ELECTORAL SYSTEM:EVERY MAJOR British political leader wants to change the electoral system of first-past-the-post, which over-generously rewards the larger parties. However, they want to do so in different ways, and entirely in their own interest.
Labour leader Gordon Brown has belatedly offered reform – the alternative vote (AV) system – which would require winners to have more than 50 per cent of the vote in a single-seat constituency.
Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg wants proportional representation (PR), which would mean that smaller parties would be more fairly represented and the electorate would have to adjust to coalition governments. But the British public seems divided over PR: two-thirds believe in the system but only a quarter think Mr Clegg should make it a deal-breaker in coalition negotiations.
Conservative leader David Cameron wants neither PR nor AV, but he does want to cut down on the number of MPs and ensure that in each constituency they are elected by the same number of voters.
Under the current system, Labour, Tory or Liberal Democrat voters in constituencies that have been long-held by another party have known that casting their ballot makes little difference.
But the old loyalties are breaking down: Labour and the Conservatives held 95 per cent of seats after the 1951 election. On Friday, they will do well to hold more than 80 per cent.
The Conservatives scream that there is bias in the system. There is, but it is a bias that has suited each of the two main parties at different times.
The Conservative leader needs a 10 percentage point lead to win a majority in the House of Commons, while Labour could end up not far behind with the third-largest share of the popular vote.
In 1950 Labour won 230,000 more votes than the Conservatives but got 26 fewer seats. In 1974 the Conservatives had 226,000 more votes, but were four seats behind.
In 1983 the Conservatives won 42 per cent of the vote but 61 per cent of seats. In 1997 Labour, in the first flush of the Blair-led tide, received 43 per cent of the vote but 63 per cent of the seats.
There is no geographic bias, though. Conservative areas have about the same number of MPs as Labour, now that Scotland’s over-representation has been reduced.
Conservative-held constituencies have been larger than Labour’s: in 2005, for example, they had on average 5,500 more voters, but the gap has been reduced following a boundary review after that election.
Margaret Thatcher was not hindered by this imbalance. In 1987, the average gap in each constituency was a few hundred voters yet she won by 102 seats – the fourth-biggest majority since 1945.
The last two elections illustrated some striking contrasts. In 2001 the Conservatives won 50,332 votes for each seat compared to 26,031 for Labour, while in 2005 it was 44,335 for the Conservatives compared to 26,908 for Labour.
The constant in all these elections is that the party that loses an election ends up with far more votes per seat than the winner. It is not bias but, rather, a reflection of the voters’ preferences.
One significant explanation for the current arithmetic is that the turnout in Labour constituencies is lower – by almost 8 per cent – than the average recorded in often-wealthier, better-educated Conservative territory.
Also, the figures highlight the fact that the Conservatives were pushed back into their heartland of southern England from 1997 onwards – a reality that Mr Cameron, backed by Lord Michael Ashcroft’s millions, has tried hard to reverse.
In 1992 the Conservatives won 32.5 per cent of the vote in southern England, providing 41 per cent of their total seat numbers. By 1997 more than half of all Tory MPs came from the region, while in 2005, with a 35.7 per cent national vote share, half of its Commons’ numbers came from there.
In 2005 Labour returned to power with just 36 per cent of the vote – the smallest share of any winning party since 1832 – by getting the votes it needed in the places it most needed them.
The destination of 20 or 30 seats could easily decide who will be bidding for 10 Downing Street if no overall majority exists, and tactical voting – where people vote to keep a candidate out – will be crucial.