Written by Ben Yardley, Learning Coordinator
Democracy is simple: the candidate with the most votes wins, right?
Well, depending on where you live in UK and in which election you participate, the way you choose your representatives could be very different. In Wales, a debate is emerging over the way that Members of the Senedd (the national legislature) are elected.
A new Bill, currently at committee stage, proposes to overhaul the voting system and base Welsh elections entirely on proportional representation, replacing the ‘hybrid’ Alternative Member System which is currently used.
The change is controversial because the ‘closed list’ used in a proportional voting system, wherein voters cannot choose which representatives are picked, would mean that Welsh voters would now cast their vote only for a party, not a candidate. The Bill would also increase the number of MS’ (Members of the Senedd) to 96, a move supporters claim is necessary, but which has drawn criticism both in Wales and in Westminster.
The move to proportional representation in Wales would add yet another method to what is already a patchwork of different voting systems across the UK:
First Past The Post is the most commonly used voting system in the UK; it is employed for national elections, local council elections in England and Wales, mayoral elections and elections for Police and Crime Commissioners. Voters select their preferred candidate, and the candidate with the highest number of votes is elected into office. For national elections, the party with a majority of elected candidates will form a government.
First Past The Post is perhaps the simplest voting system to understand. It also has the advantage of allowing voters to vote directly for their representative, leading to greater accountability and a clear outlet for redressing grievances, through an MP’s constituency office.
When applied to national elections, FPTP is heavily majoritarian, meaning that it usually produces a clear winner; for example, at the 2019 election, the Conservatives won 56.2% of seats with only 43.6% of votes. This provides stability for a government, as it is easier for them to pass legislation with a clear majority. On the other hand, the strongest argument against FPTP is that the election results often do not match what the electorate voted for as a whole. The ‘winner takes it all’ model can also disadvantage smaller parties and lead some to feel that their vote has been wasted if their preferred candidate is very unlikely to win.
The Additional Member System is a hybrid system, combining both FPTP and proportional representation (in which the share of representatives a party gets matches their percentage of votes). Voters place two votes: one for a constituency representative and one for a party. The second vote ‘tops up’ the parliament, with each party providing additional representatives depending on their proportion of votes.
AMS is currently used in both the Welsh Senedd and the Scottish Parliament. It is designed as a third way between FPTP and PR, keeping the constituency model while also reflecting the popular vote. This has the drawback of making some members’ constituencies larger, meaning those representatives are responsible for more people. The adoption of AMS also reflects a change in political culture, a result of the growth in the power of parties over that of individual politicians.
Closed-List Proportional representation is not currently used in any election in the UK, but it is currently being considered in Wales. The electorate votes for their preferred party, receiving a share of candidates corresponding to their number of votes. The representatives are chosen based on a ‘closed list’ meaning that the party determines the order in which its candidates will be elected (like a batting order in cricket).
Proportional Representation makes it difficult, but not impossible, for any one party to win a majority. This can lead to unstable governments that struggle to pass laws, but also incentivises the party in power to compromise and build consensus with opposition parties. The main strength of a proportional representation system is that it means that no votes are wasted and encourages diversity of political expression. This comes at the expense of choosing which individual person you want to as a representative; critics claim that closed lists can lead to unpopular or unworthy representatives winning seats based on party connections.
The Single Transferable Vote is the only voting system used in the UK which allows voters to rank their preferred candidate, rather than voting for just one. Every candidate must reach a certain threshold of votes, or they are eliminated, and their votes are redistributed among the remaining candidates. It is currently used in Scottish local elections, and in Northern Ireland for both the devolved Assembly and local councils.
Allowing voters to rank their preferred candidates removes the necessity for tactical voting. Supporters of STV also suggest that it encourages a kinder, less partisan political culture by encouraging candidates not to alienate their opponents’ supporters. But STV too is not without drawbacks. Its complexity, and its difficulty to administer, limit its effectiveness; it would be incredibly costly and logistically challenging to apply to, for example, a UK national election.
The phrase ‘Laboratory for Democracy’ was first used by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in 1932 to explain the United States of America’s approach to governance. He summarised it as follows, "a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country". For Brandeis, the existence of different laws and administrative structures within a state was not a weakness but a strength, as it allowed institutions within the same country to learn from one another.
While the term is normally associated with American Exceptionalism, one side-effect of devolution is that the United Kingdom also has the potential to become a laboratory for democracy; policy-makers in Whitehall may look to Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast as case-studies for what works and what does not.
Is the Senedd Cymru Bill an example of, to paraphrase Brandeis, a “courageous nation” forging its own path to better represent its people? Or an unnecessary change that will increase administrative costs and make voters feel less close to the politicians who speak for them?
This question will continue to be hotly debated in Wales, and throughout the UK, in the coming weeks and months.
