New analysis produced exclusively for the Guardian reveals how different voting systems would return significantly different seat totals in the UK parliament, based on recent polling. While the current first past the post (FPTP) system could leave Labour short of a majority with 250 seats, the modelling shows how proportional systems would be likely to reduce the number of seats given to the leading party – and give the UK a more finely balanced parliament that better represents the votes people cast. The prime minister, Andy Burnham, has announced a new national commission on electoral reform aimed at changing the electoral system, a plan supported by more than 100 Labour MPs as well as parties such as the Liberal Democrats, the Greens, the SNP and Plaid Cymru.
Electoral reform has enjoyed increased public support in recent years. The research conducted by More in Common suggests that, under proportional systems such as single transferable vote or regional party list, the UK could end up being governed by a minority government – or a progressive alliance of parties. Proportional representation (PR) aims to produce a parliament that more closely reflects how people voted, allowing voters to back their preferred party without worrying about tactical voting.
It often makes it harder for a single party to win a majority and is more likely to result in coalition governments. Alongside the current first past the post system, More in Common modelled three different PR systems for the Guardian: regional party list, single transferable vote (STV) and additional member system (AMS). The More in Common research shows that no single party would achieve a majority according to their projected polling, regardless of which system is used.
The current FPTP system would come the closest, giving Labour 39% of the seats off just 26% of the vote – still short of a majority. The party would most likely need the support of the Lib Dems and the SNP to form a majority government. The proportional systems would not give Labour such a boost: regional party list is estimated to give the party 26% of seats off 26% of the vote; AMS would give it 26% of the seats off 29% of the vote; and STV would give it 27% of the seats off 28% of the vote.
Under each of these systems, either a progressive coalition of parties – a combination of Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP or Plaid Cymru – or a Reform-Conservative-Restore coalition would be the only paths to forming a government. Even then, several scenarios would lead to a minority government in a finely balanced parliament. While the leading Labour party would lose the largest proportion of seats under the proportional systems, smaller parties would be the biggest winners.
The Green party would win only three seats under FPTP under current polling, but more than 50 seats in all three PR systems that we’re modelling – 9% of the seats on offer, more closely matching their vote share. Likewise, the far-right Restore Britain party would surge above 30 seats in each of the PR systems, compared with winning just one seat under FPTP. Charlie Buckley, a senior research associate at More in Common, said: “With [Nigel] Farage’s [Reform UK] party having lost some momentum and Andy Burnham being – for now – a more popular prime minister, it’s Labour who would reap the benefits from our current electoral system.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
