How the UK’s electoral system failed

On the most important issue in the United Kingdom’s modern history, to leave the European Union or remain, the UK’s electoral system produced an absurd result. A majority of the UK public wants to remain in the EU, and actually voted accordingly in the parliamentary election on December 12. Yet the election produced a large majority for the Conservative Party, which backs a quick Brexit.

CONTRAST

The reason is as simple as it is troubling: The failure of the first-past-the-post electoral systems to translate public sentiment into reasonably representative outcomes. In this system, each legislative seat goes to the candidate who wins the largest share of the vote, regardless of whether it is a majority. Thus, when majority opinion is divided among several parties, the minority view prevails.

Suppose there are three parties: Remain-1, Remain-2, and Leave. And in every district, 66 per cent of the public wants to remain and 34 per cent to leave, with the remain voters divided evenly between the two ‘remain’ parties. Remain-1 and Remain-2 each receive 33 per cent of the vote in every district while the Leave Party wins the district seat with 34 per cent. If this is replicated across all districts, the Leave Party wins 100 per cent of the seats with 34 per cent of the national vote. In a nationwide proportional-representation system, by contrast, the Remain parties would win 66 per cent and form the government.

SPLINTERED

The situation in the UK is more nuanced. Brexit was not the only campaign issue and 11 parties, not three, got at least 0.4 per cent of the national vote. Of those 11, eight campaigned either for a second Brexit referendum (a “people’s vote”) or to remain in the EU. Three campaigned for Brexit without a second poll.

The 11 parties received 98.6 per cent of the total vote with dozens of smaller parties accounting for the remainder. The eight got 52.2 per cent of the vote and the three 46.4 per cent. Yet, the latter took 373 seats and the former just 277.

One reason for this is that the Brexit vote was nearly concentrated in one party, the Conservatives, which got 94 per cent of the combined vote. Labour, by contrast, won 61 per cent among the eight parties. Prime Minister Boris Johnson united the Brexiteers. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn splintered the Remainers. Secondly, under first-past-the-post, the overwhelming majorities (70 per cent or higher) secured by Remainers in some districts amounted to wasted votes; the party still won one seat. In a proportional-representation system, those votes would count toward the party’s national share.

ILLUSORY

The vote shares were in line with recent surveys on Brexit: Just before the election, Remainers outnumbered Leavers 53:47.

The UK is among a handful of high-income democracies — like the United States and Canada — with a first-past-the-post system. If it had a national proportional vote system, like almost all of continental Europe, it would be heading for a second Brexit poll and staying in the EU. We would probably have a multiparty coalition government against a quick Brexit.

Another glaring problem is that young people overwhelmingly want to remain in the EU, while the older ones want to leave. The elderly are imposing a future on the young people, who will most likely have to deal with the consequences for the rest of their lives.

First-past-the-post voting has been praised for promoting political stability by producing two-party or nearly two-party systems. Britain’s two main parties received 76 per cent of the vote and will have 87 per cent of the seats in the next Parliament. Yet the stability is illusory. It comes at the price of a government in which a minority can ride roughshod over the interests and preferences of more than half of the population.

INDIVIDUAL

In continental Europe, most governments are multiparty coalitions. They can be difficult to form, cumbersome to maintain, and slow to act. Yet the very process of multiparty coalition building prevents a minority from walking away with the political prize. It is even more dangerous in the US, where presidential elections install a powerful executive, who dominates a two-party legislature. This is a triply cursed system.

One, the two parties do a poor job of representing public opinion. Two, excessive power is vested in the hands of an individual. Three, the president can win with fewer votes than the opponent — as has occurred in two of the past five elections. In 2016, Donald Trump won 57 per cent of the electoral votes despite getting 2.8 million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton.

The two main Anglo-Saxon democracies are failing — not only due to a polarised electorate, but also the first-past-the-post system, which produces governments that do not represent public sentiment well.

Sachs, professor of sustainable development and professor of health policy and management at Columbia University, is director of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. © Project Syndicate. www.project-syndicate.org