SIMULATING POST-WAR ELECTIONS UNDER THE SINGLE TRANSFERABLE VOTE
Dylan Difford Spring 2021
The Single Transferable Vote (STV) is one of the most popular voting systems among electoral reformers in the UK, favoured for its ability to produce broadly proportional outcomes while retaining fairly localised constituencies, as well as its maximisation of voter choice and election of all members on the same footing. But STV is no straight-proportional system. As a preferential-proportional system, it isn’t as simple as X percent of votes will lead to X percent of seats. Voters are free to allow their vote to be transferred between parties in accordance with their preferences, preventing wasted ballots and affecting the allocation of some seats.
In order to analyse the potential effects of STV on the British party system, the Electoral Reform Society has, for each recent general election, created a model of how the vote may have gone under STV – using specially commissioned polls to see how voters would cast their votes on a preferential ballot paper and then projecting this onto a system of 3-6-member constituencies. Building on this work, I have gone back and projected every post-war general election result under the same system, utilising high-quality data on voter’s preferences from the British Election Studies.
Additionally, to provide us with a non-preferential control, I have modelled each election under the Droop-LR variant of Party List PR – the closest non-preferential proportional system to STV. And have performed similar simulations on the five most recent European Parliament elections, as if they were general elections, to examine the effects of STV on more multi-party elections. In all, we hope that this can give us a strong indication of the potential effects of STV if it were to be introduced for British general elections.
CONTENTS
SUMMARY ...... 4 Methodology ...... 5 Health Warnings, Caveats and Provisos ...... 6 Headline Tables ...... 8 Main Findings ...... 12 APPENDIX ...... 24 1945 General Election ...... 25 1950 General Election ...... 27 1951 General Election ...... 29 1955 General Election ...... 31 1959 General Election ...... 33 1964 General Election ...... 34 1966 General Election ...... 36 1970 General Election ...... 38 February 1974 General Election ...... 40 October 1974 General Election...... 42 1979 General Election ...... 44 1983 General Election ...... 46 1987 General Election ...... 48 1992 General Election ...... 50 1997 General Election ...... 52 2001 General Election ...... 54 2005 General Election ...... 56 2010 General Election ...... 58 2015 General Election ...... 60 2017 General Election ...... 62 2019 General Election ...... 64 1999 European Election ...... 68 2004 European Election ...... 70 2009 European Election ...... 72 2014 European Election ...... 74 2019 European Election ...... 76
SUMMARY
This section includes a discussion of the methodology used in these simulations, a few caveats about the process, a summary of the main findings, as well as headline tables summarising the results of the simulations.
Methodology
Quota: We have used the Droop quota ((votes/(seats+1))+1) variant of STV.
Constituencies: Our STV constituencies were created by merging together between 3 and 6 FPTP constituencies, with an average district magnitude (ADM) of 4. This particular range was chosen as it is one of the most commonly suggested for introduction to the UK and the average was chosen to make it comparable to elections in Ireland which have an ADM of 4, albeit with a more constricted range of 3-5. Exemptions to the 3-6 range were granted for the Isle of Wight and the Scottish island constituencies, which already enjoy protections under existing electoral law. While single-member constituencies may go against the spirit of a PR election, it is typical in many European countries to grant exemptions for similar islands. The merged constituencies were kept consistent across boundary review cycles and have taken into account contemporary administrative boundaries. Although such constituencies are necessarily larger than existing FPTP ones, every constituency in England and Wales across all elections was less than 60% of the area of Ross, Skye and Lochaber, the largest present-day Westminster constituency.
Counting Method: Our simulation uses a simplified version of the STV counting procedure. All parties have been treated as blocs and non-significant ‘others’ (i.e. excluding UKIP, Green, BNP etc.) have been eliminated on bulk at the start of the contest. These non-significant ‘others’ were grouped into ‘other left’, ‘other right’ or ‘other’ unless they received more than 25% of the quota in a particular constituency when they would be reclassed as a ‘strong independent’. After this, the contest would continue as per an actual STV election – the party with the fewest votes in each round being eliminated and their votes redistributed to their voter’s next preference. For the purposes of these vote transfers, we have assumed full-ballot completion – i.e. voters must rank all candidates. While an actual implementation of STV in the UK would likely use optional-ballot completion (where voters can rank as many or as few candidates as they like), we opted to use full- ballot completion for two key reasons. Firstly, it is virtually impossible to gauge at what rate preferences would deteriorate had British voters been presented with STV ballots. Although some surveys have attempted to calculate such figures, the results are not detailed or consistent enough to provide a definitive answer – let alone demonstrating variance between supporters of different parties and changes in this level over the entire post-war period. Secondly, full-ballot completion helps demonstrate the maximum potential effect of STV over the control. The issues surrounding these choices are discussed more in the next section.
Preference Data: For elections since 1964, the preference scores have been based on British Election Study (BES) data derived from direct second preference questions, likeability ratings of political parties and other questions concerning attitudes to differing parties. For earlier elections, data has been estimated based on analysis of mixed voting in two- member constituencies in 1945, analysis of vote change in constituencies where one party entered or withdrew from the contest, and patterns in early BES surveys. For Northern Ireland, scores were estimated based on analysis of vote transfers in actual STV elections. All preference scores were rounded to the nearest 2.5% as any higher level of accuracy seems unnecessary when dealing with estimates of a counter-factual question. For elections before 2010, there were variations in preferences and head-to-heads between England, Scotland and Wales. For 2010 onwards, due to a higher sample size in BES data, we have split England into the North, Midlands, South and London. For the European elections, data for 2009, 2014 and 2019 came from BES surveys of those elections, while data for 1999 and 2004 came from surrounding general elections.
Election Results: These simulations are based on votes as actually cast in the general elections rather than an attempt to calculate what the result would have been if it had been conducted under a proportional voting system. Election results data is from the long-running series by FWS Craig and, later, Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher. Health Warnings, Caveats and Provisos
o Each election has been treated in isolation – this is not an attempt to create an alternative history narrative of what if STV had been in use for the entire post-war period, but rather a projection of each post-war general election under the rules of STV. o Obviously, it is impossible to know for certain how an election would look under a different voting system. The voting system that is used does affect how some voters cast their ballots. o Under FPTP, a significant minority of voters cast their ballots tactically because their preferred candidate can’t win. With STV, the incentive to vote tactically is all but removed and so nearly all votes would be sincere and for a person’s genuine first preference. o A proportional voting system may also lead to more people voting for smaller parties, as such parties have a higher chance of winning and so voting for them seems less like wasting your vote. o Regardless of more people wanting to vote for smaller parties, FPTP undercounts their support as they often do not field candidates in all seats – this means that in our STV constituencies, we are missing votes that would have been cast for those parties even under FPTP. However, for the purposes of these simulations, we have assumed that first-preference votes under STV would be identical to votes cast under FPTP. This is because attempting to calculate sincere first-preference voting adds a second layer of counter-factual to the simulation and, as aforementioned, these are projections of existing results under STV and not predictions of what would have happened had STV been used. o While every effort has been made to gather preference voting data from the best available sources, it is ultimately impossible to know whether these would be the preference orderings under an actual preferential election as parties also behave differently according to the voting system. For parties under FPTP or List PR, elections are a zero-sum game – any vote that isn’t for them is against them. But, under STV, parties often require preference votes from other parties in order to win seats. It is therefore in the best interests of parties to create strong relationships with other parties in order to attract their supporter’s preference votes. Also, parties can explicitly state their feelings on others – in Australia, parties typically produce ‘How to Vote’ cards advising voters how to fill-in their ballot paper. These kinds of party behaviours could lead to more decisive, and therefore more effective, preference voting than can be seen in surveys taken in a non-preferential environment where there is an absence of elite cues. o There are two behaviours that are possible under STV that our simulations have not been able to account for due to practical reasons. The first is the level of ballot completion. These simulations have assumed full-ballot completion – whereby voters must rank every candidate – because it was difficult ascertaining at exactly what rate British voters would cast preference votes and how this would vary between parties and elections. A useful side- effect of this is that using full-ballot completion demonstrates the maximum potential effect of STV. However, versions of STV that are already in use or are proposed for use in the UK have optional-ballot completion – whereby voters can rank as many or as few candidates as they like. Under such a system, the effects of STV relative to Droop-LR may be slightly weaker than demonstrated here. The second behaviour that we deliberately did not account for was ‘vote leakage’. Under most forms of STV, voters can cast their vote across party lines – for instance, a left-wing Labour voter could rank a Green candidate ahead of a centrist Labour one. However, this ‘leakage’ of votes from a party bloc is incredibly hard to estimate, especially given a lack of applicable survey data and Britain’s limited experience of preference voting. In the absence of any data on this issue and for the purposes of simplicity, our simulations have treated parties as a bloc – assuming that voters would rate all candidates from that party before moving on to the next. As vote leakage would affect the rate of inter-party voting, it is possible that a simulation that accounted for it would show stronger effects of STV relative to Droop-LR than shown here. o Although best effort has been made to use regional data where it was available and of a reasonable sample size, survey data cannot take into account local factors in individual races which, in some cases, may have led to deviation from average preference data. But, in constituencies where there was a strong independent candidate, individual judgment has been used to estimate how this would have affected that particular result. o Our STV constituencies have been created by merging together existing FPTP constituencies. This means that where certain biases exist in the actual constituencies – such as the overrepresentation of Scotland (until 2001) and Wales – they have been carried over to the STV constituencies. This often manifests itself in a slight advantage for Labour, which would not exist were bespoke boundaries used. o The terms STV (Single Transferable Vote) and FPTP (First Past the Post) have been used as those are the most common names for said systems in the UK, even though FPTP is technically a misnomer.
Headline Tables
Table 1: Summary of Seats won in UK General Elections results under FPTP and STV
Actual FPTP Result Simulated STV Result Con Lab Lib SNP PC Oth Con Lab Lib SNP PC Oth 1945 210 393 12 25 256 326 37 21 1950 298 315 9 3 285 308 28 4 1951 321 295 6 3 301 312 8 4 1955 345 277 6 2 319 300 9 2 1959 365 258 6 1 332 281 15 2 1964 304 317 9 286 290 51 1 1 1 1966 253 364 12 1 261 330 33 2 1 3 1970 330 288 6 1 5 306 294 21 4 2 3 1974 297 301 14 7 2 14 243 251 110 17 2 12 1974 277 319 13 11 3 12 235 268 95 23 2 12 1979 339 269 11 2 2 12 293 254 68 7 1 12 1983 397 209 23 2 2 17 279 171 179 3 1 17 1987 376 229 22 3 3 17 284 184 159 5 1 17 1992 336 271 20 3 4 17 275 228 113 16 2 17 1997 165 419 46 6 4 19 184 327 112 15 2 19 2001 166 413 52 5 4 19 189 313 120 15 3 19 2005 198 356 62 6 3 21 196 254 160 11 3 22 2010 307 258 57 6 3 19 244 196 175 11 3 21 2015 331 232 8 56 3 20 273 236 28 34 4 75 2017 318 262 12 35 4 19 285 296 26 21 3 19 2019 365 203 11 48 4 19 308 225 59 30 4 24
Table 2: Share of ‘First Preference’ Vote and Seats won in Great Britain under STV
% GB Vote % GB Seats Con Lab Lib SNP PC Oth Con Lab Lib SNP PC Oth 1945 39.3 49.0 9.3 0.1 0.1 2.3 39.6 52.8 5.8 1.8 1950 43.0 46.8 9.3 0.0 0.1 0.9 45.2 50.1 4.6 0.2 1951 47.8 49.4 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 47.8 50.7 1.3 0.2 1955 49.3 47.4 2.8 0.0 0.2 0.5 50.2 48.4 1.5 1959 48.8 44.6 6.0 0.1 0.3 0.3 52.1 45.3 2.4 0.2 1964 42.9 44.8 11.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 44.8 46.6 8.3 0.2 0.2 1966 41.4 48.8 8.6 0.5 0.2 0.5 41.1 53.2 5.2 0.3 0.2 1970 46.2 43.9 7.6 1.1 0.6 0.6 48.2 47.2 3.4 0.6 0.3 0.2 1974 38.8 38.0 19.8 2.1 0.6 0.9 39.0 40.3 17.7 2.7 0.3 1974 36.7 40.2 18.8 2.9 0.6 0.9 37.7 43.0 15.2 3.6 0.3 1979 44.9 37.8 14.1 1.7 0.4 1.2 47.0 40.8 10.9 1.1 0.2 1983 43.5 28.3 26.0 1.1 0.4 0.7 44.1 27.0 28.3 0.5 0.2 1987 43.2 31.5 23.1 1.3 0.4 0.5 44.9 29.1 25.1 0.8 0.2 1992 42.8 35.2 18.3 1.9 0.5 1.3 43.2 36.0 17.8 2.5 0.3 0.2 1997 31.5 44.3 17.2 2.0 0.5 4.5 28.7 51.0 17.5 2.3 0.3 0.2 2001 32.6 42.0 18.8 1.8 0.8 4.0 29.5 48.8 18.7 2.3 0.5 0.2 2005 33.2 36.1 22.6 1.6 0.7 5.8 31.2 40.4 25.4 1.7 0.5 0.6 2010 36.9 29.7 23.6 1.7 0.6 7.6 38.6 31.0 27.7 1.7 0.5 0.5 2015 37.7 31.2 8.1 4.9 0.6 17.7 43.2 37.3 4.4 5.2 0.6 9.0 2017 43.4 41.0 7.6 3.1 0.5 4.4 45.1 46.8 4.1 3.2 0.5 0.2 2019 44.7 32.9 11.8 4.0 0.5 6.1 48.7 35.6 9.3 4.6 0.6 0.9
Table 3: Summary of Seats won under Droop-LR and Comparison to STV
Simulated Droop-LR Result STV vs Droop LR (Preference Boost) Con Lab Lib SNP PC Oth Con Lab Lib SNP PC Oth 1945 266 327 27 20 -10 -1 +10 +1 1950 291 315 16 3 -6 -7 +12 +1 1951 301 314 7 3 0 -2 +1 +1 1955 321 302 4 3 -2 -2 +5 -1 1959 326 290 11 1 2 +6 -9 +4 -1 0 1964 287 298 42 1 1 1 -1 -8 +9 0 0 0 1966 276 327 23 2 1 1 -15 +3 +10 0 0 +2 1970 309 299 13 3 2 4 -3 -5 +8 +1 0 -1 1974 243 249 109 20 2 12 0 +2 +1 -3 0 0 1974 239 272 86 23 3 12 -4 -4 +9 0 -1 0 1979 296 261 56 9 1 12 -3 -7 +12 -2 0 0 1983 284 179 165 4 1 17 -5 -8 +14 -1 0 0 1987 289 203 132 7 2 17 -5 -19 +27 -2 -1 0 1992 286 242 88 16 2 17 -11 -14 +25 0 0 0 1997 204 332 85 16 3 19 -20 -5 +27 -1 -1 0 2001 212 316 93 15 4 19 -23 -3 +27 0 -1 0 2005 216 255 142 10 3 20 -20 -1 +18 +1 0 +2 2010 253 209 154 13 3 18 -9 -13 +21 -2 0 +3 2015 264 226 23 35 4 98 +9 +10 +5 -1 0 -23 2017 295 288 22 25 2 18 -10 +8 +4 -4 +1 +1 2019 321 227 48 29 3 22 -13 -2 +11 +1 +1 +2
Table 4: Disproportionality of UK General Elections under FPTP, STV and Droop-LR
Loosemore-Hanby Score Difference FPTP STV LR STV-FPTP STV-LR 1945 15.34 04.86 06.38 -10.49 -1.52 1950 08.77 05.57 07.55 0-3.20 -1.99 1951 03.43 01.58 01.81 0-1.85 -0.22 1955 05.02 02.15 02.85 0-2.87 -0.70 1959 08.70 04.22 04.70 0-4.48 -0.48 1964 11.04 03.90 05.33 0-7.14 -1.43 1966 09.81 04.49 05.80 0-5.32 -1.31 1970 08.83 05.89 07.21 0-2.94 -1.32 1974 19.62 03.58 03.69 -16.38 -0.11 1974 19.03 04.91 06.17 -14.12 -1.26 1979 15.34 05.54 07.15 0-9.80 -1.62 1983 23.94 02.96 01.64 -20.97 +1.32 1987 20.85 03.94 03.11 -16.92 +0.83 1992 17.97 02.04 05.80 -15.93 -3.76 1997 21.25 07.41 08.25 -13.84 -0.84 2001 22.16 07.43 08.37 -14.73 -0.93 2005 20.67 07.47 05.74 -13.19 +1.73 2010 22.84 07.26 07.62 -15.58 -0.36 2015 24.01 12.14 09.42 -11.87 +2.71 2017 10.31 07.50 08.47 0-2.81 -0.97 2019 17.15 07.62 09.53 0-9.52 -1.90 Average 15.53 05.36 06.03 -10.17 -0.67
Main Findings
Proportionality: STV is indeed broadly proportional, yielding a mean Loosemore-Hanby score1 of 5.36 – meaning that just 5% of seats would be allocated differently under a pure PR system. This is a significant improvement on the existing FPTP results – which have a mean L-H score of 15.53, roughly three-times higher than that of STV. But what is more surprising is that our STV simulations actually marginally outperformed our Droop-LR projections – the straight-proportional system scoring a slightly higher 6.03 average rating. And this isn’t just a case of averages evening out – STV near-consistently produced a more proportional result, with only four of the 21 general elections (1983, 1987, 2005 and 2015) seeing STV score higher than Droop-LR.
However, it is unclear how far this is due to the unique effects of STV and how far this is due to favourable circumstances. Droop-LR’s lower levels of proportionality largely come from a tendency to underrepresent the Liberal Democrats and their predecessors. STV produced more proportional results in our simulations by more fairly representing the Liberals – but only because they are a party that does well on preferences. Faced with a less popular third-party, such as with UKIP in 2015, STV can create a less proportional result as such parties are likely to lose seats on the preference vote. But this is the problem with discussing proportionality and STV. Standard measures of proportionality only account for first-preference votes, but STV also counts other-preferences and so you end up with a discrepancy between what is ‘on the face of it’ proportionality and what the logic of STV sees as fairer.
Quota and Constituency Size: One of the most important variables in designing a proportional voting system is constituency size – larger constituencies create more proportional results, with smaller constituencies exhibiting small biases towards larger parties. Of course, it is a trade-off. Increasing the size of the constituencies reduces their localness, with this decrease occurring at a higher rate per seat added than increases in proportionality. Both our Droop-LR and STV systems are of a low-district magnitude, with an average constituency size of 4 seats. This does, as expected, lead to a small bias towards the two larger parties in our simulations – Droop-LR boosting the two-party seat share by an average 5.3% relative to the two-party vote share.
Both of our systems are also quota-based, meaning that a party’s ability to win seats is largely dependent on their performance relative to said quota. Under Droop-LR, parties that ‘beat’ the average quota, in our case 20%, were almost guaranteed some degree of overrepresentation. Medium-sized parties, those that received at least half the average quota, were generally adequately represented but could be either over- or underrepresented depending on the ratio between them and the larger parties. Those which returned less than half the average quota were consistently underrepresented, with ones that failed to get even a quarter of the average quota often left with no seats unless they had a few islands of strong support. For regional parties this applies on a regional basis. But while this is a good rule of thumb for straight- proportional quota systems, STV’s preferential qualities mean that this guide doesn’t entirely apply…
Preferential Effects: STV doesn’t just allocate seats based on the votes a party has won. As a preferential system, these votes become merely first-preferences and other preferences can affect the seat allocation. For the ten most recent general elections, an average of 28 seats (4%) would be allocated differently between Droop-LR and STV, due to
1 The Loosemore-Hanby index measures the difference between vote share and seat share and elicits a maximum score of 100. A Loosemore-Hanby score of 5.00 would suggest that 5% of seats were ‘misallocated’ relative to a pure PR system. Averages of other west European countries between 1945 and 2018 are: Austria 3.9, Belgium 6.8, Denmark 2.9, Finland 5.7, France 20.3, Germany 5.1, Ireland 6.7, Italy 8.1, Netherlands 2.7, Norway 7.4, Sweden 3.1; as listed in Siaroff (2019) Comparative European Party Systems. preference voting. In some of the European election simulations this figure rose as high as 1 in 10 seats. And these aren’t just switches that cancel each other out, these changes in allocation can have strong partisan effects.
Just looking at the comparisons between Droop-LR and STV, it is possible to see the real potential effect of preference voting across our general election simulations. The Liberal Democrats and their predecessors, who for a long time would have been the recipients of most second-preferences, are the clear beneficiaries – taking an extra 12 seats, on average, under STV. While these additional seats would largely come at the expense of the big-two parties, the net effect isn’t always equal on both parties – with it too varying from election-to-election depending on preference votes. There are clear periods, such as the 1980s, when Labour would lose out because of their unpopularity – with the SDP-Liberal Alliance even potentially winning more seats than them in 1983. Conversely, the New Labour years would have seen the close relationship between Labour and the Liberal Democrats being to the detriment of the Conservatives – with cross- preference voting possibly depriving them of up to two-dozen seats, relative to Droop-LR.
This significant penalty for parties that have little secondary popularity is even more apparent on smaller parties – who it can make or break. Analysis of the 2009 European Parliament election suggests that the far-right BNP, who would have received few preference votes even from hard-right parties, would require around 85% of the quota in a constituency to be elected. The Greens, on the other hand, would have done far better on preference votes and, as such, would have been able to win seats in constituencies where they won just 45% of the quota on first preferences. Due to differing levels of secondary popularity, the Greens would pick up additional seats under STV, while the BNP would lose 13 of the 15 seats they would have won under Droop-LR. While these may be extreme examples, vote transfers can hugely affect seat allocation under STV – with it acting as a powerful filter against unpopular and extremist parties.
Regional Representation: STV wouldn’t just make the House of Commons more representative by party, it would also make parties more representative of their own voters. After the FPTP 2019 general election, 24% of Conservative voters did not have a Conservative MP, 51% of Labour voters had a non-Labour MP and 92% of Lib Dem voters were represented by an MP they had no hand in electing. Under STV, most constituencies would have at least one MP from the main parties, with our simulation of the 2019 election suggesting that the those ‘unrepresented’ figures would fall to 1%, 4% and 38% respectively. And, because STV is a preferential system, this is only accounting for first preferences, many of those ‘unrepresented’ voters would have helped elect their next preference MP.
But this doesn’t just ensure that a higher share of voters are actually represented in parliament, it would mean that parliamentary parties would more accurately represent their electoral bases. STV would mean that the Conservatives would always have had a clear presence in the ‘Red Wall’, inner cities and Scotland and Wales. While the Parliamentary Labour Party would always have contained a more representative share of rural and southern MPs. At no point during the post-war era would either of the main parties have been virtually or completely wiped out in any part of Great Britain. This would give all corners of the country a place in any government and likely prevent the neglecting of certain regions that we have seen under FPTP. No more would either main party ignore the concerns of a certain area because they weren’t electorally useful. With the ending of safe seats, everywhere would be competitive and regional neglect would almost certainly cost a party MPs.
Governments: Elections aren’t just about parliament – government formation is also key, with any change in the make-up of parliament obviously affecting which governments could be formed. Opponents of fairer voting systems often claim that PR would lead to unstable, highly multi-party coalitions. Aside from ignoring both the many stable PR democracies and the fact that FPTP has created multiple periods of political instability in Britain, this is not something borne out in our STV simulations. Up until the 2015 election, all our simulations show either single-party majorities or at least one viable two-party coalition. While single-party majorities may seem odd for a proportional system given that no party has won a majority of the popular vote since 1935, the aforementioned factors around STV’s low district magnitude mean that they are possible on just short of 50% of the vote. Our projections show that the 1945, 1955, 1959 and 1966 elections would all have produced up to 34-seat majorities under STV (with the 1950, 1951 and 1997 elections also doing so under Droop-LR). For the other elections, some form of multi-party agreement would be required to form an overall majority – with coalitions being the more likely option considering the concerns over stability. Clear two-party coalitions are an option for all but the most recent elections – with a minimum of nine such governments having larger parliamentary majorities than their FPTP single-party counterparts and slim, precarious majorities being virtually non-existent (unlike under FPTP).
Questions around government formation, particularly around recent elections, are discussed in greater detail in the election-by-election appendix.
Partisan Effects: The most obvious partisan effect of STV, or indeed any proportional system, is that the Conservatives and Labour would return fewer seats. Though the low district magnitude of STV would still give both major parties a slight overrepresentation at most elections, their overall seat haul would be much more in line with their vote share – ending the disproportionate, cartel-like grip on political power that they have enjoyed for decades.
The clear beneficiaries of a switch to STV would have been the Liberal Democrats and their predecessors. FPTP has consistently mistreated them, giving them an average of just 23% of the seats they would be entitled to under a pure proportional system. While STV would not have been able to give them the full 100% in every election, the average 77% of owed seats shown in our simulations would be a significant improvement. A vote for the Liberals would no longer be a wasted vote, with them having a genuine chance of ‘winning here’ in most constituencies as well as sizeable presences in parliament and a greater chance of being in government.
For the SNP, STV would have been a mixed bag. From 1964 to 2010, it would have largely been a benefit – they would have won their first seats earlier and would have won an average of 10 seats at Westminster, up from 4 under FPTP. However, since 2015, the trend in SNP seats would go the other way. Their post-referendum surge in support has meant that, under FPTP, they have taken a share of Scottish seats far in excess of their levels of support. STV’s proportionality would mean a net loss in MPs, but it would be a much fairer level of representation. Plaid Cymru, on the other hand, would not have seen much net difference between the two systems. Though STV would have meant that some of their MPs would have been elected in industrial south Wales, rather than exclusively in the rural west.
Unionists vs Nationalists: In Northern Ireland, where it is already used for all non-Westminster elections, STV would have led to a fairer balance between unionist and nationalist MPs as well as benefitting more moderate parties at the expense of hardliners. The cross-community Alliance Party, as one of the few which could gain preferences from across the unionist-nationalist divide, would also have been a far more regular presence at Westminster than it has been under FPTP. Similarly, STV would have prevented the severe underrepresentation of pro-union MPs seen in Scotland since 2015. The unhealthy combination of FPTP and a one-party dominance by the SNP has meant that far more nationalist than unionist MPs have been elected from Scotland in recent elections, despite more voting for unionists in 2017 and 2019. Naturally, STV would create a more proportionate balance between the two blocs.
Others and Independents: Looking at just general election simulations, it is hard to gauge the potential effects of STV on ‘other’ parties as, other than UKIP in 2015, no ‘other’ party has really accrued a significant enough national vote share or had a sufficiently strong local base to make multiple seat winning a likelihood under a low district magnitude system like STV. Of course, this is no guide for what would happen if STV were actually introduced as party and voter behaviour would likely change. But even if we look at the Greens in 2015 – 4% of the national vote would only have gained them 2 MPs under STV, as their vote, other than in a handful of FPTP constituencies, was relatively flat across the country at just 20% of our average quota. Even though the Greens have a great deal of secondary popularity, it is near impossible to win a seat from that low a share of the quota. Much like any constituency system, it is preferable to have areas of strength and weakness, rather than to have a similar, moderate level of support across the country.
It is unlikely that STV would lead to a substantial rise in the number of independent MPs. Although this factor is often ascribed to STV, it is largely based off of an overextrapolation of Ireland’s experience with the system. Other countries that use STV do not see unusually high numbers of independents and there was no substantial change in the number of independent councillors after Scottish local elections switched from plurality voting to STV in 2007. Ireland’s high level of independent MPs appears to be more a quirk of Irish political culture, rather than a feature endemic to STV.
-----
European Election Findings
Headlines: The simulations of European election results show how STV would react to differing patterns of multi-party systems, although only really 1999 and 2004 do seem like they would realistically be seen at a general election. Broadly, these simulations do reiterate the patterns that we saw in our general election ones – a skew in favour of larger parties, boosts for those with more secondary popularity and losses for those without. We can also see a more accurate picture of how STV treats ‘other’ parties. Those which receive at least 5% of the vote nationwide are almost guaranteed some level of representation, although this will likely be an underrepresentation to some degree and, of course, depends on their levels of secondary popularity and the efficiency of their vote distribution. These factors also affect those parties getting a lower share of the vote, but with their chances of representation even lower when failing to even attain a quarter of the average quota. The importance of an effective vote distribution is particularly important for these small parties. Respect in EP2004 gained a single seat on just 1.5% of the national vote because they exceeded the quota in the East London constituency. UKIP in EP2019 failed to win a single seat on 3.3% of the national vote because they did not attain more than half the quota in any constituency and also performed badly on preferences.
Low Fragmentation: The EP simulations also help demonstrate how unlikely high levels of party system fragmentation are under STV. Some people have expressed concern that a switch to a proportional system could lead to Britain’s party system fracturing and government formation becoming very difficult – with the Netherlands, where there are now fourteen parties winning more than 2% of the vote, being a particularly extreme, but commonly cited, example. However, STV’s low district magnitude makes it difficult for large numbers of parties to win substantial numbers of seats. And this is what we see in our EP simulations, with no more than six parties winning more than 2% of seats in any of the five elections. It therefore seems unlikely that, if STV was introduced for UK general elections, the British party system would substantively fragment – likely having no more than five or six noteworthy national parties.
Disproportional?: Some of the EP simulations do show results that are rather disproportional – the five STV simulations yielding an average L-H score of 14.72, a level more comparable to those of the actual FPTP general elections. This may be surprising, but it does have a fairly innocent explanation. Due to the EP voting system, many small parties contested entire regions – often with very low and flat levels of support, certainly below the level that would be required to even have a chance of winning a seat under STV. These no-hoper parties add up and skew the disproportionality index by up to eight points. Under an actual STV election, such parties would likely opt to only contest a handful of constituencies, thus not building up huge numbers of wasted votes and skewing the index.
These scores are also not a victory for FPTP, whose average score for the EP elections is a very alarming 34.80 – that’s more than 1 in 3 seats being misallocated. What is more noteworthy is that the deviation score for the companion Droop-LR simulations is a marginally lower 14.37 and is only higher in one of the five elections (EP2014). This is the reverse of what we saw with our general election simulations and is likely due to, as discussed earlier, the general election party system providing STV with more favourable circumstances.
Odd Results?: The EP simulations also show that the preferential effects of STV can produce counterintuitive results when parties win similar numbers of votes. EP2009 shows that the Liberal Democrats, who would have come marginally fourth on first-preference votes, would leapfrog to being the second largest party in terms of seats. This is clearly due to preferential boosting – the Lib Dems, at the time, being far more popular among supporters of most other parties than Labour or UKIP who both won slightly more first-preferences.
Similarly, in EP2014, Labour would win the most seats despite UKIP winning marginally more primary votes. This was partially because of Labour’s vote being more efficiently distributed – they were already able to draw level on Droop- LR alone. But again, the preference vote plays a massive part. At that election, both main right-wing parties were large and overrepresented, while Labour were the only large progressive party. Under Droop-LR, the progressive vote was getting split and the progressive bloc was underrepresented. Under STV, smaller, eliminated progressive parties were able to give a boost to Labour and allow a fairer balance between the two blocs. According to the logic of STV, these results are fairer. But it is clear that it can seem counterintuitive that the relationship between first-preference votes and seats under STV is not always linear. This is why it is always important to emphasise the role that preference votes play in seat allocation under STV. Table 6: Summary of UK General Elections results under FPTP and STV in England
% Vote FPTP Result STV Result Con Lab Lib Con Lab Lib Oth Con Lab Lib Oth 1945 40.2 48.5 9.4 167 331 5 7 207 268 29 6 3 CW, 1 Ind, 1 Ind Lab, 1 Ind Prog 1950 43.8 46.1 9.4 253 251 2 236 248 22 1951 48.8 48.8 2.3 271 233 2 249 253 3 1 1 Ind 1955 50.4 46.8 2.6 293 216 2 264 243 4 1959 50.0 43.6 6.3 315 193 3 276 224 11 1964 44.1 43.5 12.1 262 246 3 238 230 43 1966 42.7 48.0 9.0 219 286 6 221 267 23 1970 48.3 43.4 7.9 292 217 2 262 235 14 1974 40.2 37.7 21.3 268 237 9 2 211 202 103 1974 38.9 40.1 20.2 253 255 8 207 221 88 1979 47.2 36.7 14.9 306 203 7 256 201 59 1983 46.0 26.9 26.4 362 148 13 249 128 146 1987 46.2 29.5 23.8 358 155 10 258 135 130 1992 45.5 33.9 19.2 319 195 10 249 176 98 1 1 Ind Social Democrat 1997 33.7 43.6 18.0 165 329 34 1 167 263 98 1 1 Ind 2001 35.2 41.4 19.4 165 323 40 1 173 252 103 1 1 IKHHC 2005 35.7 35.5 22.9 194 286 47 2 182 210 134 3 1 IKHHC, 1 Green, 1 Respect 2010 39.6 28.1 24.2 298 191 43 1 227 152 151 3 1 ICHC, 1 Green, 1 UKIP 2015 41.0 31.6 8.2 319 206 6 2 254 204 23 52 50 UKIP, 2 Green 2017 45.4 41.9 7.8 297 227 8 1 258 252 22 1 1 Green 2019 47.2 34.0 12.4 345 180 7 1 278 196 53 6 3 Brexit, 2 Green, 1 Ind
Table 7: Summary of UK General Elections results under FPTP and STV in Scotland
% Vote FPTP Result STV Result Con Lab Lib SNP Con Lab Lib SNP Oth Con Lab Lib SNP Oth 1945 41.1 47.5 5.0 1.2 27 37 7 31 35 1 4 2 ILP, 2 Ind Lib 1950 44.8 46.2 6.6 0.4 31 37 2 1 33 35 2 1 1 Ind Lib 1951 48.6 47.9 2.7 0.3 35 35 1 34 35 2 1955 50.1 46.7 1.9 0.5 36 34 1 35 34 2 1959 47.2 46.7 4.1 0.8 31 38 1 1 34 34 2 1 1 Ind Con 1964 40.6 48.7 7.6 2.4 24 43 4 30 35 5 1 1966 37.6 49.9 6.8 5.0 20 46 5 24 38 7 2 1970 38.0 44.5 5.5 11.4 23 44 3 1 26 35 6 4 1974 32.9 36.6 7.9 21.9 21 40 3 7 23 27 4 17 1974 24.7 36.3 8.3 30.4 16 41 3 11 20 25 3 23 1979 31.4 41.5 9.0 17.3 22 44 3 2 24 34 6 7 1983 28.4 35.1 24.5 11.8 21 41 8 2 19 27 23 3 1987 24.0 42.4 19.2 14.0 10 50 9 3 14 32 21 5 1992 25.6 39.0 13.1 21.5 11 49 9 3 15 31 10 16 1997 17.5 45.6 13.0 22.1 56 10 6 8 40 9 15 2001 15.6 43.9 16.3 20.1 1 56 10 5 7 38 12 15 2005 15.8 39.5 22.6 17.7 1 41 11 6 5 25 18 11 2010 16.7 42.0 18.9 19.9 1 41 11 6 7 27 14 11 2015 14.9 24.3 7.5 50.0 1 1 1 56 7 15 3 34 2017 28.6 27.1 6.8 36.9 13 7 4 35 13 22 3 21 2019 25.1 18.6 9.5 45.0 6 1 4 48 13 11 5 30
Table 8: Summary of UK General Elections results under FPTP and STV in Wales
% Vote FPTP Result STV Result Con Lab Lib PC Con Lab Lib PC Oth Con Lab Lib PC Oth 1945 23.8 58.5 14.9 1.1 4 25 6 7 22 6 1950 27.4 58.1 12.6 1.2 4 27 5 8 24 4 1951 30.8 60.5 7.6 0.7 6 27 3 10 23 3 1955 29.9 57.6 7.3 3.1 6 27 3 11 22 3 1959 32.6 56.4 5.3 5.2 7 27 2 12 22 2 1964 29.4 57.8 7.3 4.8 6 28 2 9 23 3 1 1966 27.9 60.7 6.3 4.3 3 32 1 9 24 2 1 1970 27.7 51.6 6.8 11.5 7 27 1 1 10 22 1 2 1 1 Ind Lab 1974 25.9 46.8 16.0 10.8 8 24 2 2 9 22 3 2 1974 23.9 49.5 15.5 10.8 8 23 2 3 8 22 4 2 1979 32.2 48.6 10.6 8.1 11 22 1 2 13 19 3 1 1983 31.0 37.5 23.2 7.8 14 20 2 2 11 16 10 1 1987 29.5 45.1 17.9 7.3 8 24 3 3 12 17 8 1 1992 28.6 49.5 12.4 8.9 6 27 1 4 10 21 5 2 1997 19.6 54.7 12.3 9.9 34 2 4 9 24 5 2 2001 21.0 48.6 13.8 14.3 34 2 4 9 23 5 3 2005 21.4 42.7 18.4 12.6 3 29 4 3 1 9 19 8 3 1 1 Ind Lab 2010 26.1 36.2 20.1 11.3 8 26 3 3 10 17 10 3 2015 27.2 36.9 6.5 12.1 11 25 1 3 12 17 2 4 5 5 UKIP 2017 33.6 48.9 4.5 10.4 8 28 4 14 22 1 3 2019 36.1 40.9 6.0 9.9 14 22 4 17 18 1 4
Table 9: Summary of UK General Elections results under FPTP and STV in Northern Ireland
% Vote by Bloc FPTP Seats by Bloc STV Seats by Bloc STV Seats by Party Uni Nat Oth Uni Nat Oth Uni Nat Oth 1945 75.0 25.0 9 3 9 3 7 Con, 2 Nat, 1 Ind Lab, 1 Ind Uni, 1 Lab 1950 74.8 25.2 10 2 9 3 8 Con, 2 Nat, 1 Irish Lab, 1 Lab 1951 72.8 27.2 9 3 9 3 8 Con, 3 Nat, 1 Lab 1955 74.0 26.0 10 2 10 2 9 Con, 2 SF, 1 Lab 1959 85.5 14.5 12 11 1 10 Con, 1 Lab, 1 SF 1964 81.8 18.2 12 11 1 9 Con, 2 Lab, 1 Rep 1966 78.9 21.1 11 1 9 3 7 Con, 1 Lab, 1 Lib, 1 Nat, 1 Rep, 1 Rep Lab 1970 75.1 23.4 1.5 9 3 10 2 8 Con, 2 Lab, 2 Opp Unity 1974 66.4 30.0 3.6 11 1 8 4 5 UUP, 4 SDLP, 1 DUP, 1 PAUUP, 1 VUPP 1974 63.8 29.8 6.4 10 2 8 4 5 UUP, 3 SDLP, 2 VUPP, 1 DUP, 1 Ind Rep 1979 59.9 27.6 12.4 10 2 7 3 2 5 UUP, 2 APNI, 2 SDLP, 1 UUUP, 1 Ind Rep, 1 Ind UUP 1983 57.1 34.6 8.3 15 2 11 5 1 7 UUP, 4 DUP, 4 SDLP, 1 APNI, 1 SF 1987 54.1 35.8 10.1 13 4 9 5 3 7 UUP, 4 SDLP, 3 APNI, 2 DUP, 1 SF 1992 56.2 34.1 9.7 13 4 9 5 3 6 UUP, 4 SDLP, 3 APNI, 2 DUP, 1 Con, 1 SF 1997 50.7 40.5 8.8 13 5 9 6 3 7 UUP, 4 SDLP, 3 APNI, 2 DUP, 2 SF 2001 53.0 43.0 4.1 11 7 10 8 6 UUP, 4 DUP, 4 SDLP, 4 SF 2005 51.8 42.1 6.1 10 8 9 9 6 DUP, 5 SF, 4 SDLP, 3 UUP 2010 50.5 42.0 7.6 9 8 1 9 8 1 5 DUP, 4 SDLP, 4 SF, 2 Ind Uni, 2 UUP, 1 APNI 2015 50.2 38.8 10.9 11 7 9 8 1 5 DUP, 4 SDLP, 4 SF, 3 UUP, 1 APNI, 1 Ind Uni 2017 49.1 41.3 9.6 11 7 9 7 2 6 DUP, 5 SF, 3 UUP, 2 APNI, 2 SDLP 2019 43.1 38.9 18.0 8 9 1 8 7 3 5 DUP, 4 SDLP, 3 APNI, 3 SF, 3 UUP
Table 10: Summary of STV simulations of EP elections projected onto Westminster constituencies
Respect SSP Green Lab PC SNP LD ChUK Con Brexit UKIP BNP Other EP 1999 % GB Vote 0.4 6.3 28.0 1.9 2.7 12.7 35.8 7.0 1.0 4.4 STV Seats 1 8 217 13 24 124 246 7 0 1 LR Seats 2 9 226 13 20 89 272 9 0 1 STV Boost -1 -1 -9 0 +4 +35 -26 -2 0 0
EP 2004 % GB Vote 1.5 0.4 6.2 22.6 1.0 1.4 14.9 26.7 16.2 4.9 4.2 STV Seats 1 1 17 172 8 18 140 187 96 0 1 LR Seats 2 2 10 173 9 19 113 194 113 4 2 STV Boost -1 -1 +7 -1 -1 -1 +27 -7 -17 -4 -1
EP 2009 % GB Vote 0.1 8.6 15.7 0.8 2.1 13.7 27.7 16.5 6.2 8.4 STV Seats 0 37 103 10 20 141 206 112 2 1 LR Seats 0 33 120 11 22 107 202 121 15 1 STV Boost 0 +4 -17 -1 -2 +34 +4 -9 -13 0
EP 2014 % GB Vote 7.9 25.4 0.7 2.5 6.9 23.9 27.5 1.1 4.1 STV Seats 28 208 8 19 17 172 180 0 0 LR Seats 16 201 7 20 19 168 201 0 0 STV Boost +12 +7 +1 -1 -2 +4 -21 0 0
EP 2019 % GB Vote 12.1 14.1 1.0 3.6 20.3 3.4 9.1 31.6 3.3 1.6 STV Seats 99 88 11 26 166 1 34 207 0 0 LR Seats 72 88 11 27 146 0 40 248 0 0 STV Boost +27 0 0 -1 +20 +1 -6 -41 0 0
Table 11: Governments under FPTP and Potential Government Formations under STV
An attempt to illustrate potential governments based on the seats indicated by our STV simulations. More likely options have been listed first and the numerical parliamentary majority is indicated in brackets – though the working majority (i.e. excluding abstentionists and including non-bound sympathetic parties) would be higher in many cases.
FPTP Government Possible STV Governments 1945 Lab (146) Lab (12) Lab w/left (28) Lab-Lib (86) 1950 Lab (5) Con-Lib (3) Lab-Lib (47) Lab min (-9) 1951 Con (17) Lab min (-1) Lab-Lib (15) 1955 Con (60) Con (8) Con-Lib (26) 1959 Con (100) Con (34) 1964 Lab (4) Lab-Lib (52) Con-Lib (44) 1966 Lab (98) Lab (30) 1970 Con (30) Con-Lib (24) Con min (-18) 1974 Lab min (-33) Con-Lib (71) Lab-Lib (87) 1974 Lab (3) Lab-Lib (91) Con-Lib (25) 1979 Con (43) Con-Lib (87) Lab-Lib (9) 1983 Con (144) Con-SDP (~72) Con-Lib (~102) Con-Alliance (266) Alliance-Lab (50) 1987 Con (102) Con-SDP (~54) Con-Lib (~100) Con-Alliance (236) Lab-Alliance (36) 1992 Con (21) Lab-LD (31) Con-LD (125) 1997 Lab (179) Lab-LD (219) Lab min w/SDLP (3) 2001 Lab (167) Lab-LD (207) Lab min w/SDLP (-25) 2005 Lab (66) Lab-LD (182) Con-LD (66) 2010 Con-LD (78) Con-LD (188) Lab-LD (92) 2015 Con (12) Con-UKIP (6) Con-LD min w/UKIP (62) 2017 Con min w/DUP (6) None Clear Lab min w/LD-SNP (36) 2019 Con (80) None Clear Con-LD (84)
Table 12: Seat Share/Vote Share Ratio under FPTP and STV
FPTP S/V Ratio Simulated STV S/V Ratio Con Lab Lib SNP PC Con Lab Lib SNP PC 1945 0.83 1.28 0.21 0.00 0.00 1.01 1.06 0.64 0.00 0.00 1950 1.10 1.09 0.16 0.00 0.00 1.05 1.07 0.49 0.00 0.00 1951 1.07 0.97 0.38 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.02 0.50 0.00 0.00 1955 1.10 0.95 0.35 0.00 0.00 1.02 1.03 0.53 0.00 0.00 1959 1.17 0.93 0.16 0.00 0.00 1.07 1.04 0.40 0.00 0.00 1964 1.11 1.14 0.13 0.00 0.00 1.05 1.04 0.72 0.69 0.63 1966 0.96 1.20 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.99 1.09 0.61 0.67 0.71 1970 1.13 1.06 0.13 0.15 0.00 1.05 1.08 0.45 0.59 0.51 1974 1.23 1.28 0.11 0.55 0.58 1.01 1.06 0.90 1.33 0.58 1974 1.22 1.28 0.11 0.60 0.83 1.03 1.08 0.82 1.26 0.55 1979 1.22 1.15 0.13 0.20 0.74 1.05 1.08 0.78 0.68 0.37 1983 1.44 1.17 0.14 0.28 0.75 1.01 0.95 1.09 0.43 0.38 1987 1.37 1.14 0.15 0.36 1.21 1.03 0.92 1.08 0.60 0.40 1992 1.23 1.21 0.17 0.25 1.33 1.01 1.02 0.97 1.31 0.67 1997 0.82 1.47 0.42 0.46 1.18 0.91 1.15 1.01 1.15 0.59 2001 0.79 1.54 0.43 0.43 0.82 0.90 1.17 1.00 1.29 0.61 2005 0.95 1.56 0.44 0.61 0.72 0.94 1.12 1.12 1.12 0.72 2010 1.31 1.37 0.38 0.56 0.83 1.04 1.04 1.17 1.02 0.83 2015 1.38 1.17 0.16 1.82 0.80 1.14 1.19 0.55 1.10 1.07 2017 1.15 1.01 0.25 1.77 1.20 1.03 1.14 0.54 1.06 0.90 2019 1.29 0.97 0.15 1.90 1.29 1.09 1.08 0.79 1.19 1.29 Average 1.14 1.19 0.23 0.47 0.59 1.02 1.07 0.77 0.74 0.52
A score of 1.00 would be fully proportionate representation, <1.00 an underrepresentation and >1.00 an overrepresentation.
APPENDIX
This section includes an election-by-election breakdown of the results of our STV simulations relative to both the actual FPTP results and the Droop-LR projections. Each breakdown includes:
o A short commentary on the election result, including discussion of any anomalies or curiosities seen in the simulation and potential government formations based on the headline numbers. o A headline table comparing the FPTP, Droop-LR and STV outcomes of the election. Includes a Two-Party-Preferred-Vote (2PPV) figure for the two largest parties which, while primarily associated with AV elections, still allows us to see which of the main parties is preferred by the majority of voters – potentially answering questions surrounding governmental legitimacy. o A table showing headline first-terminal preferences – i.e. the key second preferences. o A table showing the national/regional breakdown of seats under both FPTP and STV. 1945 General Election
Post-war politics began with a bang. Despite Churchill’s widespread popularity, the same was not true of his party and, less than three months after VE Day, the British electorate booted the Conservatives from office and gave Labour its first ever majority. Although far short of the FPTP landslide, our projections show that, even under a proportional system, Labour would still have achieved a striking result. STV would have given Labour a 12-seat majority which, while small, widens to a 30-seat majority when including other left-wing MPs and would have been more than enough to carry out the Attlee government’s policies.
FPTP Droop-LR STV % Vote GB 2PPV Seats % Seats Deviation Seats % Seats Seats Change STV Boost % Seats Deviation Labour 48.0% 55.8% 393 61.4% +13.4% 327 51.1% 326 -67 -1 50.9% +2.9% Conservative 39.6% 44.2% 210 32.8% -6.8% 266 41.6% 256 +46 -10 40.0% +0.4% Liberal 9.0% 12 1.9% -7.2% 27 4.2% 37 +25 +10 5.8% -3.3% Common Wealth 0.5% 1 0.2% -0.3% 3 0.5% 3 +2 0.5% 0.0% Communist 0.4% 2 0.3% -0.1% 1 0.2% -2 -1 +0.4% Nationalist 0.4% 2 0.3% -0.1% 2 0.3% 2 0 0.3% -0.1% ILP 0.2% 3 0.5% +0.3% 2 0.3% 2 -1 0.3% +0.1% SNP 0.1% -0.1% -0.1% Plaid Cymru 0.1% -0.1% -0.1% Select Independents 1.1% 17 2.7% +1.8% 12 1.9% 14 -3 +2 2.2% +1.1% Others 0.6% -0.6% -0.6%
Headline Second Preferences
Con Lab Lib Com SNP Conservative - 32.5% 42.5% 7.5% 35.0% Labour 22.5% - 57.5% 80.0% 20.0% Liberal 77.5% 67.5% - 12.5% 45.0%
National Distribution of Seats
% Vote FPTP Seats STV Seats Con Lab Lib Nat Oth Con Lab Lib Nat Oth Con Lab Lib Nat Oth England 40% 49% 9% 2% 167 331 5 7 207 268 29 6 Scotland 41% 48% 5% 1% 5% 27 37 7 31 35 1 4 Wales 24% 59% 15% 1% 2% 4 25 6 7 22 6 Northern Ireland 54% 11% 35% 8 4 7 1 4 Universities* 25% 5% 6% 1% 62% 4 1 7 4 1 7
* Elections to multi-member university graduate constituencies were already conducted under STV. 1950 General Election
It’s a rare occasion for a proportional electoral system to produce an identical result to a plurality voting system, but our Droop-LR projection of the 1950 general election does just that – giving us the same 5-seat Labour majority that occurred in Britain’s first all-FPTP general election. STV, however, has other ideas. Additional seats for the Liberals would push Labour below 50% of seats and, though producing a more proportional result, would make government formation a little more complex.
Labour, though five seats short of a majority, would be the largest party in both votes and seats, would have won the two-party-preferred-vote and would have a majority of GB MPs (Northern Irish MPs not always being present). On the other hand, the Conservatives and Liberals would have had a combined overall majority of one, rising to three when including independent ‘Liberal and Conservative’ MacLeod, further rising to six when excluding only nationalist Northern Irish MPs (even less present than their unionist colleagues). As the Liberals had drifted rightwards over the preceding parliament, it is highly likely that they would have chosen a Churchill-led Conservative government rather than enabling another term for Labour. If we were doing an alternative history narrative of the post-war era, it would be this point where we would substantially diverge from reality.
FPTP Droop-LR STV % Vote GB 2PPV Seats % Seats Deviation Seats % Seats Seats Change STV Boost % Seats Deviation Labour 46.1% 51.1% 315 50.4% +4.3% 315 50.4% 308 -7 -7 49.3% +3.2% Conservative 43.4% 48.9% 298 47.7% +4.3% 291 46.6% 285 -13 -6 45.6% +2.2% Liberal 9.1% 9 1.4% -7.7% 16 2.6% 28 +19 +12 4.5% -4.6% Communist 0.3% -0.3% -0.3% Nationalist 0.2% 2 0.3% +0.1% 1 0.2% 2 0 +1 0.3% +0.1% Irish Labour 0.2% -0.2% 1 0.2% 1 +1 0 0.2% -0.0% Sinn Féin 0.1% -0.1% -0.1% Plaid Cymru 0.1% -0.1% -0.1% SNP 0.0% -0.0% -0.0% John MacLeod 0.0% 1 0.2% +0.1% 1 0.2% 1 0 0 0.2% +0.1% Others 0.4% -0.4% -0.4%
Headline Second Preferences
Con Lab Lib Conservative - 25.0% 60.0% Labour 20.0% - 40.0% Liberal 80.0% 75.0% -
National Distribution of Seats
% Vote FPTP Seats STV Seats Con Lab Lib Nat Oth Con Lab Lib Nat Oth Con Lab Lib Nat Oth England 44% 46% 9% 1% 253 251 2 236 248 22 Scotland 45% 46% 7% 0% 2% 31 37 2 1 33 35 2 1 Wales 27% 58% 13% 1% 1% 4 27 5 8 24 4 Northern Ireland 63% 12% 25% 10 2 8 1 3
1951 General Election
The 1951 general election is most notable for its production of a Conservative majority in spite of Labour winning the popular vote by nearly 1%. So-called ‘wrong-winner’ outcomes are possible in any constituency-based voting system, though far more likely under non-proportional ones. Here, FPTP booted Labour out of office, replacing them with a Conservative government that would continue in power for 13 years. Our proportional projections tell a different story, although the two systems diverge slightly. Droop-LR gives Labour a small 3-seat majority. STV, on the other hand, again pushes Labour just shy of a majority – Conservative-Liberal cross-preferences helping each other out in some key constituencies. But despite this, a Labour minority government would be the most likely outcome on these results, with them having a 9-seat majority when excluding Northern Irish MPs.
FPTP Droop-LR STV % Vote GB 2PPV Seats % Seats Deviation Seats % Seats Seats Change STV Boost % Seats Deviation Labour 48.8% 50.4% 295 47.2% -1.6% 314 50.2% 312 +17 -2 49.9% +1.1% Conservative 48.0% 49.6% 321 51.4% +3.4% 301 48.2% 301 -20 0 48.2% +0.2% Liberal 2.6% 6 1.0% -1.6% 7 1.1% 8 +2 +1 1.3% -1.3% Nationalist 0.3% 2 0.3% -0.0% 3 0.5% 3 +1 0 0.5% +0.2% Irish Labour 0.1% 1 0.2% +0.0% -0.1% Communist 0.1% -0.1% -0.1% Plaid Cymru 0.0% -0.0% -0.0% SNP 0.0% -0.0% -0.0% William Brown 0.1% -0.1% 1 +1 +1 0.2% +0.1% Others 0.1% -0.1% -0.1%
Headline Second Preferences
Con Lab Lib Conservative - 25.0% 65.0% Labour 20.0% - 35.0% Liberal 80.0% 75.0% -
National Distribution of Seats
% Vote FPTP Seats STV Seats Con Lab Lib Nat Oth Con Lab Lib Nat Oth Con Lab Lib Nat Oth England 49% 49% 2% 0% 271 233 2 249 253 3 1 Scotland 49% 48% 3% 0% 1% 35 35 1 34 35 2 Wales 31% 61% 8% 1% 0% 6 27 3 10 23 3 Northern Ireland 59% 13% 27% 9 3 8 1 3
1955 General Election
The closest any party has come to winning a majority of votes since the Second World War was the Conservatives in 1955, taking a 60-seat majority on 49.7% of the vote. With the small bias towards larger parties implicit in any low-magnitude proportional system, it is not surprising that both our systems reward the Conservatives with a small majority. Instead, perhaps the most striking feature of our 1955 simulations is the fact that the Liberals would have done worse under Droop-LR than under FPTP, largely owing to the highly scattered nature of their candidates. A boost from second preferences would, however, somewhat correct this under STV.
FPTP Droop-LR STV % Vote GB 2PPV Seats % Seats Deviation Seats % Seats Seats Change STV Boost % Seats Deviation Conservative 49.7% 51.2% 345 54.8% +5.0% 321 51.0% 319 -26 -2 50.6% +0.9% Labour 46.4% 48.8% 277 44.0% -2.4% 302 47.9% 300 +23 -2 47.6% +1.3% Liberal 2.7% 6 1.0% -1.7% 4 0.6% 9 +3 +5 1.4% -1.3% Sinn Féin 0.6% 2 0.3% -0.3% 2 0.3% 2 0 0 0.3% -0.3% Plaid Cymru 0.2% -0.2% -0.2% Communist 0.1% -0.1% -0.1% Irish Labour 0.1% -0.1% -0.1% SNP 0.0% -0.0% -0.0% William Davies 0.1% -0.1% 1 0.2% -1 -0.1% Others 0.1% -0.1% -0.1%
Headline Second Preferences
Con Lab Lib Conservative - 25.0% 60.0% Labour 20.0% - 40.0% Liberal 80.0% 75.0% -
National Distribution of Seats
% Vote FPTP Seats STV Seats Con Lab Lib Nat Oth Con Lab Lib Nat Oth Con Lab Lib Nat Oth England 50% 47% 3% 0% 293 216 2 264 243 4 Scotland 50% 47% 2% 0% 1% 36 34 1 35 34 2 Wales 30% 58% 7% 3% 2% 6 27 3 11 22 3 Northern Ireland 68% 6% 26% 10 2 9 1 2
1959 General Election
“You’ve never had it so good” was Harold Macmillan’s rallying cry during the 1959 election campaign and, in terms of parliamentary majorities under STV, that is certainly true. The 1959 election results translate into a 34-seat majority for the Conservatives under STV – larger than the FPTP majority in 10 of the 21 post-war elections, as well as being larger than any of our other STV majorities and the most recent Conservative majority under either Droop-LR or STV.
FPTP Droop-LR STV % Vote GB 2PPV Seats % Seats Deviation Seats % Seats Seats Change STV Boost % Seats Deviation Conservative 49.4% 53.2% 365 57.9% +8.6% 326 51.7% 332 -33 +6 52.7% +3.3% Labour 43.8% 46.8% 258 41.0% -2.9% 290 46.0% 281 +23 -9 44.6% +0.8% Liberal 5.9% 6 1.0% -4.9% 11 1.7% 15 +9 +4 2.4% -3.5% Plaid Cymru 0.3% -0.3% 1 0.2% -1 -0.3% Sinn Féin 0.2% -0.2% 1 0.2% 1 +1 0 0.2% -0.1% Communist 0.1% -0.1% -0.1% SNP 0.1% -0.1% -0.1% David Robertson 0.0% 1 0.2% +0.1% 1 0.2% 1 0 0 0.2% +0.1% Others 0.2% -0.2% -0.2%
Headline Second Preferences
Con Lab Lib Conservative - 25.0% 70.0% Labour 20.0% - 30.0% Liberal 80.0% 75.0% -
National Distribution of Seats
% Vote FPTP Seats STV Seats Con Lab Lib Nat Oth Con Lab Lib Nat Oth Con Lab Lib Nat Oth England 50% 44% 6% 0% 315 193 3 276 224 11 Scotland 47% 47% 4% 1% 1% 31 38 1 1 34 34 2 1 Wales 33% 56% 5% 5% 0% 7 27 2 12 22 2 Northern Ireland 77% 8% 1% 14% 12 10 1 1
1964 General Election
The 1964 election is one of the closest elections of the post-war period – with less than 1% of the vote separating Labour and the Conservatives, with the former winning a knife- edge 4-seat majority. It is also noteworthy for being the only time in modern British politics that all seats were won exclusively by the three main parties and for being the first time in 35 years that the Liberals won more than 10% of the vote – though, of course, substantially fewer seats.
Translating these results into STV doesn’t diminish the closeness of the contest but does give the Liberals a sizeable bloc in the House of Commons – allowing them to take a kingmaker role. But this position exposes the problems of government formation when there is a divergence between elite and voter preferences. Under the leadership of Jo Grimond, the Liberals had moved back towards the centre-left and would likely have preferred to support or join a Labour government. Liberal voters, on the other hand, still marginally preferred the Conservatives to Labour. Nonetheless, either coalition would have had a clear, sizeable majority – significantly larger than Wilson’s narrow one under FPTP. STV in 1964 would also have given the SNP and Plaid Cymru their first seats won at a general election.
FPTP Droop-LR STV % Vote GB 2PPV Seats % Seats Deviation Seats % Seats Seats Change STV Boost % Seats Deviation Labour 44.1% 50.4% 317 50.3% +6.2% 298 47.3% 290 -27 -8 46.0% +1.9% Conservative 43.4% 49.6% 304 48.3% +4.9% 287 45.6% 286 -18 -1 45.4% +2.0% Liberal 11.2% 9 1.4% -9.8% 42 6.7% 51 +42 +9 8.1% -3.1% Republican 0.4% -0.4% 1 0.2% 1 +1 0 0.2% -0.2% Plaid Cymru 0.3% -0.3% 1 0.2% 1 +1 0 0.2% -0.1% SNP 0.2% -0.2% 1 0.2% 1 +1 0 0.2% -0.1% Communist 0.2% -0.2% -0.2% Republican Labour 0.1% -0.1% -0.1% Others 0.2% -0.2% -0.2%
Headline Second Preferences
Con Lab Lib Conservative - 27.5% 55.0% Labour 22.5% - 45.0% Liberal 77.5% 72.5% -
National Distribution of Seats
% Vote FPTP Seats STV Seats Con Lab Lib Nat Oth Con Lab Lib Nat Oth Con Lab Lib Nat Oth England 44% 44% 12% 0% 262 246 3 238 230 43 Scotland 41% 49% 8% 2% 1% 24 43 4 30 35 5 1 Wales 29% 58% 7% 5% 1% 6 28 2 9 23 3 1 Northern Ireland 63% 16% 3% 18% 12 9 2 1
1966 General Election
Slim majorities – of which FPTP has created six since 1945 – are rarely conducive to stability, especially in an adversarial system. It is no surprise, then, that Harold Wilson chose to seek an upgrade on his 4-seat majority after just 18 months in power. Unlike so many others, his snap election gamble paid off and he won a 98-seat majority on 48% of the vote. Under STV, Wilson would still have gotten a larger majority than he achieved under FPTP in 1964 – taking a 30-seat overall majority, partially thanks to Liberal voters backing Labour for the first time in 21 years. 1966 is, however, the last time that our simulations show a party winning an outright majority under STV.
FPTP Droop-LR STV % Vote GB 2PPV Seats % Seats Deviation Seats % Seats Seats Change STV Boost % Seats Deviation Labour 48.0% 54.7% 364 57.8% +9.7% 327 51.9% 330 -34 +3 52.4% +4.3% Conservative 41.9% 45.3% 253 40.2% -1.7% 276 43.8% 261 +8 -15 41.4% -0.5% Liberal 8.5% 12 1.9% -6.6% 23 3.7% 33 +21 +10 5.2% -3.3% SNP 0.5% -0.5% 2 0.3% 2 +2 0 0.3% -0.2% Republican 0.2% -0.2% 1 0.2% 1 +1 0 0.2% -0.1% Communist 0.2% -0.2% -0.2% Plaid Cymru 0.2% -0.2% 1 0.2% 1 +1 0 0.2% -0.1% Republican Labour 0.1% 1 0.2% +0.1% 1 0 +1 0.2% +0.1% Nationalist 0.1% -0.1% 1 +1 +1 0.2% +0.1% Others 0.2% -0.2% -0.2%
Headline Second Preferences
Con Lab Lib Conservative - 27.5% 40.0% Labour 22.5% - 60.0% Liberal 77.5% 72.5% -
National Distribution of Seats
% Vote FPTP Seats STV Seats Con Lab Lib Nat Oth Con Lab Lib Nat Oth Con Lab Lib Nat Oth England 43% 48% 9% 0% 219 286 6 221 267 23 Scotland 38% 50% 7% 5% 1% 20 46 5 24 38 7 2 Wales 28% 61% 6% 4% 1% 3 32 1 9 24 2 1 Northern Ireland 62% 12% 5% 21% 11 1 7 1 1 3
1970 General Election
The 1966-70 parliament was the first to really show strong mid-term effects – with the Labour government suffering in the opinion polls, being hammered in local elections and enduring 14 by-election defeats. At one point, polls suggested Edward Heath’s Conservatives could take over 500 seats at a future general election. By the time that the next election did materialise, voters had calmed down and Heath only managed a fairly moderate 30-seat majority. Though the FPTP results were not dramatically disproportional, STV could still improve on them. Our projection putting the Conservatives just short, while giving the Liberals and Scottish and Welsh nationalists better footings in parliament. There is little room for manoeuvre on these results, with a Conservative-Liberal coalition being the only viable two-party government, holding a majority similar to that achieved by the Conservatives alone under FPTP.
FPTP Droop-LR STV % Vote GB 2PPV Seats % Seats Deviation Seats % Seats Seats Change STV Boost % Seats Deviation Conservative 46.4% 51.3% 330 52.4% +6.0% 309 49.0% 306 -24 -3 48.6% +2.2% Labour 43.1% 48.7% 288 45.7% +2.6% 299 47.5% 294 +6 -5 46.7% +3.6% Liberal 7.5% 6 1.0% -6.5% 13 2.1% 21 +15 +8 3.3% -4.1% SNP 1.1% 1 0.2% -0.9% 3 0.5% 4 +3 +1 0.6% -0.4% Plaid Cymru 0.6% -0.6% 2 0.3% 2 +2 0 0.3% -0.3% Unity 0.5% 2 0.3% -0.2% 2 0.3% 2 0 0 0.3% -0.2% Communist 0.1% -0.1% -0.1% Protestant Unionist 0.1% 1 0.2% +0.0% -1 0 -0.1% Republican Labour 0.1% 1 0.2% +0.1% 1 0.2% -1 +1 -0.1% SO Davies 0.1% 1 0.2% +0.1% 1 0.2% 1 0 0 0.2% +0.1% Others 0.5% -0.5% -0.5%
Headline Second Preferences
Con Lab Lib Conservative - 37.5% 55.0% Labour 27.5% - 45.0% Liberal 72.5% 62.5% -
National Distribution of Seats
% Vote FPTP Seats STV Seats Con Lab Lib Nat Oth Con Lab Lib Nat Oth Con Lab Lib Nat Oth England 48% 43% 8% 0% 292 217 2 262 235 14 Scotland 38% 45% 5% 11% 1% 23 44 3 1 26 35 6 4 Wales 28% 52% 7% 12% 2% 7 27 1 1 10 22 1 2 1 Northern Ireland 54% 13% 2% 32% 8 4 8 2 2
February 1974 General Election
The February 1974 election is the most recent occasion where FPTP has delivered a ‘wrong-winner’ result – the Conservatives winning marginally more votes, but Labour taking a few more seats. This is also what happens under both of our proportional systems. While this may seem odd, it is a risk with any constituency-based voting system. Ineffective vote distributions, non-balanced constituencies and differences in turnout can all conspire to slightly benefit one party. And this is what happened here. If we weight all our STV constituencies equally, we actually see a small Labour vote lead of 0.4% compared to the aggregate Conservative lead of 0.7%. Labour win more seats because their vote is more effectively distributed and the constituencies, which contain the real-life overrepresentation of Scotland and Wales, are skewed slightly in their favour.
But minor quibbles over the allocation of a few seats should not distract from the main story of an STV February 1974 election – fair representation for the Liberals. After several false starts, 1974 heralded the Liberal revival and the end of the post-war two-party system. But despite getting roughly 1 in 5 votes, they got little more than 1 in 50 MPs. STV would give them a far greater and fairer share of seats and would have enabled them to, not just be kingmaker, but likely have a sizeable role in government policy. Either a Conservative-Liberal or Labour-Liberal coalition would have a sizeable majority, a big shift from FPTP where you’d need three parties to even get a wafer-thin majority.
It is also notable that our STV and Droop-LR simulations are not particularly different. This is because the two 1974 elections saw voters become very indecisive – not really having a strong preference on either of the other main parties. Preference voting will have a limited effect if voters don’t have strong preferences.
FPTP Droop-LR STV % Vote GB 2PPV Seats % Seats Deviation Seats % Seats Seats Change STV Boost % Seats Deviation Conservative 37.9% 50.3% 297 46.8% +8.9% 243 38.3% 243 -54 0 38.3% Labour 37.2% 49.7% 301 47.4% +10.2% 249 39.2% 251 -50 +2 39.5% Liberal 19.3% 14 2.2% -17.1% 109 17.2% 110 +96 +1 17.3% SNP 2.0% 7 1.1% -0.9% 20 3.1% 17 +10 -3 2.7% UUP 0.7% 7 1.1% +0.4% 5 0.8% 5 -2 0 0.8% Plaid Cymru 0.5% 2 0.3% -0.2% 2 0.3% 2 0 0 0.3% SDLP 0.5% 1 0.2% -0.4% 3 0.5% 4 3 +1 0.6% Pro-Assembly UUP 0.3% -0.3% 1 0.2% 1 1 0 0.2% VUPP 0.2% 3 0.5% +0.2% 2 0.3% 1 -2 -1 0.2% DUP 0.2% 1 0.2% -0.0% 1 0.2% 1 0 0 0.2% Democratic Labour 0.0% 1 0.2% +0.1% -1 Eddie Milne 0.1% 1 0.2% +0.1% -1 Others 1.0% -1.0%
Headline Second Preferences
Conservative Labour Liberal Other Eng Sco Wal Eng Sco Wal Eng Sco Wal SNP PC Conservative - - - 42.5% 32.5% 37.5% 52.5% 47.5% 30.0% 27.5% 17.5% Labour 37.5% 30.0% 35.0% - - - 47.5% 30.0% 47.5% 40.0% 65.0% Liberal 62.5% 50.0% 52.5% 57.5% 27.5% 40.0% - - - 32.5% 17.5% SNP/PC - 20.0% 12.5% - 40.0% 22.5% - 22.5% 22.5% - -
National Distribution of Seats
% Vote FPTP Seats STV Seats Con Lab Lib Nat Oth Con Lab Lib Nat Oth Con Lab Lib Nat Oth England 40% 38% 21% 1% 268 237 9 2 211 202 103 Scotland 33% 37% 8% 22% 1% 21 40 3 7 23 27 4 17 Wales 26% 47% 16% 11% 1% 8 24 2 2 9 22 3 2 Northern Ireland 100% 12 12
October 1974 General Election
Just a few years earlier, 39% of the vote wouldn’t even have been a losers’ share – the Conservatives lost 1945 in a landslide on 40%. But by October 1974, thanks to FPTP, it was enough to give Labour a very small 3-seat majority, with the Liberals again severely underrepresented – just 2% of MPs on 18% of the vote. It is no wonder that the 1974 elections sparked the first real debate on electoral reform since the war – with Parliament’s own Hansard Society even suggesting the introduction of a mixed-member voting system.
Unsurprisingly, our proportional systems lead to all round fairer results – STV preventing clear minorities from winning parliamentary majorities and giving the Liberals a much more proportionate chunk of the House of Commons. Whereas the actual FPTP result led to one of the least stable parliaments of the last 75 years, STV would have provided any government with a more secure majority to oversee one of post-war Britain’s most turbulent periods. A Conservative-Liberal government would have had a 35-seat majority and a Labour-Liberal government a 91-seat one – both options creating governments free from having to create ad-hoc deals and pacts with various parties and independents to simply survive.
FPTP Droop-LR STV % Vote GB 2PPV Seats % Seats Deviation Seats % Seats Seats Change STV Boost % Seats Deviation Labour 39.3% 51.7% 319 50.2% +11.0% 272 42.8% 268 -51 -4 42.2% +3.0% Conservative 35.8% 48.3% 277 43.6% +7.8% 239 37.6% 235 -42 -4 37.0% +1.2% Liberal 18.3% 13 2.0% -16.3% 86 13.5% 95 +82 +9 15.0% -3.4% SNP 2.9% 11 1.7% -1.1% 23 3.6% 23 +12 0 3.6% +0.7% UUP 0.9% 6 0.9% +0.1% 5 0.8% 5 -1 0 0.8% -0.1% Plaid Cymru 0.6% 3 0.5% -0.1% 3 0.5% 2 -1 -1 0.3% -0.3% SDLP 0.5% 1 0.2% -0.4% 3 0.5% 3 +2 0 0.5% -0.1% National Front 0.4% -0.4% -0.4% VUPP 0.3% 3 0.5% +0.2% 2 0.3% 2 -1 0 0.3% -0.0% DUP 0.2% 1 0.2% -0.0% 1 0.2% 1 0 0 0.2% -0.0% Frank Maguire 0.1% 1 0.2% +0.0% 1 0.2% 1 0 0 0.2% +0.0% Others 0.7% -0.7% -0.7%
Headline Second Preferences
Conservative Labour Liberal Other Eng Sco Wal Eng Sco Wal Eng Sco Wal SNP PC Conservative - - - 45.0% 32.5% 32.5% 52.5% 30.0% 35.0% 37.5% 10.0% Labour 40.0% 32.5% 37.5% - - - 47.5% 40.0% 45.0% 35.0% 65.0% Liberal 60.0% 42.5% 47.5% 55.0% 27.5% 37.5% - - - 27.5% 25.0% SNP/PC - 25.0% 15.0% - 40.0% 30.0% - 30.0% 20.0% - -
National Distribution of Seats
% Vote FPTP Seats STV Seats Con Lab Lib Nat Oth Con Lab Lib Nat Oth Con Lab Lib Nat Oth England 39% 40% 20% 1% 253 255 8 207 221 88 Scotland 25% 36% 8% 30% 0% 16 41 3 11 20 25 3 23 Wales 24% 50% 16% 11% 0% 8 23 2 3 8 22 4 2 Northern Ireland 100% 12 12
1979 General Election
The 1979 general election, caused by the Labour government losing a vote of no confidence by a single vote, is numerically a fairly average election – a moderate majority for the government, the second-largest party being slightly overrepresented and, obviously, significant underrepresentation for the Liberals. Of course, its historical position is anything put average – beginning an 18-year period of radical Conservative government, heralding in the first woman Prime Minister and being the symbolic end of ‘old’ Labour and the so-called post-war consensus. However, as with any FPTP election, there are serious questions about the representativeness of the result. The Conservatives won a majority for a fairly divisive policy platform on just 44% of the vote – most voters not endorsing such a significant break from decades-old policy norms. While there may have been majority-support for some of those policies, a proportional system – like STV – would ensure that only those implicitly endorsed by a majority of voters would pass.
This particular situation is also a good example of the conflicting pressures for a party like the Liberals in government formation. The Conservatives are the clear winners of the election – most seats, made gains, more votes, clear margin in the 2PPV. But the Liberal leadership and voters* likely leaned slightly towards Labour. Such a Lab-Lib government would be more pleasing to the party and their voters, but it would only have a small 9-seat majority. A Conservative-Liberal government would hold greater legitimacy and would have a much larger 87-seat majority but would likely involve more compromises and a smaller share of government positions. The kingmaker position can come with these substantial responsibilities and the difficult choice between what is more expedient for your party and what is more tenable in the country.
FPTP Droop-LR STV % Vote GB 2PPV Seats % Seats Deviation Seats % Seats Seats Change STV Boost % Seats Deviation Conservative 43.9% 53.0% 339 53.4% +9.5% 296 46.6% 293 -46 -3 46.1% +2.3% Labour 36.9% 47.0% 269 42.4% +5.4% 261 41.1% 254 -15 -7 40.0% +3.1% Liberal 13.8% 11 1.7% -12.1% 56 8.8% 68 +57 +12 10.7% -3.1% SNP 1.6% 2 0.3% -1.3% 9 1.4% 7 +5 -2 1.1% -0.5% UUP 0.8% 5 0.8% -0.0% 6 0.9% 5 0 -1 0.8% -0.0% National Front 0.6% -0.6% -0.6% Plaid Cymru 0.4% 2 0.3% -0.1% 1 0.2% 1 -1 0 0.2% -0.3% SDLP 0.4% 1 0.2% -0.2% 1 0.2% 2 +1 +1 0.3% -0.1% Alliance 0.3% -0.3% 2 0.3% 2 +2 0 0.3% +0.0% DUP 0.2% 3 0.5% +0.2% 1 0.2% -3 -1 -0.2% UUUP 0.1% 1 0.2% +0.0% 1 0.2% 1 0 0 0.2% +0.0% James Kilfedder 0.1% 1 0.2% +0.0% 1 0.2% 1 0 0 0.2% +0.0% Frank Maguire 0.1% 1 0.2% +0.1% 1 0 +1 0.2% +0.1% Others 0.7% -0.7% -0.7%
* It may seem odd that 1979, a Labour loss, saw Liberals unusually (for the time) favour Labour over the Conservatives, but the Conservatives won in 1979 by winning over Conservative-leaning Liberals – thus swinging the remaining Liberal base in Labour’s favour. Headline Second Preferences
Conservative Labour Liberal Other Eng Sco Wal Eng Sco Wal Eng Sco Wal SNP PC Conservative - - - 30.0% 22.5% 30.0% 47.5% 40.0% 40.0% 25.0% 30.0% Labour 27.5% 22.5% 17.5% - - - 52.5% 40.0% 45.0% 37.5% 35.0% Liberal 70.0% 67.5% 67.5% 67.5% 50.0% 50.0% - - - 37.5% 35.0% SNP/PC - 10.0% 15.0% - 27.5% 20.0% - 20.0% 15.0% - - NF 2.5% - - 2.5% - - 0.0% - - - -
National Distribution of Seats
% Vote FPTP Seats STV Seats Con Lab Lib Nat Oth Con Lab Lib Nat Oth Con Lab Lib Nat Oth England 47% 37% 15% 1% 306 203 7 256 201 59 Scotland 31% 42% 9% 17% 1% 22 44 3 2 24 34 6 7 Wales 32% 49% 11% 8% 1% 11 22 1 2 13 19 3 1 Northern Ireland 100% 12 12
1983 General Election
The 1983 general election is often regarded as one of FPTP’s biggest injustices of the post-war era – the newly-formed SDP-Liberal Alliance getting less than two dozen MPs on more than a quarter of the vote. Indeed, 1983 is the second most disproportional election result since 1945 – with 23.9% of seats misallocated. Droop-LR and STV would both have reduced this figure to below 3% and would have produced results that far better reflected the seismic shift in voting patterns. But the preferential nature of STV throws in a little surprise. As the Alliance had substantially more secondary popularity than Labour, they would have been able to get enough of a preferential boost to overcome the small gap in support between the two parties and become the second-largest grouping in the House of Commons.
Our projections treat the SDP-Liberal Alliance as a single party, but if you were to divide the Alliance in line with their votes, you’d have about 95-100 Liberal MPs and 80- 85 SDP MPs. Splitting the two would substantially increase the flexibility of coalition formation, with the Conservative-Liberal or Conservative-SDP combinations both having substantial majorities. An anti-Conservative majority may have been mathematically possible but would have been politically untenable considering the 100-seat lead of the Conservatives over any other party and the unpopularity of Labour among the electorate and leadership of the Alliance parties.
FPTP Droop-LR STV % Vote GB 2PPV Seats % Seats Deviation Seats % Seats Seats Change STV Boost % Seats Deviation Conservative 42.4% 58.8% 49.9% 397 61.1% +18.7% 284 43.7% 279 -118 -5 42.9% +0.5% Labour 27.6% 41.2% 209 32.2% +4.6% 179 27.5% 171 -38 -8 26.3% -1.3% SDP-Liberal Alliance 25.4% 50.1% 23 3.5% -21.8% 165 25.4% 179 +156 +14 27.5% +2.2% SNP 1.1% 2 0.3% -0.8% 4 0.6% 3 +1 -1 0.5% -0.6% UUP 0.8% 11 1.7% +0.8% 7 1.1% 7 -4 0 1.1% +0.2% DUP 0.5% 3 0.5% -0.0% 4 0.6% 4 +1 0 0.6% +0.1% SDLP 0.4% 1 0.2% -0.3% 3 0.5% 4 +3 +1 0.6% +0.2% Plaid Cymru 0.4% 2 0.3% -0.1% 1 0.2% 1 -1 0 0.2% -0.3% Sinn Féin 0.3% 1 0.2% -0.2% 2 0.3% 1 0 -1 0.2% -0.2% Alliance (NI) 0.2% -0.2% 1 0.2% 1 1 0 0.2% -0.0% UPUP 0.1% 1 0.2% +0.1% -1 0 -0.1% Others 0.7% -0.7% -0.7%
Headline Second Preferences
Con Lab Lib SNP PC Conservative - 20.0% 55.0% 27.5% 17.5% Labour 7.5% - 45.0% 30.0% 50.0% Liberal 92.5% 80.0% - 42.5% 32.5% Regional Distribution of Seats
% Vote FPTP Seats STV Seats Con Lab LD Nat Oth Con Lab LD Nat Oth Con Lab LD Nat Oth North East England 32% 42% 26% 0% 5 23 2 9 12 9 North West England 40% 36% 23% 1% 39 38 2 31 28 20 Yorkshire and the Humber 39% 35% 26% 1% 24 28 2 22 19 13 East Midlands 47% 28% 24% 1% 34 8 20 9 13 West Midlands 45% 31% 23% 0% 36 22 28 17 13 East of England 51% 20% 29% 0% 48 2 1 28 8 15 South East England 56% 15% 29% 1% 76 1 46 7 24 South West England 51% 15% 33% 1% 44 1 3 28 3 17 London 44% 30% 25% 2% 56 26 2 37 25 22 Scotland 28% 35% 25% 12% 0% 21 41 8 2 19 27 23 3 Wales 31% 38% 23% 8% 0% 14 20 2 2 11 16 10 1 Northern Ireland 100% 17 17
1987 General Election
1987 saw the Conservative lead hold firm, with the biggest change being a small swing in vote between the Alliance and Labour and a few seats switching from the Conservatives to Labour. Likewise, our STV simulation of 1987 carries over many of the themes from 1983 – a clear Conservative lead, Labour’s unpopularity losing them seats and the Alliance getting a significant preferential boost on top of an already fairer number of seats (though this time not enough to take more seats than Labour). If we were to roughly divide the Alliance into its constituent parts, there would have been around 88-93 Liberal MPs and 65-70 SDP MPs. Again, as per 1983, this would make Conservative-Liberal or Conservative-SDP coalitions viable possibilities – at a minimum holding a healthy 48-seat majority. A three-party anti-Conservative majority is also numerically possible, though it is again questionable how politically acceptable that would have been.
FPTP Droop-LR STV % Vote GB 2PPV Seats % Seats Deviation Seats % Seats Seats Change STV Boost % Seats Deviation Conservative 42.3% 58.4% 376 57.8% +15.5% 289 44.5% 284 -92 -5 43.7% +1.4% Labour 30.8% 41.6% 229 35.2% +4.4% 203 31.2% 184 -45 -19 28.3% -2.5% SDP-Liberal Alliance 22.6% 22 3.4% -19.2% 132 20.3% 159 +137 +27 24.5% +1.9% SNP 1.3% 3 0.5% -0.8% 7 1.1% 5 +2 -2 0.8% -0.5% UUP 0.8% 9 1.4% +0.5% 7 1.1% 7 -2 0 1.1% +0.2% SDLP 0.5% 3 0.5% -0.0% 4 0.6% 4 +1 0 0.6% +0.1% Plaid Cymru 0.4% 3 0.5% +0.1% 2 0.3% 1 -2 -1 0.2% -0.2% DUP 0.3% 3 0.5% +0.2% 2 0.3% 2 -1 0 0.3% +0.0% Sinn Féin 0.3% 1 0.2% -0.1% 2 0.3% 1 0 -1 0.2% -0.1% Alliance (NI) 0.2% -0.2% 2 0.3% 3 +3 +1 0.5% +0.2% UPUP 0.1% 1 0.2% +0.1% -1 -0.1% Others 0.5% -0.5% -0.5%
Headline Second Preferences
Con Lab Lib SNP PC Conservative - 22.5% 62.5% 20.0% 27.5% Labour 10.0% - 37.5% 25.0% 50.0% Liberal 90.0% 77.5% - 55.0% 22.5%
Regional Distribution of Seats
% Vote FPTP Seats STV Seats Con Lab LD Nat Oth Con Lab LD Nat Oth Con Lab LD Nat Oth North East England 29% 49% 21% 0% 5 24 1 9 14 7 North West England 39% 41% 20% 0% 37 39 3 31 31 17 Yorkshire and the Humber 37% 41% 22% 0% 21 33 21 21 12 East Midlands 49% 30% 21% 0% 31 11 24 9 9 West Midlands 46% 33% 21% 0% 36 22 28 17 13 East of England 53% 21% 26% 0% 50 1 28 9 14 South East England 57% 15% 28% 0% 76 1 50 6 21 South West England 51% 16% 33% 0% 44 1 3 27 5 16 London 46% 31% 21% 1% 58 23 3 40 23 21 Scotland 24% 42% 19% 14% 0% 10 50 9 3 14 32 21 5 Wales 30% 45% 18% 7% 0% 8 24 3 3 12 17 8 1 Northern Ireland 100% 17 17
1992 General Election
The 1992 election was widely expected to be a hung parliament and, despite FPTP giving John Major a surprise small majority, that is how our STV projection plays out. In fact, 1992 produces one of the most proportional results of any of our simulations and the only one where every party’s seat share is within 1% of its vote share. As for potential governments, 1992 places the newly merged Liberal Democrats in the kingmaker position – able to create viable Conservative-led or Labour-led governments, with the latter being more acceptable than it had been for some time. Both a Conservative-Lib Dem or a Labour-Lib Dem coalition would have had a larger majority than the actual FPTP Conservative government, which was notable for its instability.
FPTP Droop-LR STV % Vote GB 2PPV Seats % Seats Deviation Seats % Seats Seats Change STV Boost % Seats Deviation Conservative 41.9% 53.8% 336 51.6% +9.7% 286 43.9% 275 -61 -11 42.2% +0.3% Labour 34.4% 46.2% 271 41.6% +7.2% 242 37.2% 228 -43 -14 35.0% +0.6% Liberal Democrats 17.8% 20 3.1% -14.8% 88 13.5% 113 +93 +25 17.4% -0.5% SNP 1.9% 3 0.5% -1.4% 16 2.5% 16 +13 0 2.5% +0.6% UUP 0.8% 9 1.4% +0.6% 6 0.9% 6 -3 0 0.9% +0.1% SDLP 0.5% 4 0.6% +0.1% 4 0.6% 4 0 0 0.6% +0.1% Green 0.5% -0.5% -0.5% Plaid Cymru 0.5% 4 0.6% +0.2% 2 0.3% 2 -2 0 0.3% -0.2% DUP 0.3% 3 0.5% +0.2% 2 0.3% 2 -1 0 0.3% +0.0% Sinn Féin 0.2% -0.2% 2 0.3% 1 +1 -1 0.2% -0.1% Alliance 0.2% -0.2% 2 0.3% 3 +3 +1 0.5% +0.3% UPUP 0.1% 1 0.2% +0.1% -1 -0.1% Barnes/Cartwright* 0.1% -0.1% 1 0.2% 1 +1 0 0.2% +0.1% Others 0.7% -0.7% -0.7%
* Rosie Barnes and John Cartwright were ‘Independent Social Democrats’ who contested Greenwich and Woolwich respectively. They had both been elected as Alliance MPs in 1987 but rejected the merger with the Liberals, first joining David Owen’s breakaway SDP and then sitting as independents. Headline First-Terminal Second Preferences
Conservative Labour Lib Dem Other Eng Sco Wal Eng Sco Wal Eng Sco Wal SNP PC Grn Conservative - - - 17.5% 10.0% 15.0% 50.0% 37.5% 25.0% 20.0% 25.0% 25.0% Labour 10.0% 10.0% 7.5% - - - 45.0% 35.0% 45.0% 50.0% 30.0% 42.5% Lib Dem 85.0% 57.5% 77.5% 75.0% 30.0% 57.5% - - - 27.5% 45.0% 32.5% SNP/PC - 27.5% 12.5% - 57.5% 25.0% - 25.0% 30.0% - - - Green 5.0% 5.0% 2.5% 7.5% 2.5% 2.5% 5.0% 2.5% 0.0% 2.5% 0.0% -
Regional Distribution of Seats
% Vote FPTP Seats STV Seats Con Lab LD Nat Oth Con Lab LD Nat Oth Con Lab LD Nat Oth North East England 31% 53% 15% 0% 4 25 1 9 18 3 North West England 38% 44% 16% 1% 29 48 2 31 35 13 Yorkshire and the Humber 38% 44% 17% 1% 20 34 21 24 9 East Midlands 47% 37% 15% 1% 28 14 22 17 3 West Midlands 45% 39% 15% 1% 29 29 27 23 8 East of England 53% 26% 20% 1% 47 4 29 12 10 South East England 55% 19% 25% 1% 76 2 48 9 21 South West England 48% 19% 31% 2% 38 4 6 24 7 17 London 45% 37% 15% 2% 48 35 1 38 31 14 1 Scotland 26% 39% 13% 21% 1% 11 49 9 3 15 31 10 16 Wales 29% 49% 12% 9% 1% 6 27 1 4 10 21 5 2 Northern Ireland 6% 94% 17 1 16
1997 General Election
New Labour’s landslide at the 1997 election may be regarded as one of the most sensational election victories in British history, but the result was also incredibly distortive. Labour’s huge majority – just shy of two-thirds of MPs – was won on just 43% of the vote. The Conservatives became the first big-two party to be underrepresented in the House of Commons in 30 years and were wiped out in Scotland and Wales, despite the two countries being home to 1 in 12 Tory voters. And, although they returned their best result in decades, the Liberal Democrats were still denied even half of their due representation.
Some of these themes carry over to our STV projection. Labour would remain noticeably overrepresented – partially due to advantages that would exist under any constituency system (overrepresentation of Scotland and Wales and lower turnout in Labour areas reducing their aggregate vote share). And the Conservatives would be underrepresented – though this time due to preference votes. The Referendum Party, despite returning 2.6% of votes would not return any MPs under STV as these votes were incredibly thinly spread across the country (not attaining more than 41% of the quota in any seat) and they had little secondary popularity.
These results do put Labour just short of a majority, although with a parliament sympathetic enough that they could probably govern fairly effectively as a minority. If they preferred the comfort of a parliamentary majority, a Labour-Lib Dem coalition would have had a combined majority larger than that won by Labour under FPTP.
FPTP Droop-LR STV % Vote GB 2PPV Seats % Seats Deviation Seats % Seats Seats Change STV Boost % Seats Deviation Labour 43.3% 61.3% 419 63.6% +20.3% 332 50.4% 327 -92 -5 49.6% +6.3% Conservative 30.7% 38.7% 165 25.0% -5.6% 204 31.0% 184 +19 -20 27.9% -2.8% Liberal Democrats 16.8% 46 7.0% -9.8% 85 12.9% 112 +66 +27 17.0% +0.2% Referendum 2.6% -2.6% -2.6% SNP 2.0% 6 0.9% -1.1% 16 2.4% 15 +9 -1 2.3% +0.3% UUP 0.8% 10 1.5% +0.7% 6 0.9% 7 -3 +1 1.1% +0.2% SDLP 0.6% 3 0.5% -0.2% 5 0.8% 4 +1 -1 0.6% -0.0% Plaid Cymru 0.5% 4 0.6% +0.1% 3 0.5% 2 -2 -1 0.3% -0.2% Sinn Féin 0.4% 2 0.3% -0.1% 3 0.5% 2 0 -1 0.3% -0.1% DUP 0.3% 2 0.3% -0.0% 2 0.3% 2 0 0 0.3% -0.0% UKIP 0.3% -0.3% -0.3% Alliance 0.2% -0.2% 2 0.3% 3 +3 +1 0.5% +0.3% UKUP 0.0% 1 0.2% +0.1% -1 -0.0% Martin Bell 0.1% 1 0.2% +0.1% 1 0.2% 1 0 0 0.2% +0.1% Others 1.3% -1.3% -1.3%
Headline First-Terminal Second Preferences
Conservative Labour Lib Dem Other Eng Sco Wal Eng Sco Wal Eng Sco Wal SNP PC Grn Ref Conservative - - - 12.5% 7.5% 5.0% 25.0% 17.5% 25.0% 7.5% 20.0% 7.5% 42.5% Labour 27.5% 22.5% 40.0% - - - 70.0% 55.0% 50.0% 67.5% 30.0% 40.0% 22.5% Lib Dem 60.0% 57.5% 42.5% 80.0% 30.0% 62.5% - - - 25.0% 50.0% 52.5% 32.5% SNP/PC - 15.0% 10.0% - 60.0% 25.0% - 27.5% 25.0% - - - - Green 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 2.5% 5.0% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% - 2.5% Referendum 10.0% 5.0% 7.5% 2.5% 0.0% 2.5% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -
Regional Distribution of Seats
% Vote FPTP Seats STV Seats Con Lab LD Nat Oth Con Lab LD Nat Oth Con Lab LD Nat Oth North East England 20% 64% 13% 4% 1 28 1 4 21 5 North West England 28% 54% 14% 4% 9 64 2 1 19 48 8 1 Yorkshire and the Humber 28% 52% 16% 4% 7 47 2 12 33 11 East Midlands 35% 48% 14% 4% 14 30 14 24 6 West Midlands 34% 48% 14% 5% 14 44 1 21 31 7 East of England 40% 39% 17% 5% 33 22 1 22 23 11 South East England 42% 29% 23% 6% 54 22 7 35 25 23 South West England 37% 26% 31% 6% 22 15 14 19 15 17 London 31% 49% 15% 5% 11 57 6 21 43 10 Scotland 18% 46% 13% 22% 2% 56 10 6 8 40 9 15 Wales 20% 55% 12% 10% 3% 34 2 4 9 24 5 2 Northern Ireland 1% 99% 18 18
2001 General Election
Much like the real 2001 election largely being a repeat of the 1997 election, our 2001 STV simulation does not show significant change on our 1997 one – Labour remaining the largest party by a significant margin, the Conservatives losing out due to their lack of preference votes and the Lib Dems getting a boost from their high levels of secondary popularity. While falling a bit shorter of a majority in 2001, it is nearly indisputable that these numbers would have allowed a Labour government to continue. A Labour-Lib Dem coalition would have had a 207-seat majority and, with the two parties largely still broadly agreeing on most issues, a minority government would also have been feasible.
Labour’s +6.8% deviation from proportionality is the largest such divergence in either direction across any of our general election projections. As mentioned in the February 1974 entry, as a constituency system, vote shares under STV can be distorted by differing efficiencies of vote distribution, regional variations in turnout and unbalanced constituencies. This is on top of STV’s low district magnitude skewing slightly in favour of larger parties and its preferential nature benefitting popular parties. In 2001, all these factors combine to give Labour a noticeable advantage – with Labour-heavy Scotland and Wales’ overrepresentation and a 7% higher turnout in Conservative-leaning regions being some of the most noticeable.
FPTP Droop-LR STV % Vote GB 2PPV Seats % Seats Deviation Seats % Seats Seats Change STV Boost % Seats Deviation Labour 40.7% 59.9% 413 62.7% +21.9% 316 48.0% 313 -100 -3 47.5% +6.8% Conservative 31.7% 40.1% 166 25.2% -6.5% 212 32.2% 189 +23 -23 28.7% -3.0% Liberal Democrats 18.3% 52 7.9% -10.4% 93 14.1% 120 +68 +27 18.2% -0.0% SNP 1.8% 5 0.8% -1.0% 15 2.3% 15 +10 0 2.3% +0.5% UKIP 1.5% -1.5% -1.5% UUP 0.8% 6 0.9% +0.1% 5 0.8% 6 0 +1 0.9% +0.1% Plaid Cymru 0.7% 4 0.6% -0.1% 4 0.6% 3 -1 -1 0.5% -0.3% DUP 0.7% 5 0.8% +0.1% 4 0.6% 4 -1 0 0.6% -0.1% Sinn Féin 0.7% 4 0.6% -0.1% 5 0.8% 4 0 -1 0.6% -0.1% SDLP 0.6% 3 0.5% -0.2% 4 0.6% 4 +1 0 0.6% -0.0% Green 0.6% -0.6% -0.6% Alliance 0.1% -0.1% -0.1% Health Concern 0.1% 1 0.2% +0.0% 1 0.2% 1 0 0 0.2% +0.0% Others 1.7% -1.7% -1.7%
Headline First-Terminal Second Preferences
Conservative Labour Lib Dem Other Eng Sco Wal Eng Sco Wal Eng Sco Wal SNP PC Grn UKIP Conservative - - - 12.5% 12.5% 7.5% 25.0% 20.0% 20.0% 12.5% 10.0% 12.5% 45.0% Labour 22.5% 22.5% 22.5% - - - 70.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 27.5% 20.0% Lib Dem 67.5% 57.5% 55.0% 80.0% 50.0% 65.0% - - - 37.5% 40.0% 60.0% 35.0% SNP/PC - 20.0% 22.5% - 37.5% 27.5% - 30.0% 30.0% - - - - Green 2.5% - - 5.0% - - 2.5% ------UKIP 7.5% - - 2.5% - - 2.5% ------
Regional Distribution of Seats
% Vote FPTP Seats STV Seats Con Lab LD Nat Oth Con Lab LD Nat Oth Con Lab LD Nat Oth North East England 21% 59% 17% 3% 1 28 1 4 21 5 North West England 29% 51% 17% 3% 9 64 3 18 44 14 Yorkshire and the Humber 30% 49% 17% 4% 7 47 2 13 31 12 East Midlands 37% 45% 15% 2% 15 28 1 15 23 6 West Midlands 35% 45% 15% 5% 13 43 2 1 22 31 5 1 East of England 42% 37% 17% 4% 34 20 2 25 21 10 South East England 43% 29% 24% 4% 53 22 8 36 24 23 South West England 39% 26% 31% 4% 20 16 15 22 15 14 London 31% 47% 18% 5% 13 55 6 18 42 14 Scotland 16% 44% 16% 20% 4% 1 56 10 5 7 38 12 15 Wales 21% 49% 14% 14% 2% 34 2 4 9 23 5 3 Northern Ireland 0% 100% 18 18
2005 General Election
Labour’s FPTP overrepresentation in the final election of the Blair trilogy may be smaller than in 1997 or 2001, but it is far more egregious. A majority on 43% may be understandable when you’re clearly very popular, your aggregate vote share is being deflated by differences in turnout and there’s a double-digit gap between you and your nearest opponent. But once you have slipped to barely a third of the national vote, you’ve become increasingly divisive and are less than 3% ahead of second place, a significant parliamentary majority is near unjustifiable. What mandate do you have when voters have voted against you at a ratio of nearly 2:1?
Luckily, STV would have been able to produce a fairer result – reducing FPTP’s disproportionality by two-thirds. Labour would still be overrepresented, and the Conservatives underrepresented, due to many of the factors mentioned in the previous entries. But 2005 would also see a notable overrepresentation of the Liberal Democrats due to the combination of them exceeding the average quota and being most voter’s second preference. While a Labour-led government would remain the most likely outcome on these numbers, the Liberal Democrats would be in a kingmaker position and could choose a Labour-Lib Dem or Conservative-Lib Dem coalition, either having clear majorities.
FPTP Droop-LR STV % Vote GB 2PPV Seats % Seats Deviation Seats % Seats Seats Change STV Boost % Seats Deviation Labour 35.2% 55.8% 356 55.1% +19.9% 255 39.5% 254 -102 -1 39.3% +4.1% Conservative 32.4% 44.2% 198 30.7% -1.7% 216 33.4% 196 -2 -20 30.3% -2.0% Liberal Democrats 22.0% 62 9.6% -12.4% 142 22.0% 160 +98 +18 24.8% +2.7% UKIP 2.2% -2.2% -2.2% SNP 1.5% 6 0.9% -0.6% 10 1.5% 11 +5 +1 1.7% +0.2% Green 1.0% -1.0% 1 +1 +1 0.2% -0.9% DUP 0.9% 9 1.4% +0.5% 6 0.9% 6 -3 0 0.9% +0.0% BNP 0.7% -0.7% -0.7% Plaid Cymru 0.6% 3 0.5% -0.2% 3 0.5% 3 0 0 0.5% -0.2% Sinn Féin 0.6% 5 0.8% +0.1% 5 0.8% 5 0 0 0.8% +0.1% UUP 0.5% 1 0.2% -0.3% 3 0.5% 3 +2 0 0.5% -0.0% SDLP 0.5% 3 0.5% +0.0% 4 0.6% 4 +1 0 0.6% +0.2% Respect 0.3% 1 0.2% -0.1% 1 0.2% 1 0 0 0.2% -0.1% Alliance 0.1% -0.1% -0.1% Health Concern 0.1% 1 0.2% +0.1% 1 0 +1 0.2% +0.1% Peter Law 0.1% 1 0.2% +0.1% 1 0.2% 1 0 0 0.2% +0.1% Others 1.2% -1.2% -1.2%
Headline First-Terminal Second Preferences
Conservative Labour Lib Dem Other Eng Sco Wal Eng Sco Wal Eng Sco Wal SNP PC E Grn S Grn UKIP BNP Resp SSP Conservative - - - 20.0% 10.0% 12.5% 22.5% 20.0% 20.0% 7.5% 25.0% 17.5% 5.0% 35.0% 17.5% 7.5% 2.5% Labour 20.0% 10.0% 17.5% - - - 42.5% 40.0% 40.0% 35.0% 25.0% 17.5% 30.0% 22.5% 25.0% 7.5% 17.5% Lib Dem 52.5% 50.0% 45.0% 62.5% 50.0% 55.0% - - - 25.0% 30.0% 50.0% 25.0% 17.5% 5.0% 77.5% 55.0% SNP/PC - 10.0% 12.5% - 30.0% 25.0% - 20.0% 17.5% - - - 20.0% - - - 12.5% Green 7.5% 5.0% 7.5% 10.0% 5.0% 5.0% 25.0% 12.5% 17.5% 17.5% 12.5% - - 15.0% 2.5% 0.0% 10.0% UKIP 17.5% 20.0% 17.5% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 2.5% 7.5% 2.5% 2.5% - 50.0% 7.5% 2.5% BNP 2.5% - 0% 2.5% - 2.5% 0.0% - 0.0% - 0.0% 5.0% - 7.5% - 0.0% - Respect 0.0% - - 2.5% - - 5.0% - - - - 7.5% - 2.5% 0.0% - - SSP - 5.0% - - 5.0% - - 7.5% - 12.5% - - 17.5% - - - -
Regional Distribution of Seats
% Vote FPTP Seats STV Seats Con Lab LD Nat Oth Con Lab LD Nat Oth Con Lab LD Nat Oth North East England 20% 53% 23% 4% 1 28 1 4 19 7 North West England 29% 45% 21% 5% 9 61 6 18 38 20 Yorkshire and the Humber 29% 44% 21% 7% 9 44 3 15 28 13 East Midlands 37% 39% 18% 5% 18 25 1 15 18 11 West Midlands 35% 39% 19% 8% 16 39 3 22 27 9 1 East of England 43% 30% 22% 5% 40 13 3 27 17 12 South East England 45% 24% 25% 5% 58 19 6 39 21 22 1 South West England 39% 23% 33% 6% 22 13 16 21 12 18 London 32% 39% 22% 7% 21 44 8 1 21 30 22 1 Scotland 16% 40% 23% 18% 4% 1 41 11 6 5 25 18 11 Wales 21% 43% 18% 13% 5% 3 29 4 3 1 9 19 8 3 1 Northern Ireland 0% 100% 18 18
2010 General Election
The 2010 election saw Britain’s first hung parliament in 36 years and led to its first coalition government since the end of the Wartime Cabinet in 1945. Contrary to the assumptions of FPTP advocates, coalition formation was able to take place very quickly – with a Conservative-Lib Dem coalition being secured within five days of the election. But despite an outcome more like that of a proportional system, the election result itself wasn’t fair or proportional – with the balance between the two coalition partners being skewed in parliament and in government.
Systems like STV would have been able to produce a far more balanced House of Commons than FPTP. Both the Conservatives and Labour would be stripped of most of their more than 10% overrepresentation and the Lib Dems would have been able to make up their 93-seat underrepresentation and then some, thanks to their remaining success on preference votes. Smaller parties may not have fared as well, but UKIP would have secured their first elected MP and the Greens would have retained their single seat first seen in our 2005 simulation. Such a parliament would have still dictated that a coalition be formed, but this time would put the Lib Dems in a genuine kingmaker position – able to choose between a Conservative-Lib Dem or Labour-Lib Dem coalition, either with more secure majorities than the real-life Cameron-Clegg coalition.
FPTP Droop-LR STV % Vote GB 2PPV Seats % Seats Deviation Seats % Seats Seats Change STV Boost % Seats Deviation Conservative 36.1% 50.7% 307 47.2% +11.1% 253 38.9% 244 -63 -9 37.5% +1.4% Labour 29.0% 49.3% 258 39.7% +10.7% 209 32.2% 196 -62 -13 30.2% +1.2% Liberal Democrats 23.0% 57 8.8% -14.3% 154 23.7% 175 +118 +21 26.9% +3.9% UKIP 3.1% -3.1% 1 +1 +1 0.2% -2.9% BNP 1.9% -1.9% -1.9% SNP 1.7% 6 0.9% -0.7% 13 2.0% 11 +5 -2 1.7% +0.0% Green 1.0% 1 0.2% -0.8% 1 0 +1 0.2% -0.8% Sinn Féin 0.6% 5 0.8% +0.2% 5 0.8% 4 -1 -1 0.6% +0.0% DUP 0.6% 8 1.2% +0.7% 4 0.6% 5 -3 +1 0.8% +0.2% Plaid Cymru 0.6% 3 0.5% -0.1% 3 0.5% 3 0 0 0.5% -0.1% SDLP 0.4% 3 0.5% +0.1% 4 0.6% 4 +1 0 0.6% +0.2% UCU-NF (UUP) 0.3% -0.3% 2 0.3% 2 +2 0 0.3% -0.0% Alliance 0.1% 1 0.2% +0.0% 1 0.2% 1 0 0 0.2% +0.0% Health Concern 0.1% -0.1% 1 +1 +1 0.2% +0.1% Rodney Connor 0.1% -0.1% 1 0.2% 1 +1 0 0.2% +0.1% Sylvia Hermon 0.1% 1 0.2% +0.1% 1 0.2% 1 0 0 0.2% +0.1% Others 1.5% -1.5% -1.5%
Headline First-Terminal Second Preferences
Conservative Labour Lib Dem Other Eng Sco Wal Eng Sco Wal Eng Sco Wal SNP PC E Grn S Grn UKIP BNP ED Resp Conservative - - - 7.5% 2.5% 5.0% 27.5% 15.0% 15.0% 7.5% 7.5% 10.0% 2.5% 47.5% 27.5% 30.0% 2.5% Labour 7.5% 10.0% 7.5% - - - 40.0% 32.5% 47.5% 30.0% 35.0% 22.5% 12.5% 7.5% 10.0% 5.0% 12.5% Lib Dem 52.5% 42.5% 47.5% 65.0% 45.0% 42.5% - - - 25.0% 30.0% 50.0% 45.0% 15.0% 7.5% 5.0% 35.0% SNP/PC - 22.5% 15.0% - 30.0% 37.5% - 20.0% 17.5% - - - 27.5% - - - - Green 5.0% 2.5% 2.5% 15.0% 10.0% 10.0% 20.0% 22.5% 12.5% 22.5% 20.0% - - 12.5% 10.0% 0.0% 27.5% UKIP 30.0% 20.0% 25.0% 7.5% 5.0% 5.0% 12.5% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 2.5% 12.5% 0.0% - 45.0% 52.5% 10.0% BNP 5.0% - 2.5% 2.5% - 0.0% 0.0% - 0% - 5.0% 0.0% - 17.5% - 7.5% 12.5% Respect 0.0% - - 2.5% - - 0.0% - - - - 5.0% - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% - SSP - 2.5% - - 7.5% - - 2.5% - 7.5% - - 12.5% - - - -
Regional Distribution of Seats
% Vote FPTP Seats STV Seats Con Lab LD Nat Oth Con Lab LD Nat Oth Con Lab LD Nat Oth North East England 24% 44% 24% 9% 2 25 2 8 12 9 North West England 32% 39% 22% 7% 22 47 6 23 34 18 Yorkshire and the Humber 33% 34% 23% 10% 19 32 3 18 19 16 1 East Midlands 41% 30% 20% 8% 31 15 22 12 12 West Midlands 40% 31% 20% 9% 33 24 2 25 19 14 1 East of England 47% 20% 24% 9% 52 2 4 30 11 17 South East England 50% 16% 26% 8% 75 4 4 1 49 11 23 1 South West England 43% 15% 35% 7% 36 4 15 25 7 23 London 35% 36% 22% 7% 28 38 7 27 27 19 Scotland 17% 42% 19% 20% 2% 1 41 11 6 7 27 14 11 Wales 26% 36% 20% 11% 6% 8 26 3 3 10 17 10 3 Northern Ireland 100% 18 18
2015 General Election
First Past the Post has produced many low points over the post-war period, but the results of the 2015 election are very likely the lowest. A single-party majority on just 37% of the vote, over 24% of seats misallocated, UKIP returning just 1 MP on 1 in 8 votes – with one Conservative vote having the same electoral weight as 113 UKIP votes, half of Scottish voters being near-denied any representation, the Lib Dems getting near-wiped out despite still commanding 8% of the vote – the charge sheet against FPTP is very long.
STV would have produced a much fairer result, with a much closer relationship between votes and seats. Most notably, UKIP would have been the third-largest party in the House of Commons, although losing some seats relative to Droop-LR due to their limited secondary popularity. Scotland would have been far more balanced in its parliamentary representation – with unionists taking 25 seats to the SNP’s 34. The only real sticking point of our STV simulation is the underrepresentation of the Greens – 4% of the vote and only one additional seat. But, as aforementioned, this is due these results being based off of the actual FPTP results which, among other factors, give the Greens a weak vote distribution. Under an actual STV election, it is likely that the Greens would perform better than shown here.
In terms of government, it has to be Conservative led. There is no plausible combination that would give Labour a majority, but several options for David Cameron. The Conservatives and UKIP alone would have a small overall majority, likely aided by the DUP. But, while a Conservative-Lib Dem coalition would be short of an overall majority, it would have one for English-only matters and would likely be a more attractive prospect. The question would be whether you could obtain UKIP’s support for confidence and supply matters and whether the Lib Dems would be willing to accept the immigration policies and EU referendum that such a deal would necessarily entail.
FPTP Droop-LR STV % Vote GB 2PPV Seats % Seats Deviation Seats % Seats Seats Change STV Boost % Seats Deviation Conservative 36.9% 51.8% 331 50.9% +14.0% 264 40.6% 273 -58 +9 42.0% +5.1% Labour 30.4% 48.2% 232 35.7% +5.2% 226 34.8% 236 +4 +10 36.3% +5.9% UKIP 12.6% 1 0.2% -12.5% 78 12.0% 55 +54 -23 8.5% -4.2% Liberal Democrats 7.9% 8 1.2% -6.6% 23 3.5% 28 +20 +5 4.3% -3.6% SNP 4.7% 56 8.6% +3.9% 35 5.4% 34 -22 -1 5.2% +0.5% Green 3.8% 1 0.2% -3.6% 2 0.3% 2 +1 0 0.3% -3.5% DUP 0.6% 8 1.2% +0.6% 6 0.9% 5 -3 -1 0.8% +0.2% Sinn Féin 0.6% 4 0.6% +0.0% 5 0.8% 4 0 -1 0.6% +0.0% Plaid Cymru 0.6% 3 0.5% -0.1% 4 0.6% 4 +1 0 0.6% +0.0% UUP 0.4% 2 0.3% -0.1% 3 0.5% 3 +1 0 0.5% +0.1% SDLP 0.3% 3 0.5% +0.1% 3 0.5% 4 +1 +1 0.6% +0.3% Alliance 0.2% -0.2% 1 0.2% 1 +1 0 0.2% -0.0% Sylvia Hermon 0.1% 1 0.2% +0.1% 1 0 +1 0.2% +0.1% Others 0.9% -0.9% -0.9%
Headline First-Terminal Second Preferences
Conservative Labour Lib Dem Nationalist UKIP Green Eng Sco Wal Eng Sco Wal Eng Sco Wal SNP PC Eng Sco Wal Eng Sco Wal Conservative - - - 7.5% 22.5% 5.0% 32.5% 47.5% 32.5% 10.0% 12.5% 55.0% 52.5% 57.5% 12.5% 7.5% 2.5% Labour 10.0% 12.5% 7.5% - - - 30.0% 20.0% 15.0% 22.5% 30.0% 20.0% 15.0% 12.5% 52.5% 20.0% 30.0% Lib Dem 37.5% 37.5% 32.5% 27.5% 25.0% 15.0% - - - 10.0% 15.0% 7.5% 5.0% 5.0% 30.0% 12.5% 22.5% SNP/PC - 7.5% 15.0% - 20.0% 42.5% - 7.5% 17.5% - - - 12.5% 17.5% - 60.0% 35.0% UKIP 42.5% 35.0% 37.5% 15.0% 10.0% 15.0% 7.5% 7.5% 5.0% 5.0% 2.5% - - - 5.0% 0.0% 10.0% Green 10.0% 7.5% 7.5% 50.0% 22.5% 22.5% 30.0% 17.5% 30.0% 52.5% 40.0% 17.5% 15.0% 7.5% - - -
Regional Distribution of Seats
% Vote FPTP Seats STV Seats Con Lab LD Nat UKIP Oth Con Lab LD Nat UKIP Oth Con Lab LD Nat UKIP Oth North East England 25% 47% 6% 17% 5% 3 26 9 17 3 North West England 31% 45% 7% 14% 4% 22 51 2 28 40 2 5 Yorkshire and the Humber 33% 39% 7% 16% 5% 19 33 2 21 25 3 5 East Midlands 43% 32% 6% 16% 4% 32 14 22 19 5 West Midlands 42% 33% 6% 16% 4% 34 25 26 23 10 East of England 49% 22% 8% 16% 4% 52 4 1 1 33 14 2 9 South East England 51% 18% 9% 15% 7% 79 4 1 53 19 4 7 1 South West England 47% 18% 15% 14% 7% 51 4 29 12 8 5 1 London 35% 44% 8% 8% 6% 27 45 1 33 35 4 1 Scotland 15% 24% 8% 50% 2% 2% 1 1 1 56 7 15 3 34 Wales 27% 37% 7% 12% 14% 4% 11 25 1 3 12 17 2 4 5 Northern Ireland 1% 3% 96% 18 18
2017 General Election
The 2017 general election was not only the second time in three elections that FPTP failed on its own terms (i.e. to create a single-party majority), but it is also a fantastic example of the ridiculousness of the system. Theresa May was denied a majority on 42.5% vote – a significantly higher vote share than was needed to secure majorities in 2005 and 2015 and higher than the 40.7% of the vote that gave Blair a supermajority in 2001. And, despite the Conservative vote share holding fairly steady throughout the campaign itself, they saw their fortunes turn from a landslide majority to a hung parliament without losing many votes. FPTP really is a system devoid of even a cursory link between votes and seats.
But our STV result does need a little bit of explaining. With Labour winning more seats than the Conservatives, it may seem like STV has created a ‘wrong-winner’ result. But this is because a preferential system requires a recalibration of what a ‘wrong-winner’ is. The Conservatives may have won marginally more first-preference votes, but Labour would have won significantly more second- and lower-preferences – tipping them over the edge in many close contests. This would be aided by Scottish Labour acting as a centre party – able to win support from the Conservatives or the SNP in battles for the final seat with the other. Labour would win more seats than the Conservatives because more voters preferred them, with this somewhat ironically including a fair few Scottish Conservatives.
Government formation, however, would not be easy. On our STV numbers, there is no plausible route for the Conservatives to put together a majority and, though there is a clear progressive majority, it is both an unwieldly formation and requires the compliance of the Liberal Democrats who would likely have been reluctant to support a Corbyn- led government.
FPTP Droop-LR STV % Vote GB 2PPV Seats % Seats Deviation Seats % Seats Seats Change STV Boost % Seats Deviation Conservative 42.5% 48.3% 318 48.9% +6.5% 295 45.4% 285 -33 -10 43.8% +1.4% Labour 40.0% 51.7% 262 40.3% +0.3% 288 44.3% 296 +34 +8 45.5% +5.6% Liberal Democrats 7.4% 12 1.8% -5.5% 22 3.4% 26 +14 +4 4.0% -3.4% SNP 3.0% 35 5.4% +2.3% 25 3.8% 21 -14 -4 3.2% +0.2% UKIP 1.8% -1.8% -1.8% Green 1.6% 1 0.2% -1.5% 1 0 +1 0.2% 1.5% DUP 0.9% 10 1.5% +0.6% 8 1.2% 6 -4 -2 0.9% +0.0% Sinn Féin 0.7% 7 1.1% +0.3% 5 0.8% 5 -2 0 0.8% +0.0% Plaid Cymru 0.5% 4 0.6% +0.1% 2 0.3% 3 -1 +1 0.5% -0.0% SDLP 0.3% -0.3% 2 0.3% 2 +2 0 0.3% +0.0% UUP 0.3% -0.3% 2 0.3% 3 +3 +1 0.5% +0.2% Alliance 0.2% -0.2% 1 0.2% 2 +2 +1 0.3% +0.1% Sylvia Hermon 0.1% 1 0.2% +0.1% -1 -0.1% Others 0.7% -0.7% -0.7%
Headline First-Terminal Second Preferences
Conservative Labour Lib Dem Nationalist UKIP Green Eng Sco Wal Eng Sco Wal Eng Sco Wal SNP PC Eng Sco Wal Eng Sco Wal Conservative - - - 7.5% 12.5% 5.0% 20.0% 32.5% 20.0% 5.0% 17.5% 62.5% 50.0% 40.0% 17.5% 2.5% 5.0% Labour 17.5% 22.5% 12.5% - - - 45.0% 40.0% 37.5% 32.5% 40.0% 17.5% 12.5% 27.5% 52.5% 50.0% 25.0% Lib Dem 22.5% 35.0% 15.0% 30.0% 30.0% 20.0% - - - 7.5% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 7.5% 25.0% SNP/PC - 5.0% 12.5% - 22.5% 32.5% - 7.5% 12.5% - - - 30.0% 20.0% - 40.0% 40.0% UKIP 47.5% 30.0% 52.5% 7.5% 2.5% 5.0% 2.5% 2.5% 5.0% 0.0% 5.0% - - - 5.0% 0.0% 5.0% Green 12.5% 7.5% 7.5% 55.0% 32.5% 37.5% 32.5% 17.5% 25.0% 55.0% 27.5% 15.0% 7.5% 12.5% - - -
Regional Distribution of Seats
% Vote FPTP Seats STV Seats Con Lab LD Nat Oth Con Lab LD Nat Oth Con Lab LD Nat Oth North East England 34% 55% 5% 6% 3 26 11 18 North West England 36% 55% 5% 4% 20 54 1 27 47 1 Yorkshire and the Humber 40% 49% 5% 6% 17 37 23 30 1 East Midlands 51% 40% 4% 4% 31 15 26 20 West Midlands 49% 42% 4% 4% 24 35 32 27 East of England 55% 33% 8% 5% 50 7 1 34 21 3 South East England 54% 29% 11% 7% 73 8 2 1 52 25 6 1 South West England 51% 29% 15% 5% 47 7 1 30 17 8 London 33% 55% 9% 4% 21 49 3 23 47 3 Scotland 29% 27% 7% 37% 1% 13 7 4 35 13 22 3 21 Wales 34% 49% 5% 10% 3% 8 28 4 14 22 1 3 Northern Ireland 0% 100% 18
2019 General Election
Due to FPTP’s ability to create stability, Britain in 2019 saw a parliamentary gridlock, a complete party-system collapse, a constitutional crisis and its second snap election in just two- and-a-half years. It also saw widespread unhappiness with the party system, with local and European elections and opinion polls showing historic showings for other parties – with seven polling above 10% at least once. Because FPTP creates an environment unfavourable to voting for parties other than the big two, much of this support was squeezed into the Conservatives and Labour by polling day – the system effectively restricting the choice between two unpopular parties led by divisive leaders. What’s more, one of these parties was rewarded with a sizeable majority despite their divisiveness and lack of majority backing.
Our PR simulations show results that more closely represent how voters voted in 2019, although with a slight favouring of the main parties – enough so that, under Droop-LR, the Conservatives were close to winning a small majority. As these are based on votes cast under FPTP, STV doesn’t entirely capture support for smaller parties, but the Greens would see at least 2 MPs and the Brexit Party would take some seats. On these numbers, there isn’t really a clear government that could be formed – with nearly all possible outcomes having to go through the Liberal Democrats – who had very clear disagreements with both main parties. The Conservatives have the clear advantage and would hold a 23-seat majority among English constituencies, but very few possible allies with which to form a national majority. With the Lib Dems, there is a very small progressive overall majority – but across seven parties, many of which would definitely not support a Corbyn-led government. Very much an impasse.
FPTP Droop-LR STV % Vote GB 2PPV Seats % Seats Deviation Seats % Seats Seats Change STV Boost % Seats Deviation Conservative 43.6% 52.8% 365 56.2% +12.5% 321 49.4% 308 -57 -13 47.4% +3.8% Labour 32.2% 47.2% 203 31.2% -0.9% 227 34.9% 225 +22 -2 34.6% +2.5% Liberal Democrats 11.5% 11 1.7% -9.9% 48 7.4% 59 +48 +11 9.1% -2.5% SNP 3.9% 48 7.4% +3.5% 29 4.5% 30 -18 +1 4.6% +0.7% Green 2.7% 1 0.2% -2.6% 1 0.2% 2 +1 +1 0.3% -2.4% Brexit 2.0% -2.0% 3 0.5% 3 +3 0 0.5% -1.6% DUP 0.8% 8 1.2% +0.5% 6 0.9% 5 -3 -1 0.8% +0.0% Sinn Féin 0.6% 7 1.1% +0.5% 4 0.6% 3 -4 -1 0.5% -0.1% Plaid Cymru 0.5% 4 0.6% +0.1% 3 0.5% 4 0 +1 0.6% +0.1% Alliance 0.4% 1 0.2% -0.3% 3 0.5% 3 +2 0 0.5% +0.0% SDLP 0.4% 2 0.3% -0.1% 2 0.3% 4 +2 +2 0.6% +0.2% UUP 0.3% -0.3% 3 0.5% 3 +3 0 0.5% +0.2% Claire Wright 0.1% -0.1% 1 +1 +1 0.2% +0.1% Others 1.1% -1.1% -1.1%
Headline First-Terminal Second Preferences
Conservative Labour Lib Dem Nationalist Brexit Green Eng Sco Wal Eng Sco Wal Eng Sco Wal SNP PC Eng Sco Wal Eng Sco Wal Conservative - - - 5.0% 10.0% 5.0% 22.5% 30.0% 12.5% 5.0% 17.5% 67.5% 55.0% 60.0% 20.0% 7.5% 0.0% Labour 10.0% 15.0% 15.0% - - - 22.5% 22.5% 20.0% 20.0% 22.5% 17.5% 15.0% 17.5% 40.0% 15.0% 60.0% Lib Dem 12.5% 22.5% 7.5% 22.5% 22.5% 17.5% - - - 10.0% 15.0% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 32.5% 12.5% 12.5% SNP/PC - 5.0% 12.5% - 25.0% 30.0% - 10.0% 25.0% - - - 30.0% 10.0% - 65.0% 27.5% Brexit 60.0% 50.0% 57.5% 2.5% 5.0% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% - - - 7.5% 0.0% 0.0% Green 17.5% 7.5% 7.5% 70.0% 37.5% 45.0% 55.0% 37.5% 42.5% 65.0% 45.0% 12.5% 0.0% 12.5% - - -
Regional Distribution of Seats
% Vote FPTP Seats STV Seats Con Lab LD Nat Oth Con Lab LD Nat Oth Con Lab LD Nat Oth North East England 38% 43% 7% 12% 10 19 14 14 1 North West England 37% 47% 8% 8% 32 42 1 34 39 2 Yorkshire and the Humber 43% 39% 8% 10% 26 28 25 24 3 2 East Midlands 55% 32% 8% 6% 38 8 29 17 West Midlands 53% 34% 8% 5% 44 15 35 21 3 East of England 57% 24% 13% 5% 52 5 1 36 15 7 South East England 54% 22% 18% 6% 74 8 1 1 50 18 15 1 South West England 53% 23% 18% 6% 48 6 1 32 10 11 2 London 32% 48% 15% 5% 21 49 3 23 38 12 Scotland 25% 19% 10% 45% 2% 6 1 4 48 13 11 5 30 Wales 36% 41% 6% 10% 7% 14 22 4 17 18 1 4 Northern Ireland 1% 99% 18 18
2019 General Election (EPV)
An attempt to estimate a plausible, yet familiar, proportional result of the 2019 general election based on the Brexit Party fielding candidates in all constituencies (with the same rate of EP2019 to GE2019 vote deterioration as seen in seats where they did stand in GE2019); the Green Party vote roughly doubling (not implausible considering their performance in devolved elections is often around double their general election performance, unlike most ‘other’ parties); and strong independents expanding to ‘fill’ their STV constituency (although at a lower rate than in their base constituency). Though this is a plausible outcome of a proportional election, it is likely that a PR 2019 election may have seen significantly different levels of support for all parties involved – with the Duvergerian squeeze on Lib Dem, Brexit and Green voters between the summer and December unlikely to have occurred in the absence of FPTP.
With just some small adjustments to a few party’s votes shares, we can see how much effect the unofficial 5% threshold has on small parties. Although parties in that 5-10% area are still likely to experience underrepresentation under STV, just increasing from 3% to 6% can see your seat total jump from one or two MPs to a sizeable parliamentary bridgehead. The effects of secondary popularity and preferential voting can also be seen here – despite roughly similar levels of support, the Greens get a boost from STV and the Brexit Party actually lose a few seats relative to Droop-LR. But then, the Greens are the most favourably viewed significant party and the Brexit Party are the least favourably viewed*. There are also five local parties or independents who would likely have won seats under STV. Although there are shifts between parties, these numbers do not significantly affect the government formation issues discussed in the 2019 General Election entry.
FPTP Droop-LR STV % GB Vote GB 2PPV Seats % Seats Deviation Seats % Seats Seats Change STV Boost % Seats Deviation Conservative 40.3% 52.8% 369 58.4% +18.1% 306 48.4% 293 -76 -13 46.4% +6.0% Labour 30.7% 47.2% 197 31.2% +0.5% 225 35.6% 221 +24 -4 35.0% +4.3% Liberal Democrats 10.7% 14 2.2% -8.5% 46 7.3% 52 +38 +6 8.2% -2.5% Brexit 6.4% -6.4% 14 2.2% 10 +10 -4 1.6% -4.8% Green 5.9% 1 0.2% -5.8% 5 0.8% 16 +15 +11 2.5% -3.4% SNP 3.8% 47 7.4% +3.6% 28 4.4% 31 -16 +3 4.9% +1.1% Plaid Cymru 0.5% 4 0.6% +0.2% 3 0.5% 4 0 +1 0.6% +0.2% Ashfield Ind 0.1% -0.1% 1 0.2% 1 +1 0 0.2% +0.1% BSJP 0.1% -0.1% 1 0.2% 1 +1 0 0.2% +0.1% Claire Wright 0.2% -0.2% 1 0.2% 1 +1 0 0.2% -0.0% David Gauke 0.2% -0.2% 1 0.2% 1 +1 0 0.2% -0.0% Dominic Grieve 0.1% -0.1% 1 0.2% 1 +1 0 0.2% +0.1% Others 1.0% -1.0% -1.0%
* British Election Study Internet Panel Wave 19 (post-GE2019, n=32177) gives an average score (out of 10) for each party as Green 4.6, Con 4.1, Lab 3.8, LD 3.4, SNP 2.8, Brexit 2.6. Headline First-Terminal Second Preferences
As per 2019 General Election
Regional Distribution of Seats
% Vote FPTP Seats STV Seats Con Lab LD Nat Brx Grn Oth Con Lab LD Nat Brx Grn Oth Con Lab LD Nat Brx Grn Oth North East England 37% 41% 6% 9% 5% 2% 10 19 13 13 3 North West England 36% 45% 7% 6% 6% 1% 33 41 1 34 37 2 1 1 Yorkshire and the Humber 40% 37% 7% 9% 6% 2% 26 28 24 24 1 3 2 East Midlands 49% 29% 7% 8% 5% 2% 38 8 27 17 1 1 West Midlands 47% 32% 7% 8% 5% 0% 47 12 34 21 1 1 2 East of England 50% 22% 12% 8% 6% 2% 53 4 1 34 14 6 1 1 South East England 47% 19% 17% 7% 7% 1% 73 8 2 1 48 17 15 1 2 1 South West England 46% 19% 17% 7% 8% 2% 47 6 2 30 10 11 3 1 London 30% 46% 14% 3% 7% 0% 21 49 3 21 39 10 3 Scotland 24% 18% 9% 44% 2% 4% 0% 6 1 5 47 12 11 5 31 Wales 35% 39% 6% 10% 6% 3% 0% 15 21 4 16 18 1 4 1
1999 European Election
The 1999 European election was Britain’s first nationwide proportional election and, compared to the more recent EP elections, is one of the more realistic prospects of what the party system in a proportional Britain might look like. The results, counted to the then Westminster constituencies, show a clear Conservative majority on just 36% of the vote in an eery foreshadowing of several subsequent general elections. What’s most notable about the FPTP results is the incredibly low showing for the Liberal Democrats. This is because, under a proportional electoral system, the Lib Dem’s vote distribution reverted to a more natural, truer level of support, absent of the tactical voting that often helps the party win seats under FPTP. If we look at the seats that the Lib Dems had won in 1997 – the Lib Dem vote decreased on average by 22% (versus a national decline of just 5%) and the Labour vote stayed virtually flat (compared to a national fall of 16%) – clearly demonstrating that, in the absence of tactical voting, the Lib Dems would be even more poorly represented under FPTP than they already are.
If we put the votes into our STV constituencies, we see many of our New Labour-era trends. Both main parties losing a few seats on Droop-LR, but Labour less so due to their higher levels of secondary popularity, and the Liberal Democrats getting a clear preference boost. UKIP and the Greens, though, are noticeably underrepresented. Largely this is because of their low vote shares and fairly flat vote distributions – as can be seen with the Droop-LR simulations. When it comes to building a majority, the Lib Dems would be in their semi-regular kingmaker position – able to form Conservative-Lib Dem or Labour-Lib Dem coalitions, both with clear majorities.
FPTP Droop-LR STV % GB Vote GB 2PPV Seats % Seats Deviation Seats % Seats Seats Change STV Boost % Seats Deviation Conservative 35.8% 48% 352 54.9% +19.1% 272 42.4% 246 -106 -26 38.4% +2.6% Labour 28.0% 52% 261 40.7% +12.7% 226 35.3% 217 -44 -9 33.9% +5.8% Liberal Democrats 12.7% 3 0.5% -12.2% 89 13.9% 124 +121 +35 19.3% +6.7% UKIP 7.0% -7.0% 9 1.4% 7 +7 -2 1.1% -5.9% Green 6.3% -6.3% 9 1.4% 8 +8 -1 1.2% -5.0% SNP 2.7% 15 2.3% -0.3% 20 3.1% 24 +9 +4 3.7% +1.1% Plaid Cymru 1.9% 10 1.6% -0.3% 13 2.0% 13 +3 0 2.0% +0.2% PECP 1.4% -1.4% -1.4% BNP 1.0% -1.0% -1.0% Liberal 0.9% -0.9% -0.9% Socialist Labour 0.9% -0.9% -0.9% Scottish Socialist 0.4% -0.4% 2 0.3% 1 +1 -1 0.2% -0.2% Christine Oddy 0.4% -0.4% 1 0.2% 1 +1 0 0.2% -0.2% Others 0.6% -0.6% -0.6%
Headline First-Terminal Second Preferences
As per 1997 General Election
Regional Distribution of Seats
% Vote FPTP Seats STV Seats Con Lab LD Nat UKIP Grn Oth Con Lab LD Nat UKIP Grn Oth Con Lab LD Nat UKIP Grn Oth North East England 27% 42% 14% 9% 5% 3% 5 25 10 15 5 North West England 35% 34% 12% 7% 6% 6% 31 44 1 30 32 13 1 Yorkshire and the Humber 37% 31% 14% 7% 6% 5% 29 27 23 19 14 East Midlands 39% 29% 13% 8% 5% 6% 30 14 20 14 10 West Midlands 38% 28% 11% 6% 6% 11% 38 20 1 23 22 12 1 1 East of England 43% 25% 12% 9% 6% 5% 46 10 28 15 12 1 South East England 44% 20% 15% 10% 7% 4% 76 7 43 19 17 2 2 South West England 42% 18% 16% 11% 8% 5% 46 5 24 11 12 3 1 London 33% 35% 12% 5% 8% 8% 31 43 25 31 15 1 2 Scotland 20% 29% 10% 27% 1% 6% 8% 12 44 1 15 10 25 11 24 1 1 Wales 23% 32% 8% 30% 3% 3% 2% 8 22 10 10 14 3 13
2004 European Election
The 2004 European election was the one where British voters really took to ‘other’ parties – with 1 in 3 voters casting their votes for a party other than the main trio. Some of these parties would even have been able to breakthrough under FPTP – UKIP being first-placed in roughly 20 seats in the South West and East Midlands. But, of course, FPTP would remain incredibly distortive. The Conservatives and Labour would have taken around 90% of seats on just under half of the vote – the Conservatives being in touching distance of a majority despite receiving the backing of just 27% of voters.
STV would have been able to draw up a far more balanced parliament and more than halve the levels of disproportionality seen under FPTP. But, STV would produce a little curiosity – the Lib Dems winning far more seats than UKIP despite similar levels of support. Partially this is because the Lib Dem vote is more efficiently distributed, they were already able to draw level on Droop-LR. But this is also because of the preferential element of STV, which, unsurprisingly, would benefit the secondarily popular centrists and not the divisive Eurosceptics. The impact of the preference vote can also be seen in the well-liked Greens getting a small boost from STV, while hardliners and extremists like Respect and the BNP would lose seats – the latter being prevented from taking the four seats they would have won under a non-preferential proportional system. Government-wise, the only two-party majority available from our STV simulation is a Conservative-Lib Dem coalition, though multiple (stronger) three-party coalitions are available.
FPTP* Droop-LR STV % GB Vote GB 2PPV Seats % Seats Deviation Seats % Seats Seats Change STV Boost % Seats Deviation Conservative 26.7% 51% 315 49.1% +22.4% 194 30.3% 187 -128 -7 29.2% +2.5% Labour 22.6% 49% 258 40.2% +17.7% 173 27.0% 172 -86 -1 26.8% +4.2% UKIP 16.2% 20 3.1% -13.0% 113 17.6% 96 +76 -17 15.0% -1.2% Liberal Democrats 14.9% 32 5.0% -9.9% 113 17.6% 140 +108 +27 21.8% +6.9% Green 6.2% 1 0.2% -6.1% 10 1.6% 17 +16 +7 2.7% -3.6% BNP 4.9% -4.9% 4 0.6% -4 -4.9% Respect 1.5% 2 0.3% -1.2% 2 0.3% 1 -1 -1 0.2% -1.4% SNP 1.4% 8 1.2% -0.2% 19 3.0% 18 +10 -1 2.8% +1.4% Plaid Cymru 1.0% 5 0.8% -0.2% 9 1.4% 8 +3 -1 1.2% +0.3% English Democrats 0.8% -0.8% -0.8% Scottish Socialist 0.4% -0.4% 2 0.3% 1 +1 -1 0.2% -0.2% Martin Bell 0.6% -0.6% 1 0.2% -1 -0.6% Neil Herron 0.2% -0.2% 1 0.2% 1 +1 0 0.2% -0.1% Others 2.6% -2.6% -2.6%
* A combination of estimates based on comparing performance in the smallest possible coterminous region of local authorities at EP2004 and parliamentary constituencies at GE2005 for England (outside London) and Wales and actual results counted to Westminster constituencies for Scotland and London. Headline First-Terminal Second Preferences
As per 2005 General Election
Regional Distribution of Seats
% Vote STV Seats Con Lab LD Nat UKIP Grn BNP Resp SSP Oth Con Lab LD Nat UKIP Grn BNP Resp SSP Oth North East England 19% 34% 18% 12% 5% 6% 1% 5% 8 12 6 3 1 North West England 24% 27% 16% 12% 6% 6% 1% 8% 23 25 20 8 Yorkshire and the Humber 25% 26% 16% 15% 6% 8% 2% 3% 16 17 13 9 1 East Midlands 26% 21% 13% 26% 5% 7% 1% 0% 12 10 9 13 West Midlands 27% 23% 14% 17% 5% 8% 2% 3% 19 16 9 14 1 East of England 31% 16% 14% 20% 6% 4% 1% 9% 18 12 13 12 1 South East England 35% 14% 15% 20% 8% 3% 1% 5% 33 12 17 17 4 South West England 32% 14% 18% 23% 7% 3% 1% 2% 18 6 11 11 5 London 27% 25% 15% 12% 8% 4% 5% 4% 21 24 17 8 3 1 Scotland 18% 26% 13% 20% 7% 7% 2% 5% 3% 10 23 18 18 2 1 Wales 19% 32% 10% 17% 11% 4% 3% 1% 3% 9 15 7 8 1
2009 European Election
The 2009 European election was, in many respects, the 2004 European elections turned up to eleven – continuing many of the trends seen five years earlier, with four in ten voters now opting to vote for ‘others’, as well as being the peak of many minor parties and the far-right BNP. It’s also a result that FPTP absolutely could not have handled – allocating 42% of seats incorrectly relative to a pure PR system. The Conservatives would have taken a huge majority from 28% of the vote, while second-placed UKIP would have won just 18 MPs – nearly half that of the seventh-placed SNP who won just an eighth of UKIP’s number of votes.
The STV result is far fairer but is still skewed quite a bit due to the fact that 8% of voters opted to vote for minor parties who secured fairly flat and very low shares of the vote across the country – far too low to even have a chance under a low district magnitude system like STV. Excusing this, the result is a far better reflection of votes cast than FPTP – though with preference votes again affecting the allocation of a few seats. As per 2004, the Lib Dems secured a sizeable preference boost, though this time more at the expense of Labour than UKIP. But the big story of EP2009 was always going to be the BNP – a far-right party that has caused some worry about in relation to PR systems. But, even with them winning 6% of the vote, STV’s preferential qualities would be able to near-prevent their representation. Their inability to attract second preferences, even from hard-right parties, means it would be near-impossible for them to win seats where they did not secure at least 85% of the quota on first-preference votes.
FPTP* Droop-LR STV % GB Vote GB 2PPV Seats % Seats Deviation Seats % Seats Seats Change STV Boost % Seats Deviation Conservative 27.7% 60% 59% 363 57.4% +29.7% 202 32.0% 206 -157 +4 32.6% +4.9% UKIP 16.5% 40% 18 2.8% -13.7% 121 19.1% 112 +94 -9 17.7% +1.2% Labour 15.7% 41% 158 25.0% +9.3% 120 19.0% 103 -55 -17 16.3% +0.6% Liberal Democrats 13.7% 51 8.1% -5.7% 107 16.9% 141 +90 +34 22.3% +8.6% Green 8.6% 3 0.5% -8.1% 33 5.2% 37 +34 +4 5.9% -2.8% BNP 6.2% -6.2% 15 2.4% 2 +2 -13 0.3% -5.9% SNP 2.1% 33 5.2% +3.1% 22 3.5% 20 -13 -2 3.2% +1.0% English Democrats 1.8% -1.8% -1.8% Christian/CPA 1.6% -1.6% -1.6% Socialist Labour 1.1% -1.1% -1.1% No2EU 1.0% -1.0% -1.0% Plaid Cymru 0.8% 6 0.9% +0.1% 11 1.7% 10 +4 -1 1.6% +0.7% Jan Jananayagam 0.3% -0.3% 1 0.2% 1 +1 0 0.2% -0.2% Others 2.8% -2.8% -2.8%
* Estimates based on comparing performance in the smallest possible coterminous region of local authorities at EP2009 and parliamentary constituencies at GE2010. Headline First-Terminal Second Preferences
Conservative Labour Lib Dem Nationalist UKIP Green Other Eng Sco Wal Eng Sco Wal Eng Sco Wal SNP PC Eng Wal Eng Sco BNP ED Christ N2EU Conservative - - - 10.0% 7.5% 7.5% 20.0% 15.0% 15.0% 7.5% 12.5% 37.5% 32.5% 15.0% 7.5% 32.5% 20.0% 45.0% 5.0% Labour 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% - - - 30.0% 25.0% 22.5% 22.5% 27.5% 10.0% 10.0% 30.0% 22.5% 7.5% 7.5% 10.0% 37.5% Lib Dem 45.0% 32.5% 32.5% 40.0% 35.0% 32.5% - - - 30.0% 32.5% 22.5% 20.0% 45.0% 35.0% 15.0% 12.5% 12.5% 25.0% SNP/PC - 12.5% 12.5% - 20.0% 25.0% - 20.0% 20.0% - - - 10.0% - 30.0% - - UKIP 27.5% 25.0% 25.0% 12.5% 10.0% 7.5% 10.0% 7.5% 7.5% 5.0% 5.0% - - 7.5% 5.0% 32.5% 37.5% 17.5% 7.5% Green 12.5% 17.5% 17.5% 32.5% 27.5% 25.0% 37.5% 32.5% 32.5% 32.5% 20.0% 12.5% 10.0% - - 12.5% 5.0% 10.0% 22.5% BNP 7.5% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 0.0% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 17.5% 17.5% 2.5% 0.0% - 17.5% 5.0% 2.5%
Regional Distribution of Seats
% Vote STV Seats Con Lab LD Nat UKIP Grn BNP Oth Con Lab LD Nat UKIP Grn BNP Oth North East England 20% 25% 18% 15% 6% 9% 11% 8 9 7 5 North West England 26% 20% 14% 16% 8% 8% 11% 23 17 16 16 3 Yorkshire and the Humber 24% 19% 13% 17% 9% 10% 11% 17 11 13 13 3 1 East Midlands 30% 17% 12% 16% 7% 9% 11% 17 7 13 9 West Midlands 28% 17% 12% 21% 6% 9% 9% 20 12 11 14 1 1 East of England 31% 10% 14% 20% 9% 6% 12% 23 5 12 12 6 South East England 35% 8% 14% 19% 12% 4% 10% 35 3 19 19 8 South West England 30% 8% 17% 22% 9% 4% 11% 20 1 14 14 6 London 27% 21% 14% 11% 11% 5% 13% 23 15 19 8 8 1 Scotland 17% 21% 12% 29% 5% 7% 2% 10% 12 13 12 20 2 Wales 21% 20% 11% 19% 13% 6% 5% 9% 10 10 7 10 3
2014 European Election
The 2014 European election was the first time in over a century that a party other than Labour or the Conservatives won a national election and the first time in history that a party other than the Conservatives, Labour or the Liberals did so – UKIP taking marginally more votes than Labour, with the Conservatives not far behind. Such a close three-party contest poses an interesting test for any constituency-based voting system, especially non-proportional ones such as FPTP. Our projection of EP2014 shows the plurality system clearly failing the test – producing a 14% gulf between Labour and the Conservatives in seat terms, despite just a 1.5% gap in vote.
But, STV also wouldn’t produce an entirely linear relationship between votes and seats, with Labour being able to take 28 more MPs than first-placed UKIP. But because of its transferable working, there is an innocent explanation for this. Vote efficiency is partially at play here – as can be seen in the FPTP and Droop-LR projections, Labour’s vote was more effectively distributed than UKIP’s. But it is the preference vote that gives them the final edge. The Lib Dems and the Greens are in the weird 5-10% zone that gets them some seats under STV but sees them eliminated in most constituencies. Once eliminated, these votes are redistributed – disproportionately towards Labour. This means that in many Con vs Lab or UKIP vs Lab contests for the final seat, Lib Dem and Green preferences help push Labour over the line. Here, STV is helping prevent a split vote problem which can occur under either FPTP or Droop-LR – securing a fairer balance between the progressive and non-progressive blocs.
FPTP* Droop-LR STV % GB Vote GB 2PPV Seats % Seats Deviation Seats % Seats Seats Change STV Boost % Seats Deviation UKIP 27.5% 46% 219 34.7% +7.2% 201 31.8% 180 -39 -21 28.5% +1.0% Labour 25.4% 54% 50% 231 36.6% +11.1% 201 31.8% 208 -23 +7 32.9% +7.5% Conservative 23.9% 50% 145 22.9% -1.0% 168 26.6% 172 +27 +4 27.2% +3.3% Green 7.9% 2 0.3% -7.5% 16 2.5% 28 +26 +12 4.4% -3.4% Liberal Democrats 6.9% 4 0.6% -6.2% 19 3.0% 17 +13 -2 2.7% -4.2% SNP 2.5% 26 4.1% +1.7% 20 3.2% 19 -7 -1 3.0% +0.5% AIFE 1.5% -1.5% -1.5% BNP 1.1% -1.1% -1.1% English Democrats 0.8% -0.8% -0.8% Plaid Cymru 0.7% 5 0.8% +0.1% 7 1.1% 8 +3 +1 1.3% +0.6% Others 1.9% -1.9% -1.9%
* Estimates based on comparing performance in the smallest possible coterminous region of local authorities at EP2014 and parliamentary constituencies at GE2015. Headline First-Terminal Second Preferences
Conservative Labour Lib Dem Nationalist UKIP Green Other Eng Sco Wal Eng Sco Wal Eng Sco Wal SNP PC Eng Sco Wal Eng Sco Wal BNP Conservative - - - 7.5% 10.0% 5.0% 27.5% 25.0% 25.0% 5.0% 10.0% 55.0% 40.0% 50.0% 12.5% 5.0% 5.0% 20.0% Labour 15.0% 22.5% 10.0% - - - 32.5% 35.0% 22.5% 27.5% 32.5% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 55.0% 32.5% 37.5% 17.5% Lib Dem 32.5% 30.0% 25.0% 17.5% 17.5% 10.0% - - - 7.5% 15.0% 2.5% 5.0% 2.5% 30.0% 12.5% 20.0% 2.5% SNP/PC - 5.0% 17.5% - 22.5% 35.0% - 10.0% 20.0% - - - 20.0% 12.5% - 47.5% 35.0% - UKIP 35.0% 25.0% 35.0% 12.5% 7.5% 12.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 5.0% 5.0% - - 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 50.0% Green 17.5% 17.5% 12.5% 60.0% 42.5% 37.5% 37.5% 27.5% 30.0% 55.0% 37.5% 15.0% 7.5% 10.0% - - - 10.0% BNP 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.5% 7.5% 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -
Regional Distribution of Seats
% Vote STV Seats Con Lab LD Nat UKIP Grn Oth Con Lab LD Nat UKIP Grn Oth North East England 18% 36% 6% 29% 5% 6% 6 13 9 1 North West England 20% 34% 6% 27% 7% 6% 16 31 2 23 3 Yorkshire and the Humber 19% 29% 6% 31% 8% 6% 12 20 2 17 3 East Midlands 26% 25% 5% 33% 6% 5% 14 16 16 West Midlands 24% 27% 6% 31% 5% 7% 17 19 21 2 East of England 28% 17% 7% 34% 8% 5% 18 14 2 23 1 South East England 31% 15% 8% 32% 9% 5% 31 18 4 29 2 South West England 29% 14% 11% 32% 11% 3% 18 10 3 19 5 London 23% 37% 7% 17% 9% 8% 20 33 1 10 9 Scotland 17% 26% 7% 29% 10% 8% 2% 12 21 3 19 2 2 Wales 17% 28% 4% 15% 28% 5% 3% 8 13 8 11
2019 European Election
With less than a quarter of voters opting for Labour or the Conservatives, the 2019 European elections are likely the answer if you were asking what the irreducible minimum of support is for the big-two parties in Britain. It’s also a great example of the irresponsibility of FPTP. Repeated in a Westminster election, these numbers would give the Brexit Party nearly two-thirds of seats on less than one-third of votes. Given the present British political system, that is a lot of power potentially handed to a divisive populist party that more than twice as many voters voted against than for. Some significant parties would also return negligible representation – the Greens taking just 9 seats on 1 in 8 votes and the Conservatives being left with nothing on 9%.
As ever, our trusty hero STV is here to sort out the mess – reducing the disproportionality and securing fairer levels of representation for all significant parties. The Brexit Party would remain clearly the largest party and with a small overrepresentation, though their limited secondary popularity would cost them a number of seats they would have won under Droop-LR. The Lib Dems and the Greens would be main capturers of these lost seats due to their higher levels of favourability – with the latter even able to leapfrog over Labour into third place. Labour, though taking few additional seats over FPTP, would have been able to spread their MPs better across the country – their plurality seats being near-exclusively in large cities. The Conservatives would be able to take a sizeable chunk of seats, particularly in the south, though their position in the awkward 5-10% zone makes their underrepresentation unsurprising. The SNP and Plaid would see more proportionate levels of representation in their respective countries and Change UK may have been able to take a single MP from 3%. In all, a fairer result.
FPTP* Droop-LR STV % GB Vote GB 2PPV Seats % Seats Deviation Seats % Seats Seats Change STV Boost % Seats Deviation Brexit 31.6% 41% 418 66.1% +34.6% 248 39.2% 207 -211 -41 32.8% +1.2% Liberal Democrats 20.3% 59% 78 12.3% -7.9% 146 23.1% 166 +88 +20 26.3% +6.0% Labour 14.1% 50% 65 10.3% -3.8% 88 13.9% 88 +23 0 13.9% -0.2% Green 12.1% 9 1.4% -10.7% 72 11.4% 99 +90 +27 15.7% +3.6% Conservative 9.1% 50% -9.1% 40 6.3% 34 +34 -6 5.4% -3.7% SNP 3.6% 56 8.9% +5.3% 27 4.3% 26 -30 -1 4.1% +0.5% Change UK 3.4% -3.4% 1 +1 +1 0.2% -3.3% UKIP 3.3% -3.3% -3.3% Plaid Cymru 1.0% 6 0.9% -0.0% 11 1.7% 11 +5 0 1.7% +0.8% Others 1.6% -1.6% -1.6%
* Estimates based on analysis by Professor Chris Hanretty available from: medium.com/@chrishanretty/ep2019-results-mapped-onto-westminster-constituencies-8a2a6ed14146. Headline First-Terminal Second Preferences
Conservative Labour Lib Dem Nationalist Green Brexit Other Eng Sco Wal Eng Sco Wal Eng Sco Wal SNP PC Eng Sco Wal Eng Sco Wal UKIP ChUK Conservative - - 5.0% 5.0% 2.5% 12.5% 17.5% 10.0% 2.5% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 5.0% 52.5% 55.0% 45.0% 22.5% 22.5% Labour 7.5% 10.0% 5.0% - - - 17.5% 22.5% 12.5% 10.0% 20.0% 42.5% 20.0% 37.5% 5.0% 5.0% 7.5% 7.5% 12.5% Lib Dem 30.0% 40.0% 25.0% 22.5% 22.5% 17.5% - - - 17.5% 20.0% 37.5% 20.0% 20.0% 2.5% 5.0% 2.5% 2.5% 32.5% SNP/PC - 2.5% 15.0% - 22.5% 27.5% - 10.0% 22.5% - - - 47.5% 30.0% - 7.5% 10.0% - - UKIP 7.5% 5.0% 5.0% 2.5% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 22.5% 17.5% 22.5% - 0.0% Green 22.5% 15.0% 17.5% 57.5% 37.5% 45.0% 55.0% 35.0% 40.0% 62.5% 42.5% - - - 12.5% 7.5% 10.0% 7.5% 30.0% Brexit 22.5% 20.0% 27.5% 5.0% 2.5% 2.5% 0.0% 2.5% 0.0% 2.5% 5.0% 2.5% 0.0% 2.5% - - - 55.0% 2.5% ChUK 10.0% 7.5% 5.0% 7.5% 7.5% 5.0% 15.0% 12.5% 15.0% 5.0% 5.0% 10.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 2.5% 2.5% 5.0% -
Regional Distribution of Seats
% Vote STV Seats Con Lab LD Nat Brx Grn UKIP ChUK Oth Con Lab LD Nat Brx Grn UKIP ChUK Oth North East England 7% 19% 17% 39% 8% 6% 4% 1 7 7 13 1 North West England 8% 22% 17% 31% 12% 4% 3% 3% 2 19 18 25 11 Yorkshire and the Humber 7% 16% 16% 36% 13% 4% 2% 5% 1 9 13 22 9 East Midlands 11% 14% 17% 38% 11% 5% 3% 1% 1 7 13 20 5 West Midlands 10% 17% 16% 38% 11% 5% 3% 4 12 13 23 7 East of England 10% 9% 23% 38% 13% 3% 4% 1% 5 2 14 25 12 South East England 10% 7% 26% 36% 14% 2% 4% 1% 10 1 24 30 19 South West England 9% 6% 23% 37% 18% 3% 3% 1% 4 16 21 14 London 8% 24% 27% 18% 12% 2% 5% 3% 3 19 25 10 15 1 Scotland 12% 9% 14% 38% 15% 8% 2% 2% 1% 3 6 14 26 5 5 Wales 7% 15% 14% 20% 32% 6% 3% 3% 6 9 11 13 1