UK electoral system: Free & fair?

Voter turnout has dropped in Britain over the past three decades.

 By Jane Calvary

The British establishment has witnessed a sharp decline in voter turnout during the past three decades, and the upcoming General Election is no exception. Many social and political analysts translate the decline as public growing disenchantment with the establishment. They warn if this trend continues, the low turnout will sooner or later threaten the legitimacy of the elected government. But what are the underlying causes of the British voter apathy and their political disengagement?

On 16 August 1819, almost 80000 people gathered at St Peter’s Field, Manchester England to demand reforms in British parliamentary representation and their right to vote. The cavalry charged into the crowd, killing 15 people and injuring almost 500 others. The people only wanted an opportunity to vote in the election.

Almost two centuries on and the story today is the other way round. These days the modern British politics is haunted by worries about political disconnection, the decline of trust, an ever decreasing turnout, particularly among the youth, and apathy of ordinary voters. In the last General Elections in 2010, the number of eligible British citizens who did not bother to vote was roughly equal to the total number of those who voted for the Tories and Lib Dems put together. In that election, just 29.7 out of 45.6 million eligible British citizens cast their votes.

Although the total number of electorates won't be known until after May 7, it is predicted that the situation in the upcoming election could be even worse. The latest researches show that almost 1 million eligible British citizens already fall off Britain's electoral map. 80% of local authorities are now faced with a voter registration decline. Many blame the changes on the electoral register that is recently introduced to tackle electoral fraud. University towns witness the steepest decline among the other cities with students being most affected by the new changes.  But these changes are not the only factor discouraging voters from exercising their democratic rights and vote. It is not hard these days to hear sentiments that don’t bode well for democratic legitimacy and the British establishment when there is talk of the upcoming general election and voting. 

“There is nobody worth voting for.” “ they are all corrupt, so why should I give them legitimacy by participating in the election?” “I voted last time and I regret it.”

Anger is the chief reaction to the politicians across the political spectrum, and public emotions are turning sour day by day.  The discontent is to an extent that social analysts warn that the continuation of this trend may reverse the course of people participating in the political process. Many citizens and in particular youth who turn their back on the ballot box are reaching the conclusion that the only way to continue political involvement and to change politics, is to make their demands through direct action and taking to the streets.

Brits like anyone else like the elections to be free and fair. But what does a free election and a fair election mean? Is the British general election free and fair? Free election means voters should be free from harassment, intimidation, and bribery, and they can vote for whoever they want. There are a lot of ways that could define fair, but the simplest definition of a fair election means that all votes count the same.  But here is the catch.  Elections in Britain aren’t fair at all. Not all votes matter equally thanks to the ancient first past the post electoral system. Only a small number of people can actually change the outcome of the election.

First past the post is the system, is an insanely simple electoral system, in which people could cross their favored candidate. All the votes add up, and the one with the most votes wins. It’s a win that the elected person doesn't need a majority, but just needs more votes than anyone else. In other words, candidates can win with a low percentage. In 2010 elections, Lib Dem MP Simon Wright was elected to the north-south seats with just 29.3% of votes thanks to the medieval age voting system.  That means that more than 7 out of ten of his constituents didn't vote for him.

The first past the post system and its official alternatives do not come even close to fixing the fundamental problem with the way elections in the UK are run. That is due to how the constituencies are formed in the United Kingdom.  The majority of constituencies in Britain are what is called “safe seats.”  That means a particular party is so popular in one area that almost guarantee it to win.  For example for the people who leave in Witney, PM David Cameron's Oxfordshire constituency, it doesn't matter whether they vote Conservative Labor or anyone else as it probably won't affect the outcome.  But for those who live in a marginal constituency like Watford, one where anyone could potentially win, their vote could affect the outcome. In other words, Watford residents’ votes are more influential than those who vote in Witney. There currently are 569 constituencies with safe seats and technically those who vote there cannot make any difference in the upcoming general election. There are only 81 very marginal constituencies, and they hold the key to the general election outcome.

In addition, the constituency boundaries lead to an even more unfair situation in the elections. In Britain, different constituencies are in different sizes From the Scottish Island Na h-Eileanan an Iar with 21,000 voters to the Isle of Wight with 110,000. Considering both constituencies have only one representative in the House of Commons, this technically means votes in the Scottish island are five times more powerful than the votes in the Isle of Wight. 

Well! If you think the British general elections unfairness ends here you should think twice.

Many remember LibDem mania back in spring 2010 general election. Twenty-three percent of voters voted LibDem in the general election. Logically many would expect that the Liberal Democrats would have 23% of the seats in the House of Commons. That is roughly equal 150 seats. But they only won 57 due to unfair first past the post electoral system.

The method of voting in the United Kingdom is also suffering from serious flaws and systematic failures. Since 2001, any British elector is entitled to vote by post if they wish to do so and without providing any reason to the authorities.  Prior to that time only those unable to attend a polling station for reasons of ill health, employment or planned holiday away from home and some electors living on small islands where they would need to cross water to reach their polling station could vote this way. Despite that there have been numerous demands for scrap the current postal voting system the government defends this system claiming that postal voting could boost turnout and simplify the process for the vulnerable. In return, the critics of this method argue that 'on demand' postal voting is prone to fraud on what they call "industrial scale."

The British Electoral Commission has admitted that it is particularly concerned about at least 16 council areas in England. There have been reports that political campaigners pressure families to vote for their candidates or even taking postal ballot papers away to fill them in. 

 

 JC/NN


Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:

www.presstv.co.uk

SHARE THIS ARTICLE
Press TV News Roku