The rise of anti-establishment movements and the growing disaffection with politics may be less related to the financial crisis and more to how we elect key decision-makers, explains Matthew Bevington. Looking at the actual level of support for governments across the EU, he makes the case for a mixed electoral system, through which the governments formed would pursue policies closer to the majority view.
The financial crisis is often seen as the most prominent inciting factor for the current anti-establishment sentiment sweeping the Europhile world. Add to that the continent-wide fiscal retrenchment, which has led to increased competition for scarce public services and has exacerbated difficult living conditions – especially for those on low incomes.
As important as the crisis was, its causes and were determined, in large part, by policymakers. So, it is the process by which we elect our policymakers that must become the subject of scrutiny.
One reason that there is such disaffection may be because almost all electoral systems across Europe produce governments that do not have the majority support of their electorates. With the exception of Malta, a predominantly two-party state that is now an anomaly in Europe – with 50.5 per cent of the electorate voting for the current government – all other governments in the EU did not receive majority support at their last general elections. This is a startling statement to make about a region so apparently committed to democracy and democratic values, but it is true. In terms of the percentage of the electorate that voted for parties currently in government in the EU, the average is 30.4 per cent.
My research has attempted to uncover the actual level of support for governments. Using data from the Inter-parliamentary Union (IPU) and local sources, I have calculated the proportion of support for parties in government from across the EU at the most recent general elections and within the UK since 1918 as a percentage of the electorate – not just of those who voted.
The UK state of play
The average turnout in UK general elections since 1918 was 63.3 per cent. On average, more than a third – the so-called “unheard third” – of those registered to vote have failed to cast a ballot, and this figure does not include those who are eligible to vote but who have not registered.
Of the proportion of the electorate that did vote, no party since the Conservatives in 1935 has received more than 50 per cent support: the average winning percentage for parties since 1918 was 43.6 per cent. This means that not only have parties consistently failed to achieve a majority mandate from those who did turn out to vote, but they have had even less of a mandate when the electorate as a whole is taken into account.
Taking registered non-voters into account, the mandate of governments changes significantly. At the last UK general election, the Conservative party won a majority with 36.8 per cent of the vote. Taken at face value, this is historically not a high proportion. Since 1918, the only winning parties to receive a lower percentage were the Conservatives themselves in 2010 (36.1 per cent), and Labour before them in 2005 (35.2 per cent). Despite this, the Conservatives went on to form a majority government, with just under two-thirds of those who voted in 2015 not supporting them. In itself this could be considered enough to undermine the party’s political (not constitutional or legal) mandate.
If the measure is then broadened to consider the proportion of support that the party received from the electorate as a whole, the figure plummets to 24.4 per cent. This means that three-quarters of those who were registered to vote did not support the government.
The EU context
Considering the wider EU context, the UK’s system is anomalous. In the short-term, the First Past the Post system is the most stable one, as it favours incumbents and for most of the past century has produced majority UK governments. However, it is also a very rigid system that requires historic changes in voting patterns to greatly affect the composition of parliament.
In the medium to long-term, this is highly destabilising. Many voters are disenfranchised by virtue of having a pointless vote in a safe seat, which leads to the kind of resentment with the so-called establishment that is increasingly prevalent. When electorates have no realistic democratic means to express their will, it is more likely that they will lean towards more extreme positions that aim to overturn the system of democracy as we currently understand it.
Typically, those against a proportional mechanism in the voting system argue that constituencies should only get the representative for whom they vote. Those for proportionality argue that the will of the electorate as a whole should be respected, and that the composition of parliament should match the proportion of the vote share. But it is possible to accommodate both positions and produce a more stable electoral system in the long-term.
As early as 1998, the Independent Commission on the Voting System, which was set up by the Labour government, recommended a mixed system where the vast majority (80-85 per cent) of MPs were elected by FPTP “with the remainder elected on a corrective Top-up basis which would significantly reduce the disproportionality and the geographical divisiveness which are inherent in FPTP”.
This mixed system can go even further than the commission recommended and have MPs directly elected in all constituencies with a top-up of MPs to produce a proportionally representative result. For instance, Germany has such a mixed system, where 299 seats for the 299 constituencies are elected directly in an FPTP style. However, there is a subset of seats awarded on top of that to produce a proportional result.
Using raw turnout data, the grand coalition government currently in office in Germany received 67.2 per cent of the valid votes in the last federal election in 2013. More importantly, however, the government had the support of 47.4 per cent of the electorate – the second-highest proportion in the EU and 23 percentage points more than the current UK government.
Mixed systems lend themselves to coalition-building, and in an increasingly fractured political landscape in the UK this is the most appropriate system. Government formation may be more onerous as a result, but the ensuing government will have a greater mandate and will be more likely to pursue policies that reflect the majority view.
Mixed systems are not a panacea for our problems – even the German system did not produce a government with more than 50 per cent support from the electorate – but it would better serve the long-term interests of the electorate, include a greater diversity of electoral expression and provide governments that pursue policy platforms closer to the majority view.
____
Matthew Bevington is a postgraduate student in Global Politics at Birkbeck College, University of London.
I find this article confusing. Firstly it does not make clear early enough whether you take electorate to mean those registered, or the population of 18+ who would be allowed to vote if they registered. 2) you seem to not see the contradiction between having one party take over 50% of all the votes – i.e. dominance by one party – as if that dominance were a good thing. On the other hand you don’t mention that having a variety of parties is considered ‘more democratic’ by those who want Proportional Representation, but obviously it means each party has a smaller share. So they have to form coalitions which could be considered as either consensus-forming (good) or leading to wrangling and weak government (bad in British politics textbooks). 4- Also the article sounds like you don’t realise that PR systems with D’Hondt seat allocation mostly do not need a threshold because the way it works out, very small parties don’t get any seats anyway so there is no point in having a threshold. 5) Governments are not elected, as you seem to say, only members of parliament are, and a party leader will be asked to form a government in parliament. Government formation is a key element in democracy – see the difficulties in Spain. With fewer parties, it would be easier, but the range of opinions in Spain has diversified – so which is more democratic?
However I do agree electoral reform could be beneficial in the UK because of the electoral deserts you mention, which are damaging – but it depends on which electoral system you use. Mixed Member is possible, except that one has to decide whether having 2 separate types of MP is a good idea or not. In the UK all boundaries would have been redrawn, MPs losing their seats etc. Plus it is extremely long-winded to work out the results and not transparent or comprehensible to ordinary people(bad for trust) . In the UK, any change would have to go with a system that MPPs do not mind moving to – the least upheaval possible. This is probably Constituency-based Elections with Proportional Allocation of Seats- CEPAS – have a look at it. Good Luck !
Reader in European Politics
Two questions:
What would the figures look like if you included all those members of the UK population who are entitled to vote rather than just those who have registered to vote? How much further would that make the figure of support for the government plummet?
In some of the countries in your comparison like e.g. Germany you don’t need to specifically register to vote. Once you are over 18 and are officially registered in a borough (I.e. don’t live somewhere illegally) you are automatically issued voting papers for every election. Even if you didn’t intend to vote, you could decide even at the last minute that you wanted to vote, after all. So for countries with such a system “the electorate” listed in the above statistics would include a larger proportion of the population than in a country like the UK where registration to vote is required and electorate only means those who registered.
When contemplating a mixed system would it be wise to introduce a minimum percentage of votes a party needs to win in order to enter parliament? Germany has a “5%-hurdle” which seems to be working quite well, Italy e.g. has none which can lead to a large number of parties in parliament some of which undermine constructive working in parliament rather than contributing.
In a mature democracy with a confident and educated democracy, it is no surprise that any single manifesto of policies fails to receive 50% of electoral support. Opinions are too diverse. Rather than a single political party with an overarching manifesto able to gather widespread support, small parties better reflect the views of the significant sections of the electorate. Many voters are alienated by the compromises and contradictions of the larger party which is trying to be attractive to at least 50% of the electorate.
The First Past the Post electoral system is swimming hard against this tide. It is very much the creature of a two party system, rewarding the large parties while making it extremely difficult for a small party to get its candidates elected, and thus have a proportionate influence over Government or the legislative programme. Our democracy has reached the difficult situation where the electoral system is no longer fit for purpose, but at the same time is the democratic barrier to reform – impasse.
To overcome this difficulty larger parties are of necessity informal coalitions with all the tensions and contradictions of coalitions between different parties. The difference is that the electorate may not get the opportunity to express support for the different wings of a larger party, so that the political intention of the Conservative (or Labour) voter may be easy to misconstrue.
This is damaging to our democracy. It is the root cause of the problems of the Labour Party, which is desperately trying to hold disparate political philosophies together for the sake of being able to compete under the existing electoral system. The Conservative Party is not immune. The European schism is a fundamental fault line within the party and the referendum has not solved anything.
Electoral reform is part of the answer, and for the UK, this means a form of Proportional Representation based on the single member constituency.
The second part of the solution is finding a process of forming a coalition, which is both democratic and seen to be democratic, so that the resulting coalition Government does indeed attract majority support, albeit with several parties working together.
There’s a widespread anti-establishment feeling, yes. Governments are elected by a minority of the electorate, yes. But before any of the discussion about revising the electoral system becomes appropriate, you need to show at the very least that there is a correlation between the strength of the anti-establishment feeling and the degree to which governments are elected by a minority. (Even then, one might question the direction of the causality). You haven’t done this, so your diagnosis and your prescribed cure have no link.