25,913 | 70,587 | 70,117 (3) | 51,940 |
| Seat 3 | 25,913 | 56,469 (4) | 70,117 | 51,940 |
| Seat 4 | 25,913 | 56,469 | 56,094 (4) | 51,940 |
| Seat 5 | 25,913 | 47,058 (5) | 56,094 | 51,940 |
| Seat 6 | 25,913 | 47,058 | 46,745 (5) | 51,940 |
| Regional MPs: | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| Total MPs: | 19 | 6 | 6 | 0 |
This gives us a result closer to the numbers under a direct Proportional Representation scheme. The BNP missed out on their seat, but only just.
North West 2010 under RTU
Posted by Anthony Butcher in 2010 Election Results on May 23rd, 2010
This is an attempt to work out how the election results would have looked in 2010 under the Regional Top-Up system for the North West. There are 75 MPs in the North West. Under Regional Top-Up, 59 of them would be Constituency MPs and 16 would be Regional MPs.
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 the North West looked after the 2010 election:
| Party | Current MPs | Total votes | Percentage | MPs under PR |
| Labour | 47 | 1,292,978 | 39.5 | 30 |
| Conservative | 22 | 1,038,967 | 31.7 | 24 |
| Lib Dem | 6 | 707,770 | 21.6 | 17 |
| UKIP | 0 | 103,782 | 3.2 | 2 |
| BNP | 0 | 70,032 | 2.1 | 2 |
| Green | 0 | 17,046 | 0.5 | 0 |
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, eleven MPs short of what their vote deserves, while Labour are massively over represented. UKIP and the BNP deserved at least an MP each.
Assumptions
Let’s assume that, after the number of constituencies has been reduced in the North West from 75 to 59, the MPs elected under FPTP are still returned in proportion to the 2010 result. That will give us 37 Labour, 17 Conservative and 5 Lib Dem MPs. The remaining 16 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 the North West 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 the North West 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):
| Name | Percentage | Constituency |
| Stephen Rush | 6.7 | Ribble Valley |
| Paul Nuttall | 6.1 | Bootle |
| Alan Freeman | 5.7 | Wigan |
| William Robinson | 5.5 | Denton & Reddish |
| John Whittaker | 5.1 | Hazel Grove |
Step 3: Calculate the minimum percentage for an elected MP
Under a directly proportional system in the North West, we can calculate the percentage of the vote needed to get an MP elected: 100%/75MPs = 1.34% per MP.
The Green Party, and every other party with a smaller fraction of the vote, is below the 1.34% minimum threshold for an MP in the North West. 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 16 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 59 seats had been distributed under the d’Hondt formula. For example, the Conservatives’ 1,038,967 votes are divided by 1 + number of seats (17), giving 1,038,967/18 = 57,720.
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 (37) | Conservative (17) | Lib Dem (5) | UKIP (0) | BNP (0) | |
| Total Votes: | 1,292,978 | 1,038,967 | 707,770 | 103,782 | 70,032 |
| Initial Step: | 34,026 | 57,720 | 117,962 | 103,782 | 70,032 |
| Seat 1 | 34,026 | 57,720 | 101,110 (6) | 103,782 | 70,032 |
| Seat 2 | 34,026 | 57,720 | 101,110 | 51,981 (1) | 70,032 |
| Seat 3 | 34,026 | 57,720 | 101,110 | 51,981 | 35,016 (1) |
| Seat 4 | 34,026 | 57,720 | 88,471 (7) | 51,981 | 35,016 |
| Seat 5 | 34,026 | 57,720 | 78,641 (8) | 51,981 | 35,016 |
| Seat 6 | 34,026 | 57,720 | 70,777 (9) | 51,981 | 35,016 |
| Seat 7 | 34,026 | 57,720 | 64,343 (10) | 51,981 | 35,016 |
| Seat 8 | 34,026 | 57,720 | 58,981 (11) | 51,981 | 35,016 |
| Seat 9 | 34,026 | 57,720 | 54,444 (12) | 51,981 | 35,016 |
| Seat 10 | 34,026 | 54,682 (18) | 54,444 | 51,981 | 35,016 |
| Seat 11 | 34,026 | 51,948 (19) | 54,444 | 51,981 | 35,016 |
| Seat 12 | 34,026 | 51,948 | 50,555 (13) | 51,981 | 35,016 |
| Seat 13 | 34,026 | 51,948 | 50,555 | 34,594 (2) | 35,016 |
| Seat 14 | 34,026 | 49,475 (20) | 50,555 | 34,594 | 35,016 |
| Seat 15 | 34,026 | 49,475 | 47,185 (14) | 34,594 | 35,016 |
| Seat 16 | 34,026 | 47,226 (21) | 47,185 | 34,594 | 35,016 |
| Regional MPs: | 0 | 4 | 9 | 2 | 1 |
| Total MPs: | 37 | 21 | 14 | 2 | 1 |
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.
Yorkshire & the Humber 2010 under RTU
Posted by Anthony Butcher in 2010 Election Results on May 21st, 2010
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 |
| Labour | 32 | 821,368 | 34.7 | 19 |
| Conservative | 19 | 769,895 | 32.5 | 18 |
| Lib Dem | 3 | 543,684 | 23.0 | 13 |
| BNP | 0 | 104,177 | 4.4 | 2 |
| UKIP | 0 | 65,876 | 2.8 | 2 |
| Green | 0 | 20,824 | 0.9 | 0 |
| English Democrats | 0 | 11,722 | 0.5 | 0 |
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.
Assumptions
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):
| Name | Percentage | Constituency |
| John Wilkinson | 8.1 | Wentworth & Dearne |
| Mike Hookem | 8 | Hull East |
| Stephen Harness | 7.1 | Cleethorpes |
| Henry Hudson | 6.2 | Great Grimsby |
| Caven Vines | 5.9 | Rotherham |
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) | |
| Total Votes: | 1,044,081 | 769,895 | 540,160 | 104,177 | 65,876 |
| Initial Step: | 38,670 | 48,118 | 180,053 | 104,177 | 65,876 |
| 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 |
| Regional MPs: | 0 | 0 | 9 | 2 | 1 |
| Total MPs: | 25 | 15 | 11 | 2 | 1 |
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.
West Midlands 2010 under RTU
Posted by Anthony Butcher in 2010 Election Results on May 20th, 2010
This is an attempt to work out how the election results would have looked in 2010 under the Regional Top-Up system for the West Midlands. There are 59 MPs in the West Midlands. Under Regional Top-Up, 47 of them would be Constituency MPs and 12 would be Regional MPs.
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 the West Midlands looked after the 2010 election:
| Party | Current MPs | Total votes | Percentage | MPs under PR |
| Conservative | 33 | 1,044,081 | 39.5 | 24 |
| Labour | 24 | 808,114 | 30.6 | 19 |
| Lib Dem | 2 | 540,160 | 20.5 | 12 |
| UKIP | 0 | 105,685 | 4.0 | 2 |
| BNP | 0 | 73,394 | 2.8 | 2 |
The above table includes a column for how the number of MPs should look (roughly) under a directly proportional system. The Lib Dems are ten MPs short of what their vote deserves, while the Tories and Labour are both considerably over represented. UKIP and the BNP both had enough votes to justify at least one MP.
Assumptions
Let’s assume that, after the number of constituencies has been reduced in the West Midlands from 59 to 47, the MPs elected under FPTP are still returned in proportion to the 2010 result. That will give us 26 Conservative, 19 Labour MPs and 2 Lib Dems. 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 the West Midlands 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 the West Midlands 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):
| Name | Percentage | Constituency |
| Malcolm Davis | 8.5 | Dudley North |
| Derek Bennett | 8.4 | Walsall South |
| Steve Povey | 8.2 | Staffordshire Moorlands |
| Philip Rowe | 8.2 | Dudley South |
| David Nixon | 8.1 | Newcastle-under-Lyme |
Step 3: Calculate the minimum percentage for an elected MP
Under a directly proportional system in the West Midlands, we can calculate the percentage of the vote needed to get an MP elected: 100%/59MPs = 1.69% per MP.
The Green Party, and every other party with a smaller fraction of the vote, is below the 1.69% minimum threshold for an MP in the West Midlands. 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’ 1,044,081 votes are divided by 1 + number of seats (26), giving 1,044,081/27 = 38,670.
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.
| Conservative (26) | Labour (19) | Lib Dem (2) | UKIP (0) | BNP (0) | |
| Total Votes: | 1,044,081 | 808,114 | 540,160 | 105,685 | 73,394 |
| Initial Step: | 38,670 | 40,405 | 180,053 | 105,685 | 73,394 |
| Seat 1 | 38,670 | 40,405 | 135,040 (3) | 105,685 | 73,394 |
| Seat 2 | 38,670 | 40,405 | 108,032 (4) | 105,685 | 73,394 |
| Seat 3 | 38,670 | 40,405 | 90,027 (5) | 105,685 | 73,394 |
| Seat 4 | 38,670 | 40,405 | 90,027 | 52,842 (1) | 73,394 |
| Seat 5 | 38,670 | 40,405 | 77,176 (6) | 52,842 | 73,394 |
| Seat 6 | 38,670 | 40,405 | 67,520 (7) | 52,842 | 73,394 |
| Seat 7 | 38,670 | 40,405 | 67,520 | 52,842 | 36,697 (1) |
| Seat 8 | 38,670 | 40,405 | 60,018 (8) | 52,842 | 36,697 |
| Seat 9 | 38,670 | 40,405 | 54,016 (9) | 52,842 | 36,697 |
| Seat 10 | 38,670 | 40,405 | 49,105 (10) | 52,842 | 36,697 |
| Seat 11 | 38,670 | 40,405 | 49,105 | 35,228 (2) | 36,697 |
| Seat 12 | 38,670 | 40,405 | 45,013 (11) | 35,228 | 36,697 |
| Regional MPs: | 0 | 0 | 9 | 2 | 1 |
| Total MPs: | 26 | 19 | 11 | 2 | 1 |
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.
Over 71% of votes wasted in 2010 General Election
Posted by Anthony Butcher in Electoral Reform on May 19th, 2010
The Make My Vote Count group revealed that over 70% of votes were ‘wasted’ in the 2005 election. By wasted, they mean votes that went to losing candidates or were surplus to the needs of the winning candidate.
I thought that I would do the same calculation for the 2010 general election. The result? 71.2% of all votes cast were wasted.
Because those surplus votes for winners don’t move up to a regional count, as they do under Regional Top-Up and other PR systems, they are essentially wasted. Just 28.8% of votes cast actually elected someone.
Key facts:
29,653,638 votes cast in the election
15,683,974 votes for losing candidates (52.9%)
13,969,664 votes for successful candidates.
8,550,440 votes for second place candidates.
21,102,549 total wasted votes (allowing for a 1 vote majority)
8,551,089 votes actually used to elect people
Press Release: Over 2 million voters completely unrepresented in Westminster
Posted by Anthony Butcher in Electoral Reform on May 19th, 2010
Over 2 million voters completely unrepresented in Westminster.
A study of the General Election results has shown that over 2 million voters have no MPs in Westminster representing them. Parties such as UKIP achieved a significant percentage of the popular vote but failed to have any MPs elected due to the First-Past-The-Post system.
“Not only do we have a situation where the Liberal Democrats have just 57 MPs instead of the 149 MPs that their share of the vote deserved, there are also vast numbers of voters without a single MP representing their views in Parliament.” claimed Anthony Butcher, a campaigner for the Regional Top-Up electoral system.
“2 million people voted for parties that didn’t get any MPs elected. Combined with the massively disproportionate number of MPs that the Conservative and Labour parties both have, it paints a dismal picture of just how unrepresentative our Parliament really is. While many people complain about the lack of female and ethnic minority MPs, the real scandal is the lack of alternative political views in Westminster.
“While the 285,616 Green voters were lucky enough to have a single MP, nearly a million people voted for UKIP but still have no voice in Parliament. It’s time we had a new, fair electoral system that allows everyone’s vote to count. AV just isn’t going to cut it; we need a proper form of PR like Regional Top-Up”.
END
Notes to Editors:
There were 2,075,252 votes for parties (and independents) who had no MPs elected. The major voting groups unrepresented are:
UKIP (917,832 votes)
BNP (563,743 votes)
Ulster Conservatives and Unionists – New Force (102,361 votes)
English Democrats (64,826 votes)
Respect-Unity Coalition (33,251 votes)
Traditional Unionist Voice (26,300 votes)
You can visit the Regional Top-Up website here:
http://www.regionaltopup.co.uk
East Midlands 2010 under RTU
Posted by Anthony Butcher in 2010 Election Results on May 19th, 2010
This is an attempt to work out how the election results would have looked in 2010 under the Regional Top-Up system for the East Midlands. There are 46 MPs in the East Midlands. Under Regional Top-Up, 36 of them would be Constituency MPs and 10 would be Regional MPs.
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 the East Midlands looked after the 2010 election:
| Party | Current MPs | Total votes | Percentage | MPs under PR |
| Conservative | 31 | 915,933 | 41.2 | 20 |
| Labour | 15 | 661,813 | 29.8 | 14 |
| Lib Dem | 0 | 462,988 | 20.8 | 10 |
| UKIP | 0 | 72,659 | 3.3 | 1 |
| BNP | 0 | 69,706 | 3.1 | 1 |
| Green | 0 | 11,667 | 0.5 | 0 |
The above table includes a column for how the number of MPs should look (roughly) under a directly proportional system. The Lib Dems are ten MPs short of what their vote deserves, while the Tories have 11 more MPs than they would under a pure PR system. UKIP and the BNP both had enough votes to justify an MP.
Assumptions
Let’s assume that, after the number of constituencies has been reduced in the East Midlands from 46 to 36, the MPs elected under FPTP are still returned in proportion to the 2010 result. That will give us 24 Conservative and 12 Labour MPs. The remaining 10 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 the East Midlands 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 the East Midlands 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):
| Name | Percentage | Constituency |
| Christopher Pain | 9.5 | Boston & Skegness |
| Richard Fairman | 6.5 | South Holland & The Deepings |
| David Hamilton | 6.2 | Mansfield |
| James Bush | 5.6 | Derbyshire North East |
| Derek Clark | 4.9 | Northampton South |
Step 3: Calculate the minimum percentage for an elected MP
Under a directly proportional system in the East Midlands, we can calculate the percentage of the vote needed to get an MP elected: 100%/46MPs = 2.17% per MP.
The Green Party, and every other party with a smaller fraction of the vote, is below the 2.17% minimum threshold for an MP in the East Midlands. 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’ 915,933 votes are divided by 1 + number of seats (24), giving 915,933/25 = 36,637.
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.
| Conservative (24) | Labour (12) | Lib Dem (0) | UKIP (0) | BNP (0) | |
| Total Votes: | 915,933 | 661,813 | 462,988 | 72,659 | 69,706 |
| Initial Step: | 36,637 | 50,908 | 462,988 | 72,659 | 69,706 |
| Seat 1 | 36,637 | 50,908 | 231,494 (1) | 72,659 | 69,706 |
| Seat 2 | 36,637 | 50,908 | 154,329 (2) | 72,659 | 69,706 |
| Seat 3 | 36,637 | 50,908 | 115,747 (3) | 72,659 | 69,706 |
| Seat 4 | 36,637 | 50,908 | 92,598 (4) | 72,659 | 69,706 |
| Seat 5 | 36,637 | 50,908 | 77,165 (5) | 72,659 | 69,706 |
| Seat 6 | 36,637 | 50,908 | 66,141 (6) | 72,659 | 69,706 |
| Seat 7 | 36,637 | 50,908 | 66,141 | 36,329 (1) | 69,706 |
| Seat 8 | 36,637 | 50,908 | 66,141 | 36,329 | 34,853 (1) |
| Seat 9 | 36,637 | 50,908 | 57,873 (7) | 36,329 | 34,853 |
| Seat 10 | 36,637 | 50,908 | 51,443 (8) | 36,329 | 34,853 |
| Regional MPs: | 0 | 0 | 8 | 1 | 1 |
| Total MPs: | 24 | 12 | 8 | 1 | 1 |
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.
Eastern Region 2010 under RTU
Posted by Anthony Butcher in 2010 Election Results on May 18th, 2010
This is an attempt to work out how the election results would have looked in 2010 under the Regional Top-Up system for the Eastern region. There are 58 MPs in the Eastern region. Under Regional Top-Up, 44 of them would be Constituency MPs and 14 would be Regional MPs.
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 the Eastern region looked after the 2010 election:
| Party | Current MPs | Total votes | Percentage | MPs under PR |
| Conservative | 52 | 1,356,739 | 47.1 | 28 |
| Lib Dem | 4 | 692,932 | 24.1 | 14 |
| Labour | 2 | 564,581 | 19.6 | 12 |
| UKIP | 0 | 123,237 | 4.3 | 3 |
| BNP | 0 | 59,505 | 2.1 | 1 |
| Green | 0 | 42,677 | 1.5 | 0 |
The above table includes a column for how the number of MPs should look (roughly) under a directly proportional system. The Lib Dems and Labour are both a whopping ten MPs short of what their vote deserves, while the Tories have nearly twice as many MPs as they would under a pure PR system. UKIP also had enough support to justify two or three MPs in Westminster, and the BNP should have one person elected.
Assumptions
Let’s assume that, after the number of constituencies has been reduced in the Eastern Region from 58 to 44, the MPs elected under FPTP are still returned in proportion to the 2010 result. That will give us 39 Conservative, 3 Lib Dem and 2 Labour MPs. The remaining 14 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 the Eastern Region 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 the Eastern Region 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):
| Name | Percentage | Constituency |
| Robert Brown | 8.3 | Cambridgeshire North West |
| Clive Broad | 7.4 | Thurrock |
| David Campbell Bannerman | 7.1 | Suffolk South |
| Frances Fox | 6.7 | Peterborough |
| David Hodges | 6.5 | Witham |
Step 3: Calculate the minimum percentage for an elected MP
Under a directly proportional system in the Eastern Region, we can calculate the percentage of the vote needed to get an MP elected: 100%/58MPs = 1.72% per MP.
The Green Party, and every other party with a smaller fraction of the vote, is below the 1.72% minimum threshold for an MP in the Eastern Region. 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 44 seats had been distributed under the d’Hondt formula. For example, the Conservatives’ 1,356,739 votes are divided by 1 + number of seats (39), giving 1,356,739/40 = 33,918.
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.
| Conservative (39) | Lib Dem (3) | Labour (2) | UKIP (0) | BNP (0) | |
| Total Votes: | 1,356,739 | 692,932 | 564,581 | 123,237 | 59,505 |
| Initial Step: | 33,918 | 173,233 | 188,194 | 123,975 | 59,505 |
| Seat 1 | 33,918 | 173,233 | 141,145 (3) | 123,975 | 59,505 |
| Seat 2 | 33,918 | 138,586 (4) | 141,145 | 123,975 | 59,505 |
| Seat 3 | 33,918 | 138,586 | 112,916 (4) | 123,975 | 59,505 |
| Seat 4 | 33,918 | 115,489 (5) | 112,916 | 123,975 | 59,505 |
| Seat 5 | 33,918 | 115,489 | 112,916 | 61,987 (1) | 59,505 |
| Seat 6 | 33,918 | 98,990 (6) | 112,916 | 61,987 | 59,505 |
| Seat 7 | 33,918 | 98,990 | 94,097 (5) | 61,987 | 59,505 |
| Seat 8 | 33,918 | 86,616 (7) | 94,097 | 61,987 | 59,505 |
| Seat 9 | 33,918 | 86,616 | 80,654 (6) | 61,987 | 59,505 |
| Seat 10 | 33,918 | 76,992 (8) | 80,654 | 61,987 | 59,505 |
| Seat 11 | 33,918 | 76,992 | 70,572 (7) | 61,987 | 59,505 |
| Seat 12 | 33,918 | 69,293 (9) | 70,572 | 61,987 | 59,505 |
| Seat 13 | 33,918 | 69,293 | 62,731 (8) | 61,987 | 59,505 |
| Seat 14 | 33,918 | 62,994 (10) | 62,731 | 61,987 | 59,505 |
| Regional MPs: | 0 | 7 | 6 | 1 | 0 |
| Total MPs: | 39 | 10 | 8 | 1 | 0 |
This gives us a result closer to the numbers under a direct Proportional Representation scheme. Although the result is more proportional to the vote, it does highlight one of the flaws in all top-up systems; they cannot completely rectify results that are so skewed in the first place.
The South West 2010 under RTU
Posted by Anthony Butcher in 2010 Election Results on May 18th, 2010
This is an attempt to work out how the election results would have looked in 2010 under the Regional Top-Up system for the South West region. There are 55 MPs in the South West. Under Regional Top-Up,43 of them would be Constituency MPs and 12 would be Regional MPs.
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 the South West looked after the 2010 election:
| Party | Current MPs | Total votes | Percentage | MPs under PR |
| Conservative | 36 | 1,187,637 | 42.8 | 24 |
| Lib Dem | 15 | 962,954 | 34.7 | 20 |
| Labour | 4 | 426,910 | 15.4 | 9 |
| UKIP | 0 | 123,975 | 4.5 | 2 |
| Green | 0 | 31,517 | 1.1 | 0 |
| BNP | 0 | 20,866 | 0.8 | 0 |
The above table includes a column for how the number of MPs should look (roughly) under a directly proportional system. The Lib Dems and Labour are both five MPs short of what their vote deserves, while the Tories have 50% more MPs than they would under a pure PR system. UKIP also had enough support to justify two MPs in Westminster.
Assumptions
Let’s assume that, after the number of constituencies has been reduced in the South West from 55 to 43, the MPs elected under FPTP are still returned in proportion to the 2010 result. That will give us 28 Conservative, 12 Lib Dem and 3 Labour 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 the South West 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 the South West 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):
| Name | Percentage | Constituency |
| David Williams | 8.5 | Christchurch |
| Mike Amor | 8.2 | Devon East |
| Bill Wakeham | 7.7 | Plymouth Moor View |
| Philip Glover | 7.2 | Bournemouth West |
| Stephen Crowther | 7.2 | Devon North |
Step 3: Calculate the minimum percentage for an elected MP
Under a directly proportional system in the South West, we can calculate the percentage of the vote needed to get an MP elected: 100%/55MPs = 1.82% per MP.
The Green Party, BNP and every other party with a smaller fraction of the vote, is below the 1.82% minimum threshold for an MP in the South West. 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 43 seats had been distributed under the d’Hondt formula. For example, the Conservatives’ 1,187,637 votes are divided by 1 + number of seats (28), giving 1,187,637/29 = 40,953.
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.
| Conservative (28) | Lib Dem (12) | Labour (3) | UKIP (0) | |
| Total Votes: | 1,187,637 | 962,954 | 426,910 | 123,975 |
| Initial Step: | 40,953 | 74,073 | 106,727 | 123,975 |
| Seat 1 | 40,953 | 74,073 | 106,727 | 61,987 (1) |
| Seat 2 | 40,953 | 74,073 | 85,382 (4) | 61,987 |
| Seat 3 | 40,953 | 74,073 | 71,152 (5) | 61,987 |
| Seat 4 | 40,953 | 68,782 (13) | 71,152 | 61,987 |
| Seat 5 | 40,953 | 68,782 | 60,987 (6) | 61,987 |
| Seat 6 | 40,953 | 64,197 (14) | 60,987 | 61,987 |
| Seat 7 | 40,953 | 60,184 (15) | 60,987 | 61,987 |
| Seat 8 | 40,953 | 60,184 | 60,987 | 41,325 (2) |
| Seat 9 | 40,953 | 60,184 | 53,364 (7) | 41,325 |
| Seat 10 | 40,953 | 56,644 (16) | 53,364 | 41,325 |
| Seat 11 | 40,953 | 53,497 (17) | 53,364 | 41,325 |
| Seat 12 | 40,953 | 50,682 (18) | 53,364 | 41,325 |
| Regional MPs: | 0 | 6 | 4 | 2 |
| Total MPs: | 28 | 18 | 7 | 2 |
This gives us a result closer to the numbers under a direct Proportional Representation scheme. It ensures that the smaller parties have some level of representation, while maintaining a strong element of Constituency MPs elected under first-past-the-post.
The South East 2010 under RTU
Posted by Anthony Butcher in 2010 Election Results on May 17th, 2010
This is an attempt to work out how the election results would have looked in 2010 under the Regional Top-Up system for the South East region. There are 84 MPs in the South East. Under Regional Top-Up, 64 of them would be Constituency MPs and 20 would be Regional MPs.
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 the South East looked after the 2010 election:
| Party | Current MPs | Total votes | Percentage | MPs under PR |
| Conservative | 75 | 2,140,895 | 49.9 | 43 |
| Lib Dem | 4 | 1,124,786 | 26.2 | 22 |
| Labour | 4 | 697,567 | 16.2 | 14 |
| UKIP | 0 | 177,269 | 4.1 | 4 |
| Green | 1 | 62,124 | 1.4 | 1 |
| BNP | 0 | 30,618 | 0.7 | 0 |
| English Democrats | 0 | 15,442 | 0.4 | 0 |
The above table includes a column for how the number of MPs should look (roughly) under a directly proportional system. The Lib Dems are the biggest losers under the current system, having just four MPs instead of 22. The Labour party was signficiantly penalised by the FPTP system and UKIP also had enough support to justify a significant presence in Westminster. The most disturbing figure, however, is the vastly disproportionate number of Conservative MPs in the region.
Assumptions
Let’s assume that, after the number of constituencies has been reduced in the South East from 84 to 64, the MPs elected under FPTP are still returned in proportion to the 2010 result. That will give us 57 Conservative, 3 Labour, 3 Lib Dem and 1 Green MP. The remaining 20 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 the South East 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 the South East 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):
| Name | Percentage | Constituency |
| Nigel Farage | 17.4 | Buckingham |
| Christopher Browne | 8.5 | Spelthorne |
| Helena Windsor | 6.9 | Surrey East |
| Andrew Moncrieff | 6.8 | Chichester |
| Chris Adams | 6.8 | Aylesbury |
Step 3: Calculate the minimum percentage for an elected MP
Under a directly proportional system in the South East, we can calculate the percentage of the vote needed to get an MP elected: 100%/84MPs = 1.19% per MP.
The BNP, English Democrats, and every other party with a smaller fraction of the vote, is below the 1.19% minimum threshold for an MP in the South East. 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 20 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 64 seats had been distributed under the d’Hondt formula. For example, the Conservatives’ 2,140,895 votes are divided by 1 + number of seats (57), giving 2,140,895/58 = 36,912.
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.
| Conservative (57) | Lib Dem (3) | Labour (3) | UKIP (0) | Green (1) | |
| Total Votes: | 2,140,895 | 1,124,786 | 697,567 | 177,269 | 62,124 |
| Initial Step: | 36,912 | 281,196 | 174,691 | 177,269 | 31,062 |
| Seat 1 | 36,912 | 224,957 (4) | 174,691 | 177,269 | 31,062 |
| Seat 2 | 36,912 | 187,464 (5) | 174,691 | 177,269 | 31,062 |
| Seat 3 | 36,912 | 160,683 (6) | 174,691 | 177,269 | 31,062 |
| Seat 4 | 36,912 | 160,683 | 174,691 | 88,634 (1) | 31,062 |
| Seat 5 | 36,912 | 160,683 | 139,513 (4) | 88,634 | 31,062 |
| Seat 6 | 36,912 | 140,598 (7) | 139,513 | 88,634 | 31,062 |
| Seat 7 | 36,912 | 124,976 (8) | 139,513 | 88,634 | 31,062 |
| Seat 8 | 36,912 | 124,976 | 116,261 (5) | 88,634 | 31,062 |
| Seat 9 | 36,912 | 112,479 (9) | 116,261 | 88,634 | 31,062 |
| Seat 10 | 36,912 | 112,479 | 99,652 (6) | 88,634 | 31,062 |
| Seat 11 | 36,912 | 102,253 (10) | 99,652 | 88,634 | 31,062 |
| Seat 12 | 36,912 | 93,732 (11) | 99,652 | 88,634 | 31,062 |
| Seat 13 | 36,912 | 93,732 | 87,196 (7) | 88,634 | 31,062 |
| Seat 14 | 36,912 | 86,522 (12) | 87,196 | 88,634 | 31,062 |
| Seat 15 | 36,912 | 86,522 | 87,196 | 59,090 (2) | 31,062 |
| Seat 16 | 36,912 | 86,522 | 77,507 (8) | 59,090 | 31,062 |
| Seat 17 | 36,912 | 80,342 (13) | 77,507 | 59,090 | 31,062 |
| Seat 18 | 36,912 | 74,986 (14) | 77,507 | 59,090 | 31,062 |
| Seat 19 | 36,912 | 74,986 | 69,757 (9) | 59,090 | 31,062 |
| Seat 20 | 36,912 | 70,299 (15) | 69,757 | 59,090 | 31,062 |
| Regional MPs: | 0 | 12 | 6 | 2 | 0 |
| Total MPs: | 57 | 15 | 9 | 2 | 1 |
This gives us a result closer to the numbers under a direct Proportional Representation scheme. It ensures that the smaller parties have some level of representation, while maintaining a strong element of Constituency MPs elected under first-past-the-post.
London 2010 under RTU
Posted by Anthony Butcher in 2010 Election Results on May 17th, 2010
This is an attempt to work out how the election results would have looked in 2010 under the Regional Top-Up system for the London region. There are 74 MPs in London. Under Regional Top-Up, 58 of them would be Constituency MPs and 16 would be Regional MPs.
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 London looked after the 2010 election:
| Party | Current MPs | Total votes | Percentage | MPs under PR |
| Labour | 38 | 1,245,637 | 36.6 | 28 |
| Conservative | 28 | 1,174,568 | 34.5 | 26 |
| Lib Dem | 7 | 751,561 | 22.1 | 17 |
| UKIP | 0 | 59,452 | 1.7 | 1 |
| Green | 0 | 54,316 | 1.6 | 1 |
| BNP | 0 | 52,095 | 1.5 | 1 |
| Respect | 0 | 17,368 | 0.5 | 0 |
The above table includes a column for how the number of MPs should look (roughly) under a directly proportional system. The Lib Dems are the biggest losers under the current system, while the Greens, UKIP and the BNP all had enough support to justify a presence in Westminster. Labour, on the other hand, had a significantly distorted number of MPs elected in comparison to its share of the vote.
Assumptions
Let’s assume that, after the number of constituencies has been reduced in London from 74 to 58, the MPs elected under FPTP are still returned in proportion to the 2010 result. That will give us 30 Labour, 22 Conservative and 6 Lib Dems. The remaining 16 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 London 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 the London 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 Green list would look like this (for the top five):
| Name | Percentage | Constituency |
| Darren Johnson | 6.7 | Lewisham Deptford |
| Matt Sellwood | 4.6 | Hackney North & Stoke Newington |
| Polly Lan | 3.5 | Hackney South & Shoreditch |
| Emma Dixon | 3 | Islington North |
| Jenny Jones | 2.9 | Camberwell & Peckham |
Step 3: Calculate the minimum percentage for an elected MP
Under a directly proportional system in London, we can calculate the percentage of the vote needed to get an MP elected: 100%/74MPs = 1.35% per MP.
Respect, and every other party with a smaller fraction of the vote, is below the 1.35% minimum threshold for an MP in London. 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 16 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 58 seats had been distributed under the d’Hondt formula. For example, Labour’s 1,245,637 votes are divided by 1 + number of seats (30), giving 1,245,637/31 = 40,181.
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 (30) | Conservative (22) | Lib Dem (6) | UKIP (0) | Green (0) | Respect (0) | |
| Total Votes: | 1,245,637 | 1,174,568 | 751,561 | 59,452 | 54,316 | 52,095 |
| Initial Step: | 40,181 | 51,068 | 107365 | 59,452 | 54,316 | 52,095 |
| Seat 1 | 40,181 | 51,068 | 93,945 (7) | 59,452 | 54,316 | 52,095 |
| Seat 2 | 40,181 | 51,068 | 83,506 (8) | 59,452 | 54,316 | 52,095 |
| Seat 3 | 40,181 | 51,068 | 75,156 (9) | 59,452 | 54,316 | 52,095 |
| Seat 4 | 40,181 | 51,068 | 68,323 (10) | 59,452 | 54,316 | 52,095 |
| Seat 5 | 40,181 | 51,068 | 62,630 (11) | 59,452 | 54,316 | 52,095 |
| Seat 6 | 40,181 | 51,068 | 57,812 (12) | 59,452 | 54,316 | 52,095 |
| Seat 7 | 40,181 | 51,068 | 57,812 | 29,726 (1) | 54,316 | 52,095 |
| Seat 8 | 40,181 | 51,068 | 53,683 (13) | 29,726 | 54,316 | 52,095 |
| Seat 9 | 40,181 | 51,068 | 53,683 | 29,726 | 27,158 (1) | 52,095 |
| Seat 10 | 40,181 | 51,068 | 50,104 (14) | 29,726 | 27,158 | 52,095 |
| Seat 11 | 40,181 | 51,068 | 50,104 | 29,726 | 27,158 | 26,047 (1) |
| Seat 12 | 40,181 | 48,940 (23) | 50,104 | 29,726 | 27,158 | 26,047 |
| Seat 13 | 40,181 | 48,940 | 46,972 (15) | 29,726 | 27,158 | 26,047 |
| Seat 14 | 40,181 | 46,982 (24) | 46,972 | 29,726 | 27,158 | 26,047 |
| Seat 15 | 40,181 | 45,176 (25) | 46,972 | 29,726 | 27,158 | 26,047 |
| Seat 16 | 40,181 | 45,176 | 44,209 (16) | 29,726 | 27,158 | 26,047 |
| Regional MPs: | 0 | 3 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Total MPs: | 30 | 25 | 16 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
This gives us a result closer to the numbers under a direct Proportional Representation scheme. It ensures that the smaller parties have some level of representation, while maintaining a strong element of Constituency MPs elected under first-past-the-post.
Tories believe in free markets, but not free politics?
Posted by Anthony Butcher in Electoral Reform on May 13th, 2010
Aside from the disappointing electoral reforms that our new Liberal Conservative Government has so far promised, I have been impressed with the new partnership. As in 1997, David Cameron has managed to create the positive, refreshing start that Tony Blair conjured. I am just a little bit excited by it all.
We are hopefully witnessing a new age of cooperative, grown-up Government that will replace the head-to-head slanging matches and point-scoring that the public is increasingly turned off by. The people of Britain don’t care about tribal political loyalties any more; they just want the politicians to get on with the job and it looks like Cameron and Clegg have realised this.
But with this new attitude towards politics, isn’t it time the Tories re-evaluated their attitude towards our electoral system too?
It is a given that Conservatives believe in free markets. Start-ups with new ideas are essential for innovation, and in their manifesto the Tories promise to introduce ‘Work for Yourself, a new scheme to help unemployed would-be entrepreneurs start their own business by giving them access to a business mentor and start-up loans.’
But why is this entrepreneurial attitude limited to businesses? Is our political system so much less important? The barriers to success for new parties are considerable. Firstly, just standing in the General and European elections costs a fortune. New parties must expect to lose £500 for every candidate they stand in a General Election and have to pay £5000 for every region in the European elections.
Then there is the issue of publicity. Although every party receives a free leaflet drop for their candidates, they still have to pay for the printing, folding and delivery to the post office. For a single constituency, the cost alone can be in excess of £800 for a basic leaflet. The cost to cover the European regions is huge.
Then there is the biggest barrier of all – our electoral system. Even when parties have survived the challenges and built up a substantial base of support, they still can’t get MPs. Between them, UKIP, the Greens, the English Democrats and the BNP received 1.8 million votes, but just one MP.
If our electoral system was a marketplace, it would be the equivalent of forcing companies to open a shop in every single constituency and only allowing the sale of products in batches of 20,000 or more. The result is that most constituencies actually have a very limited selection of products, only one or two of which can ever be bought in reality… if 20,000 other people also want one.
Yet if we were to view political start-ups in the same way we view business start-ups, there would be a very different set of rules. Firstly, we would do everything we could to encourage new parties to be formed with new ideas and new ways of doing politics. We certainly wouldn’t tax them £500 for every candidate, while the big established parties pay nothing. In fact, we would scrap the ‘deposit’ (AKA The Small Parties Tax) for ten years (or altogether) and perhaps even match their start up funds pound-for-pound up to a limit.
For leaflet drops, wouldn’t it be better to have a single election brochure with a double page spread for every party standing in the constituency? Not only would this massively reduce the burden on the Post Office, it would ensure that all of our parties get an even playing field to start with and the electorate get a much better picture of what is on offer from a single source.
And what about political mentors? Starting up a new party is fraught with unforeseen pitfalls, from accepting illegal donations to creating a robust constitution. A political mentor with experience of party start-ups could answer questions, advise on best practice and provide templates for the party structure and documents.
Once those start-up parties started to show some electoral promise they could be wooed by the bigger parties and deals made – just as big businesses acquire smaller ones. This would allow those political entrepreneurs access to much larger resources and have a chance of implementing their ideas. Political alliances and mergers are too rare in Britain; we need more fluidity.
Finally, we would adopt a free-market-style electoral system that allows voters to support the parties that they want, from any constituency. There are several systems that allow the retention of constituency MPs but also allow for a top-up of MPs, some of whom would be from the smaller parties, including AV+, Additional Member, Total Representation and Regional Top-Up.
So the big question is: do the Conservatives (and the Lib Dems) have the nerve to practice what they preach for businesses in the political world too? Do they have the vision to allow new ideas, new people and new parties to thrive or are they content to continue their three-party cartel in Westminster?
Press Release: Nearly £1million in lost deposits
Posted by Anthony Butcher in Electoral Reform on May 12th, 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Nearly £1million in lost deposits
The General Election saw nearly £1 million in lost deposits from candidates achieving less than 5% of the vote. The biggest losers were the small parties, with UKIP losing 458 deposits, costing them £229,000.
The Green party was hit by a £164,000 loss, 265 lost deposits cost the BNP £132,500 and the English Democrats were out of pocket by £53,000.
In contrast, the Conservatives lost just two deposits, Labour five and the Liberal Democrats didn’t lose any.
“I think that we really need to examine what the purpose of the deposit is” claimed Anthony Butcher, campaigner for the Regional Top-Up electoral system. “At the moment, it is only acting as a hefty tax on small parties. The big parties with their huge election funds effectively pay nothing, while the smaller parties are forced to spend a large percentage of their income simply to offer the public an alternative. It’s time to reduce the threshold to 1% in the interests of reviving our democracy.
“If the new Conservative and Lib Dem Government is serious about electoral reform, then why not switch to a system like Regional Top-Up that allows the electorate to vote for a party even if there is no local candidate. This will not only reduce the number of low quality paper candidates and allow everyone across the country to vote for their preferred party, but will also reduce the bill for lost deposits.”
ENDS
Notes to Editors:
Regional Top-Up combines First-Past-The-Post with a top-up mechanism to create a proportional, locally based and extremely simple electoral system. It improves upon the Additional Member System used for the London Assembly and Welsh Assembly elections.
Website: http://www.regionaltopup.co.uk
Deposits lost for each party:
UK Independence Party: 458
Green: 328
Independent: 313
British National Party: 265
English Democrats: 106
Christian Party: 71
Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition: 38
Monster Raving Loony Party: 27
Socialist Labour Party: 23
Christian Peoples Alliance: 17
National Front:: 17
Alliance Party : 10
Scottish Socialist Party: 10
Plaid Cymru: 10
Pirate Party UK: 9
Respect-Unity Coalition: 8
Other small parties: 177
Total: 1887 (£943,500)
For more information please contact:
Anthony Butcher
email: ***************
phone: **********
PR for the House of Lords on the way
Posted by Anthony Butcher in Electoral Reform on May 12th, 2010
The disappointing news about a referendum on the AV system has been tempered significantly by the announcement that the House of Lords is to become an elected chamber using a PR voting system. Potentially this is very exciting news for supporters of electoral reform.
As always, however, the devil is in the details. Firstly, what they have actually announced is that a committee is to be established to draw up proposals, by December, for the replacement of the House of Lords with a wholly or mainly elected Upper Chamber, on the basis of proportional representation. Committees can very easily become dumping grounds for unwanted projects, and December is a very long time away.
Also concerning is the caveat that existing peers will be allowed to stay on in Parliament, as the new Government plans a “grandfathering system” for current peers under which the new requirement for election will not apply to them.
How that can work in practice remains to be seen – will unelected Lords have as much credibility and authority as elected Lords? It also suggests that it will have to use a party list system and that the Lords will not have any local or regional links.
It may be a very long time before any substantial numbers of Lords are there with an elected mandate.
However, I am cautiously optimistic about this news overall.
