THE MANY, NOT THE FEW P R O P O R T I O N A L R E P R E S E N T A T I O N & L A B O U R I N T H E 2 1 s t C E N T U R Y " is not just a means to an end. Democracy is a value in itself. And if we treasure that value, we need to provide a more democratic system for the centrepiece of our own political structure."

-

The Labour Campaign for (LCER) is an organisation of like-minded Labour members formed with the aim of changing Labour Party policy to support Proportional Representation and wider electoral reform.

Make Votes Matter (MVM) is the cross-party campaign to introduce Proportional Representation for the House of Commons, led by democratically-organised activists in a united movement for electoral reform.

Make Votes Matter does not endorse or support any party or alliance of parties, but aims to encourage all parties, organisations and individuals to support the use of a proportional voting system for General so that Parliament reflects the voters.

This report is based on literature review and research carried out by MVM and LCER activists who are Labour Party members, in order to make arguments for Proportional Representation of particular relevance to the Labour movement and to proponents of left wing or progressive political ideologies. The report does not represent an endorsement of these or any other political ideology on the part of Make Votes Matter.

Acknowledgements Many thanks to Mary Southcott and Martin Linton, in particular for allowing the liberal use of their writing on this issue, particularly with regards to the second section: First Past the Post is bad for Labour and bad for Democracy. A special thanks to Joe Sousek for his work.

Many thanks also to John Denham, Lewis Baston, Anne Campbell, Jo Dungey, Mary Honeyball, Patrick Vernon, Graham Allen, Richard Kuper, Jonathan Hopkins and Fair Vote Canada - all of whose work has been vital to the writing of this report.

Make Votes Matter would like to thank the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, Network for Social Change, Mark and Marian Tucker, George Ferguson, John Cochrane, Ian Merricks, and all of the supporters and activists who make the campaign possible. T H E M A N Y , N O T T H E F E W 0 2

THE MANY, NOT THE FEW

Proportional Representation & Labour in the 21st Century

C O N T E N T S

03 Foreword by Cat Smith, Shadow Minister for Voter Engagement & Youth Affairs, and Parliamentary colleagues 05 Executive Summary 09 First Past the Post has become indefensible 11 FPTP is bad for Labour and bad for democracy 15 The answer is Proportional Representation 19 Proportional Representation will strengthen progressive politics 23 Proportional Representation will enable us to build a good society 29 The time is now 0 3 T H E M A N Y , N O T T H E F E W

FOREWORD

“...by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few.”

- Clause IV, Aims and Values of the Labour Party

It is impossible to explain the outbreak of that had until then been used only by the democracy in 20th Century Britain without privileged few. By representing the newly- discussing the rise of the Labour Party. We enfranchised masses it was able to sometimes imagine the as reshape British society in the interests of an ancient and pioneering democracy, but the many, not the few. until relatively recently the country was nothing we would today recognise as But the pre-democratic voting system was democratic. Until 1918, most of the adult never properly reformed. Today, a great population were not allowed to vote, and deal of the Many have found themselves no women were. The House of Commons all but excluded from political decision- was an instrument for managing the making by an electoral system designed population, not a means of representing it. for the 19th Century.

Things changed. Just three and a half 76% of Labour voters now say we should million propertied men could vote in the commit to changing our voting system to 1900 General , which returned two Proportional Representation. Labour MPs. Forty-five years later, more than twenty-five million men and women New polling of Labour voters has found had the right to vote, and they elected the that an overwhelming majority would Labour Government that created the NHS, support replacing our current First Past the established the welfare state, built a Post system with a form of Proportional million new homes and enshrined workers’ Representation. 76% of Labour voters said rights that are now taken for granted. we should commit to making this change, with just 5% opposing. In fact, a majority of The Labour movement achieved this by supporters of every major political party reappropriating the Parliamentary system believe we should switch to PR. T H E M A N Y , N O T T H E F E W 0 4

This report sets out the reasons why the find that their efforts bear greater Labour Party must listen to the wisdom of this fruit than those who do so under winner-takes- majority and commit to Proportional all systems like ours. Representation in our manifesto. It is no exaggeration to say that in the 21st The most obvious of these reasons are to do Century, Proportional Representation is a with the way our voting system denies most prerequisite of a properly-functioning people a real say about who represents them democracy in which power, wealth and and how they are governed. By limiting voter opportunity are in the hands of the many, not choice and distorting representation at local, the few. regional and national levels, the system forces voters and parties alike to put tactics before It once again falls to the Labour Party to play a principles. This inevitably breeds cynicism and crucial role in transforming the terms on which alienation, and it produces Parliaments that democracy is conducted by supporting this don’t reflect the people. historic change. In doing so, Labour will find an electorate re-enfranchised. It will find activists Countries which use PR are much more and members across the country re- likely to be the kind of social democracies empowered to organise and use political power that we in the Labour Party want to create to shape a good society. We will find ourselves welcomed by allies, thanked by voters, and What is less well-known is that there’s a lauded by history. substantial body of evidence showing that countries which use PR are much more likely We hope you will consider the arguments and to be the kind of social democracies that we evidence in this report and we look forward to in the Labour Party want to create. They have the debate. significantly better income equality than Signed countries with systems like our own. They are more likely to be welfare states, more likely to Cat Smith MP, Shadow Minister for share out public goods equally, and are more Voter Engagement and Youth Affairs likely to take action on climate change. Richard Burden MP, Shadow Minister for Transport Workers, activists, parties and trade unions all have to fight for these things, wherever they Jon Cruddas MP are in the world. But it is becoming Paul Flynn MP increasingly clear that those who fight for Mary Honeyball MEP justice and equality in proportional Stephen Kinnock MP Clive Lewis MP 0 5 T H E M A N Y , N O T T H E F E W

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

FIRST PAST THE POST HAS Ignoring unwinnable seats demoralises BECOME INDEFENSIBLE Constituency Labour Parties and gives them no reason to campaign. De-prioritising unwinnable A critical review of First Past the Post reveals and safe seats disillusions voters who have neither that it fails to perform even the most basic incentive nor encouragement to vote for us or for tasks expected of a voting system. It is, for anyone. Labour supporters in many regions resort example, unable to guarantee that a party to voting tactically for parties they do not believe in, receiving the most votes wins the most seats. artificially depressing Labour’s vote share. In our elections major parties routinely gain Exaggerated, polarised heartlands develop, votes but lose seats or lose votes but gain seats, encouraging parties to become complacent and meaning that political power is divorced from unresponsive in the areas in which they are public support. strongest.

Our parliaments and governments have This cycle cannot be broken without abolishing become less and less representative, as an FPTP, because while it remains the marginal electorate that has long voted for a growing targeting strategy is the only way that elections can number of parties collides with a voting be won. system that can only adequately accommodate two. The present Conservative THE ANSWER IS PROPORTIONAL government won less than 37 per cent of the REPRESENTATION vote, meaning it has the worst mandate of any PR simply means that seats match votes, and majority government in the OECD. Meanwhile that every vote matters. This is how most a quarter of all votes in 2015 went to parties countries do democracy. At least 80 per cent that now share just 1.5 per cent of MPs of the thirty-five OECD nations use some form between them. of PR [1], and this percentage is growing over time as countries become more democratic. FPTP has become indefensible because it fails to ensure that representatives reflect the With PR, the irrational effects of FPTP choices of the electorate at a local, regional or disappear, as does the distinction between national level. marginal seats and safe seats. The problems associated with the marginal targeting FPTP IS BAD FOR LABOUR strategy would therefore be neutralised and a AND BAD FOR DEMOCRACY broader approach that values every voter and every party member equally could be adopted Winning General Elections under FPTP in its place. requires the targeting of swing voters in marginal constituencies. The logic of this PR countries consistently achieve better gender targeting harms every aspect of democratic balance in politics, and encourage fairer and political life in the UK. BAME representation. There is T H E M A N Y , N O T T H E F E W 0 6

consensus that PR increases voter turnout and engagement. Citizens KEY FINDINGS OF THIS REPORT of PR countries are more satisfied with their democracies, and At least 80 per cent of OECD nations use some form of independent assessments that PR [1]; this percentage is growing over time. identify the world’s most PR enables better gender and BAME representation in democratic countries find that the politics; every country with more than 40% women in its vast majority of top performers use main legislative chamber uses PR. PR, including all of the world’s top Countries with proportional systems experience higher five democracies. turnout and political engagement, and the world’s best performing democracies all use PR. PR WILL STRENGTHEN PR enables progressive politics. Evidence shows that PROGRESSIVE POLITICS FPTP countries tend to have right-wing governments for Not only is PR healthier for our most of the time, while PR tends to produce more democracy, it actually enables the progressive, left-leaning governments. development of strong A majority voted for parties to the left of the progressive politics. Evidence Conservatives in thirteen of the last sixteen UK General suggests that FPTP has a tendency Elections, yet we have had Conservative majority to produce right-wing governments for most of this period. governments, while PR tends to PR will enable us to build a good society; evidence produce progressive, left-leaning suggests a causal relationship between proportional governments more often. voting systems and many progressive and socialist outcomes. Political scientists attribute this There is a causal link between PR voting systems and effect of FPTP to the necessity it low income inequality. creates of managing and Countries with PR are more likely to be welfare states, appealing to a diverse range of commit almost five per cent more to social expenditure, lower and middle income groups have higher scores on metrics of human development, from a single left-wing electoral and a more equitable distribution of public goods. platform. Under PR, diverse Countries with PR have better environmental laws and progressive groups are represented in proportion to their more effective action on climate change. support whether they unite Proportional democracies outperform majoritarian before an election or after one, democracies when it comes to decisiveness and long- and the representatives of the term policy-making. lower and middle income groups Democracies with FPTP are significantly more likely to will ordinarily have a mutual go to war than those with PR. interest in working together to defend their voters from the higher income group's interests. 0 7 T H E M A N Y , N O T T H E F E W

When we look back to past UK elections we Countries with PR have better environmental discover that a majority voted for parties to protections and more effective action on climate the left of the Conservatives in thirteen of change. In the UK, for years FPTP stopped the the last sixteen General Elections. Yet we Green Party from seriously threatening Labour’s have had Conservative majority Parliamentary seats, despite drawing votes away governments for most of this time. With from us across the country, so Labour PR, past governments would have been governments have had no electoral incentive to more progressive and the Thatcher era, for implement effective climate change policies. example, simply could not have happened. On the basis of these findings, we conclude that P R W I L L E N A B L E U S T O proportional democracies in fact outperform B U I L D A G O O D S O C I E T Y majoritarian countries when it comes to decisiveness and long-term policy-making. The vast majority of those societies with features that Labour would wish to emulate Finally, we note that developed democracies with in the UK use systems of PR, and a body of FPTP are significantly more likely to go to war. PR evidence suggests a causal relationship countries require broader consensus before they between proportional voting systems and may be lead into conflict by the executive. many of the progressive and socialist principles that we value. THE TIME IS NOW

Research identifies a specific causal link Our support for Proportional Representation is between PR voting systems and low income now vital if we are to show we are serious about inequality, explaining it in terms of taxation democratising our society and putting trust in the and redistribution policies following from voters. It would change the landscape of British wider public access to the political power politics for the better in the long-term, and offer required to put them in place. Countries voters the chance to vote for this important with PR are more likely to be welfare states, change in the coming General Election. have almost five per cent more social expenditure, have higher scores on metrics of human development, and a more equitable distribution of public goods. This can be illustrated by comparing the UK and management of its now depleted oil wealth with the approach taken by proportional Norway. The former used its oil windfall to temporarily reduce taxes; the latter established the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund under public ownership.

0 9 T H E M A N Y , N O T T H E F E W

F I R S T P A S T T H E P O S T H A S The minimum needed to win a seat B E C O M E I N D E F E N S I B L E falls as the number of parties grows rties o pa Under our current First Past As a result, most MPs received Tw the Post voting system the a minority of votes cast in their country is divided into constituency. For example, the constituencies, each of which Belfast South MP received just elects one MP. Voters put a 24.5 per cent, with over three cross next to their preferred quarters of those who turned 50% + 1 vote needed to win candidate. The votes are out to vote represented by s counted, and the single someone they did not vote for. artie ee p candidate with the largest Thr number of votes is elected to This is not a criticism of the House of Commons. individual MPs. It is simply the collision of an increasingly FPTP arguably performs diverse electorate with a voting adequately when there are just system that is mathematically 33.3% + 1 vote to win two candidates standing in incapable of ensuring their each constituency. The winner views are accurately rties r pa will receive more than half of represented in Parliament. Fou the votes cast. MPs may do a fine job of But as soon as you add a third helping constituents with candidate, this changes. personal problems, regardless Instead of needing half the of how they voted. They can votes plus one to win, it is speak for the community when 25% + 1 vote to win possible for a candidate to win defending a local industry or ties par with just one third of the vote expressing grief after a tragedy. Five plus one. When four But MPs cannot represent the candidates stand for a seat, view of all their constituents on the minimum winning national issues, because they threshold drops further: to 25 represent people who hold per cent plus one vote. When diverse and contradictory there are five candidates, it views. 20% + 1 vote to win drops to 20 per cent plus one ies vote, and so on. art The Conservative Party Six p received 36.9 per cent of the In the 2015 General Election, vote, the weakest democratic an average of 6.1 candidates stood in each constituency, mandate of any majority from seven major political government in the OECD. parties in Great Britain alone. 16.7% + 1 vote to win T H E M A N Y , N O T T H E F E W 1 0

On a national level, the cent. But FPTP rewarded them parties. It is not pessimism or representation of parties is with a “landslide victory”, with party-political point scoring to grossly distorted. The their Parliamentary majority make this observation. It is Conservative Party received increasing by 38 seats. simply the unmistakable 36.9 per cent of the vote in long-term trend since the 2015. This is the weakest Contrast this with 2015, when post-war era. democratic mandate of any Labour gained 1.5 per cent of majority government among the vote, only to lose 26 seats! In 1955, Labour and the the thirty-five OECD nations. In the same election, the Conservatives received over Yet they have effectively 100 Conservatives increased their 96 per cent of all votes per cent of the power. vote share by just 0.8 per cent. between them, and won But instead of losing 26 seats, almost 99 per cent of the In the same election, the SNP they gained 28! seats. The combined vote won half the vote in Scotland, share has since fallen to as but won 95 per cent of the These are not the features little as 65 per cent, while still seats. Likewise on a regional of a functioning democratic holding 87 per cent of the level, 51 per cent voted system. They are features seats. As we saw earlier, the Conservative in South East of a system that is woefully more parties there are, the , but 93 per cent of the unfit for purpose. more the vote can be split, the MPs are now Conservatives. worse the disproportionate FPTP cannot even ensure the and irrational effects become. Meanwhile, the Greens, Liberal correct side wins. The UK and FPTP has become indefensible Democrats and UKIP received Canada have each had two and it is past time that our 24.4 per cent of the vote General Elections since WWII in party acknowledged this. between them. Yet they shared which the party that won most 1.5 per cent of seats. seats did not win the most But in several ways, FPTP Consequently, votes are votes. Two such “wrong winner” causes damage that is much dramatically different in value. elections happened deeper than mere “unfair” consecutively in New Zealand election results. On the one In fact, FPTP severs the link before it scrapped FPTP for a hand, it fundamentally skews between changes in public system of PR. the behaviour of political support for a party and the parties in a way that polarises amount of power that party The electoral college in the US politics, marginalises voters, wields. In most General Presidential elections shares and demoralises activists. On Elections since World War II, the same weakness, which is the other, it reduces the one of the three largest parties why Donald Trump is now likelihood of progressive has either gained votes but lost President despite receiving government and the seats or lost votes but gained almost three million fewer development of an egalitarian seats. votes than Hillary Clinton. society.

For example, in the 1983 All of these problems are We turn now to the impact of election the Conservatives’ vote getting worse, because people the voting system on parties, share dropped by 1.5 per are voting for more and more activists and voters. 1 1 T H E M A N Y , N O T T H E F E W

F P T P I S B A D F O R L A B O U R A N D B A D F O R D E M O C R A C Y

The targeting necessary to win and it is immediately obvious Put another way, if Labour (or elections under our current that the marginal seats that indeed the Conservatives) voting system is destroying might change hands are where adopted the honourable our politics and creating any rational party must focus if approach of spreading our unnecessary polarisation, it is to win elections under this resources evenly across the disillusion and lack of system. An inexorable logic country, giving every voter in engagement. At the root of follows. As John Denham has every constituency an equal this is the clear demarcation explained: share of our attention, it would between safe seats and severely harm our chances of marginal seats that occurs "The logic of the key seats and winning the most seats. Every under First Past the Post. super marginal strategy is that pound spent reaching voters in you construct a politics around Liverpool or Surrey is a pound Safe seats are those in which the interests of a relatively small diverted away from super only one party has a realistic number of swing voters in those marginals like Chester. chance of winning the largest key seats. Under First Past the share of the vote. Around 400 Post, it is logical." Furthermore, the proportion of of the UK’s 650 constituency seats that are marginal has seats are considered safe. In "You employ staff and election rapidly fallen throughout the fact, the average seat has not organisers to win you general modern era. With just 31 key changed hands since the elections and they will tell you marginals - with majorities of 1960s. that is what you need to do. You fewer than 1,000 votes - among want to win the election, these the 650 constituencies, it On the other hand, a much are the two thousand people means 95 per cent of the smaller number of and these are their electorate live in constituencies constituencies are marginal characteristics in each of your 40 where their vote makes no seats. These are those in which key seats that will win you the difference and where parties victories are likely to be election. In one sense you are are unlikely to make much of narrow. There may be three or daft to ignore them." an effort. The effects are even four significant parties in extremely negative all round. some of these seats, but the "I’m not suggesting that there is voting system pushes them something corrupt about it. But THE MEMBERSHIP towards having just two it can narrow the political contenders over time. appeal you make. It can narrow Keeping up the morale of Labour it so much that you say “who Party members in a constituency Under FPTP, parties have no cares who lives in Woking?” Or where there is no possibility of direct electoral incentive to “let’s not look too much at the winning is difficult. There is little maximise their share of the core Labour vote” because point in local parties knocking on vote across the entire country. they’ve not been identified as the doors and people putting up What matters is winning seats, swing voters." posters. T H E M A N Y , N O T T H E F E W 1 2

The central party does very THE VOTERS this statistic does not capture little to support local branches the hopelessness with which The targeting strategy made in rural Hampshire in millions of ordinary, decent necessary by FPTP means that comparison to the marginals, people have come to view our in safe seats there is less and in fact activists from democratic process. incentive for voters to vote and Conservative majority seats Campaigners for electoral less encouragement to do so are frequently bussed to the reform hear time and time from the parties. They are not nearest marginal where their again from people who have made to feel valued because, efforts may have an impact. voted in every General Election electorally speaking, their votes in their lifetime, yet whose vote are of significantly lower value. This de-prioritisation of has never made the slightest These vast electoral deserts no-hope constituencies difference to the way they are now extend across swathes of inevitably leads to represented and how they are rural England, and indeed demoralisation among party governed. across areas of Labour-held activists. “The effect on the cities, where there is no Labour Party membership of Neglecting core supporters is influence on a Conservative targeting super marginals has not sustainable. Many Labour government. been quite devastating”, heartlands have seen writes Anne Campbell. “In In our own majority seats, majorities steadily eroded over active well supported Labour voters become decades, and there comes a constituencies, members are disillusioned, passive, used to point, as in the Copeland by much more likely to feel seeing Labour only at election election or across Scotland in valued and useful and much times, if then. One of the 2015, when a safe seat is more likely to remain perverse effects of FPTP is that suddenly anything but safe. members.” it encourages parties to take their strongest heartlands for This leads to disillusionment, In contrast, constituency granted. If a constituency is which is the perfect breeding parties in unwinnable seats expected to vote Labour come ground for the far right. For a can become intellectual what may, there is no strategic discussion of the implications debating societies where even benefit in listening to the of PR for the far right, see the members who put Labour constituents’ concerns and box below. posters in their windows may responding to them. In the vote tactically. In some areas past it seemed better to focus TACTICALISATION they gradually lose members, on doing this in the leaving a hard core who have constituencies that could go At the time of writing, in the little contact with Labour either way. early stages of campaigning in voters or grasp of the policies for the 2017 General Election, needed to attract them. Some The effect is that people are tactical voting is being of them do not even support turned off from voting. Safe discussed as a significant the reform of the voting Labour seats have had lower theme in newspaper headlines system, which is the real turnouts than marginals in and televised political debates. author of their misfortunes. every election since 1950, but There are at least four major 1 3 T H E M A N Y , N O T T H E F E W

tactical voting initiatives in it is by no means new. In seats Conservative seats because of support of progressive, where Labour has no realistic the Conservative-led coalition centrist, pro-Europe or pro- chance, in third or fourth ironically produced even more Brexit candidates. place, Labour supporters have Conservative MPs. escaped from the futility of Tactical voting, which means voting Labour by voting These observations paid to the voting for a candidate you do tactically. The consequence is claim made by supporters of not really want to win to avoid an artificial depression of FPTP, that their system gives letting in a candidate you Labour’s vote share. The voters a clear choice between strongly oppose, appears to be tactical unwind in 2015 in the effective contenders for more attractive than ever. But Liberal Democrat- government. In much of the

FIRST PAST THE POST, PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION, AND THE FAR RIGHT

As said during the LCER/MVM rally at Labour Party Conference 2016, “you beat UKIP and you beat the BNP by beating them in argument. You don’t beat them by avoiding having the argument at all”. The reasons for this are pragmatic as well as with him. So Wilders goes no further. Unless principled. Depriving right-wing voters of any he is able to quadruple his vote he has no participation in public life is a sure way to prospect of seizing power as Trump has increase resentment. The lack of political done and for as long as his views are activity and low turnout in Labour heartlands deemed extreme by most people, no parties has provided open terrain for the far right. will deal with him.

That winner-takes-all elections are protection Indeed, when the far right wins against extremism has always been false, but representation it often exposes itself as recent events have provided us with a stark unaligned with the interests of its voters, reminder. Donald Trump is US President incompetent, or both. The BNP held two despite getting almost three million fewer seats in the EU Parliament for a single term, votes than Hillary Clinton. The alienation but rather than gaining a foothold they were that led people to vote for him has all the thrown out by the voters at the next election. hallmarks of a disenfranchised and FPTP is the only voting system that unrepresented population. consistently hands total power to the Compare this to “rise of the right” in representatives of a minority. No party in proportional Holland. Geert Wilders’ party the UK is a great danger if its power is came second, winning 13 per cent of the proportional to its support. But history votes and seats in their recent General suggests that any party can behave Election. Before the vote, it was clear he dangerously when handed total power. would get nowhere near power. All the other PR is our best defence against the risk of parties had already ruled out a coalition deal domination by extreme or right-wing voices. T H E M A N Y , N O T T H E F E W 1 4

country, voters simply have and loses credibility as a serious If the danger in Conservative no way of expressing a choice contender for the seat. safe seats is that we are absent, between Labour and in our own safe seats the Conservative. Their only This peculiar bias produced by danger is complacency. For meaningful choice is between FPTP means that party decision- years Labour members have Conservative and Liberal makers, MPs and Shadow become accustomed to winning Democrat, SNP and Green, Cabinets almost all come from some elections with very little and so on, if they are lucky safe seats in Labour heartlands effort and it is inevitable that enough to live somewhere and cities. For Labour this used winning too easily will lead their vote matters at all. to include Scotland too, but no some to complacency or longer. The party may try to POLARISATION arrogance. Scotland is the prime compensate for this, but the example of what can happen if FPTP has been said to lead to positions of power are usually this goes unchecked. The 2014 what is sometimes called a held by MPs representing safe Independence referendum was north/south polarisation, but seats and these will inevitably the catalyst, but Labour was that is not entirely accurate. see issues through the prism of unable to hold its seats because Rural areas, even in the North their constituents’ interests. The it had unengaged from many of of England, have become more Conservatives are the mirror the local voters. Conservative. The most image of this. We consequently accurate description is that it tend to get swings in policy Little of practical value can be is a polarisation into areas in favouring our regions when we done to address this within the which each party is are in power and favouring the current system. A national party predominant. As a rule, rural and suburban south when that is serious about winning predominantly Labour areas the Conservatives are. under FPTP must identify and have become more Labour THE PARTY ruthlessly target the marginal and predominantly seats to the detriment of those Conservative areas more The effect on the party is it does not deem to be targets. Conservative - with some destructive. As Lewis Baston The only long term solution to notable exceptions. commented: "By fighting on a this imbalance is to change the narrower and narrower front, system so that votes matter FPTP does not cause this Labour has moved once again equally wherever they are cast. regional cleavage, but it from representing the people - exaggerates it. In broadly defined - to ignoring On the other hand, we almost predominantly Conservative millions of them because they live certainly underestimateour areas in the south, Labour in suburban Surrey or inner city support both in traditional supporters see no point in Manchester. The electoral system Labour areas and inareas we voting for candidates who is failing the Labour doubt we can win. Switching to have no chance of success. Party in its traditional mission of PR would create the opportunity They switch to supporting a building an equal society, and the for parties, members and voters closer contender, who in turn modernisers’ mission of building a to play a far more positive role gains further prominence. genuine people’s party with broad in political life. Labour falls further behind and deep electoral support." 1 5 T H E M A N Y , N O T T H E F E W

THE ANSWER IS PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

Proportional Representation disproportional systems and It is, in short, progress. means that Parliament is a towards increasingly reflection of the votes cast by proportional ones, with the With any such system of PR, the the people. The share of seats following countries scrapping gross disproportionality and a party wins reflects the share FPTP for a form of PR: Belgium irrationality we see in our own of the vote they receive. (1899), the Netherlands (1917), Parliament would instantly Germany (1918), Denmark disappear. Parties receiving a There are a number of ways in (1920), Ireland (1921), Malta large minority of the vote will which this can be achieved (1921), Cyprus (1981), New not be handed the power of a (see systems and constituency Zealand (1996) and South Parliamentary majority; nor will links). These options have Africa (1994). The Scottish those who vote for smaller been designed, implemented, Parliament and Welsh parties be denied trialed and adjusted in many Assembly have both used representation. Every vote other countries for over a systems of PR since their would be equal. If a party hundred years. There are creation in 1999, as has the increases its share of the vote, tried-and-tested systems that Northern Ireland Assembly in it will be guaranteed an maintain a strong constituency its current and previous forms. increased share of the seats, link, that allow voters to vote and likewise it would lose seats for candidates rather than This is the normal way the when it loses votes. For the first parties, and that give voters developed world does time in British electoral history, vastly greater choice when democracy. Among the we could say with certainty that casting their votes. What they thirty-five nations of the whichever party gets most all have in common is that OECD, at least 80 per cent votes in a General Election they make seats match votes, use some form of PR. would win the largest number and in doing so they make all of seats. votes matter equally. The Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) It is equally easy to see how It is worth taking a moment to found that 31 countries had this solves all at once the reflect that this is the normal changed their electoral system problems we detailed in the way the developed world does over a 20 year period. Of these, previous section. When every democracy. Among the 27 increased the level vote matters, safe seats and thirty-five nations of the OECD, of proportionality, while just marginals no longer factor into at least 80 per cent use some one (Madagascar) reduced election campaigning. Parties form of PR. Of those countries it. World-wide, the move would be incentivised to that do not, just three use First towards greater proportionality campaign everywhere and for Past the Post , two of which of electoral systems is as everyone’s support. The are ex-colonies of the UK. unmistakable as the trend activism of Labour Party toward the extension of the members in Somerset would The international trend is for franchise to women and have identical value to the countries to move away from minority groups. same work in Chester. As a T H E M A N Y , N O T T H E F E W 1 6

result, constituency parties explains: “the moment there is The same logic applies to BAME would be reinvigorated. We more than one place to be filled, representation. Patrick Vernon would need to keep all our parties can nominate candidates suggests in particular that the core voters happy in our who complement each other by marginal targeting strategy, heartlands, or risk taking a appealing to different sections of “also helps explain why there is smaller share of the votes and the electorate. Indeed failing to not the confidence to field more therefore of the power. do so is likely to lose them support BAME candidates in safe and from any significant group which increasingly marginal seats… the With PR, voters would not find considers itself neglected.” current voting system means that themselves having to calculate who can realistically win and SYSTEMS AND CONSTITUENCY LINKS vote tactically for the lesser of Under FPTP, everyone has a single local MP - but for millions two evils. The country would of people this is someone they profoundly disagree with. In no longer be polarised into Cornwall, for example, 57 per cent of people did not vote Labour and Conservative Conservative in 2015. But everyone in Cornwall is areas. Voters for minority represented by a Conservative MP. parties in those areas would be represented in proportion Systems of PR use multi-member constituencies as well as to their votes. (or instead of) the current single-member constituencies, so that several representatives are elected to reflect the balance There is strong evidence that of opinion in a region. In Cornwall, Labour and other parties PR enhances democracy in a would have MPs in proportion to their vote, so most voters host of other respects. would have an MP who shares their values and views.

PR can keep the current one-to-one link so every Eight academic studies of constituency is represented by a single MP, with “top-up lists” which we are aware identify a used to make sure seats match votes across a region. This is trend for countries with PR to called the Additional Member System and is used in Scotland, produce a better gender Wales and the Assembly, Germany and New Zealand. balance in politics [2]. On the other hand, FPTP has been Other forms systems of PR use only multi-member described by the Electoral constituencies, including the Single Transferable Vote (used Reform Society as “the world’s in Ireland, Northern Ireland, and local elections in Scotland), worst system for achieving and open-list systems (Austria, Denmark, Norway). gender balance”. Just 30 per These are systems of PR because seats match votes. This is cent of British MPs are something that cannot be said of the Alternative Vote (AV), women. Of countries with a on which the UK had a referendum in 2011. AV is neither a higher share of women than form of PR, nor is it even more proportional than our current us in their primary legislature system. Analysis by the shows that if than we have, 85 per cent use AV had been used in the 2015 General Election, the a system of PR, as does every Conservatives would have won an even bigger majority on single country with more than the same share of the vote. 40 per cent female MPs. Kuper 1 7 T H E M A N Y , N O T T H E F E W

white middle class men are are 6 per cent higher than “Consensus democracies”, perceived as a ‘safe pair of FPTP, while Single Transferable which use PR, “do clearly hands’. Under PR there would be Vote (STV) turnouts have been outperform the majoritarian a greater focus on selecting 13 per cent higher than those democracies with regard to the candidates based on an equality in FPTP systems. quality of democracy and and diversity perspective along democratic representation”, the spectrum of candidates with Labour should be particularly found Arend Lijphart in his the right skill mix to be a interested in increasing study, Patterns of Democracy. politician.” turnout, not only as democrats but because the demographics But what would PR mean for the Labour and the left? Labour has become better at in which we poll the strongest fielding BAME and women are those in which turnout is at candidates, but PR would help its lowest. In 2015, the social us go further and would mean groups that reported the that all parties are incentivised strongest support for us were by the electoral system to do precisely those in which the same. We would expect to turnout was lowest: young see a more representative people, those of lower social Parliament as a result. class, the BAME community, private and social renters [3]. It is well established that PR leads to increased voter Lijphart finds that citizens in turnout - for reasons that are countries with PR have been obvious when you consider that found to be more satisfied with many votes under FPTP have the performance of their no practical value. Countries country's democratic with PR experience 7.5 per cent institutions, even when the higher turnouts on average, party they voted for is not in once other contextual factors power, and the countries are taken into account, topping the Economist’s according to Lijphart. Pilon Democracy Index (which takes estimates a turnout bonus of no account of proportionality) 7-8 per cent. Norris derived a finds that the top five countries more conservative estimate of all use PR. Thirteen of the 5 per cent bonus to turnout fifteen countries to appear under PR systems. IDEA used above the UK use PR; one actual global turnout statistics (Australia) uses PR for it’s from 1945 and 2002 to upper House, and just one uses calculate that list PR turnouts FPTP (Canada, ranked 9).

1 9 T H E M A N Y , N O T T H E F E W

P R O P O R T I O N A L R E P R E S E N T A T I O N W I L L S T R E N G T H E N P R O G R E S S I V E P O L I T I C S

It is possible to acknowledge relationship between types of patterns” [5]. Studies which that First Past the Post is electoral system and political reviewed the experience of unacceptable in a modern leaning of the governments seventeen advanced democracy, but nonetheless they tend to elect. The democracies over a fifty-three worry that a change to evidence is that it is FPTP and year period found that Proportional Representation other majoritarian systems, proportional democracies were would harm Labour’s chances rather than PR, that governed by left-leaning of electoral success. Could PR advantage the right. governments on average for 74 tip the balance of political per cent of the time, while Countries with majoritarian power to the right? majoritarian democracies systems have been found to (which includes those with This is a reasonable question be significantly more likely to FPTP) were governed by right- to ask, since if PR were to put have right-wing governments, leaning governments for 75 per the left in general and the whereas those with systems of cent of the time [6]. Labour Party in particular PR are significantly more likely further from power, we will be to have left-wing governments less able to defend the things [4], with a study published in Torben Iversen (Harvard) and we value and change society 2017 confirming “that David Soskice (LSE) provide a for the better. majoritarian systems have a compelling explanation of why substantive conservative bias, such a strong relationship However, political scientists whereas countries with PR should arise. This imagines an have studied in detail the show more differentiated unequal society in which there T H E M A N Y , N O T T H E F E W 2 0

are three equally-sized social jointly. But, although Low and On the other hand, PR makes groups - high income, middle Middle have a joint interest in progressive government more income and low income. The redistribution, they have likely because it removes middle and low income have a divergent interests when it these artificial barriers to shared interest in allying to comes to distributing these forming and maintaining the form a majority, and applying resources amongst themselves. broad social and political tax and welfare policies that The Middle income group, in alliances that must be in place redistribute some of the high particular, may be concerned in order for progressive income group’s wealth. that the Low group could take government to exist. control of the party and Jonathan Hopkins summarises redistribute not only from the For a more concrete idea of their explanation in a piece he High income group, but also what a move to PR might wrote for Compass, Electoral from the Middle. So in order to mean for Labour, we can Reform and the Left: head off this possibility, Middle examine how past UK General "In a PR system, each group may choose instead to ally with Elections would have looked can form a political party which High, and keep its income to under PR. We must, however, will enjoy a share of itself." do so with caution. Electoral parliamentary representation systems change the way roughly equivalent to the size of Under FPTP, only one parties campaign, the way the group - here, 33 per cent progressive party (in the UK, people vote, and indeed each. Low and Middle together the Labour Party) has a whether people vote. have 66 per cent of the votes in realistic prospect of winning parliament, and can establish a power, but in order to do so it Nonetheless, past election government which would must attract the support of a results indicate broad trends redistribute resources from dauntingly broad range of in public attitudes and can High. They can bargain about social and political groups all be used to illustrate how a how to distribute these at the same time. To retain proportional House of resources among themselves, in power, it must continually Commons might have the knowledge that if one group manage and mediate between looked over the years. seeks an unfair advantage, the their competing interests - coalition would break down who might otherwise vote The graph below shows the and both sides would lose out. Green, Liberal Democrat, percentage vote share of As a result, redistribution is the UKIP or even Conservative. “progressive” parties for every likely outcome. Failing to satisfy all of these General Election since 1955. constituent parts results in a The “Liberal” bar refers to the "In a majoritarian system, the loss of power for Labour and, prevalent liberal party of the electoral rules tend to favour consequently, for the only time - variously the Liberal two large parties (as is evident potential left-leaning Party, SDP-Liberal Alliance in the US and UK), not three. So, government in the UK. The and the Liberal Democrats. in order to act jointly to achieve Higher income group (the The “other progressive” bar redistribution, Low and Middle Conservatives) typically only includes parties which must form a political party resumes power. received at least 0.4 per cent 2 1 T H E M A N Y , N O T T H E F E W

of the national vote in a extreme Conservative voices: would have been a particular election [7]. These under Thatcher and now May. Conservative-SDP-Liberal are the Green Party (1992, Alliance. We know what a 2001-2015), (1970- In thirteen of the last Conservative-Liberal Alliance 2015), SDLP (1974-2010), SNP sixteen General Elections, looks like, because we had (1966-2015) and Unity (1970). a majority voted for one from 2010 to 2015. It is parties to the left of the not progressive, but it is a What we find is that in thirteen Conservatives, yet the far cry from the extremes of of the last sixteen elections, a Conservatives have Conservative majority majority of voters voted for governed as a majority government. Furthermore, parties to the left of the most of the time. FPTP ensured that the Conservatives. In reality, eight balance of power within the of these sixteen elections Under PR, it seems beyond 2010 Coalition was decisively returned Conservative doubt modern British history weighted towards to majority governments. We had would have been very Conservatives: 20 per cent Conservative majority different. The Thatcher era of Liberal Democrat and 80 per government for 54.3 per cent unmoderated right-wing cent Conservative. Under PR, of the duration since 1955 - government simply could not it would have been 40 per despite the Conservatives have happened. cent Liberal Democrat and never once winning a majority 60 per cent Conservative, of the national vote. This has The worst possible outcome and greater moderation of often been under the during the entire Thatcher era Conservative policy would leadership of the most - from Labour’s point of view - logically follow. T H E M A N Y , N O T T H E F E W 2 2

On the other hand, there fairly progressive manifesto coalitions with Conservatives: would have been every (scrapping tuition fees, action a catastrophic collapse in their possibility of a genuinely left- on climate change, greater vote share at the next election. leaning government banking regulation) and it is throughout the seventies and only because of our The evidence from political eighties. The point here is not disproportional voting system science suggests that an that a Labour-Liberal coalition that Labour and the Liberal inbuilt advantage to the right would be exactly the same as a Democrats did not have is found in majoritarian Labour majority government, enough seats between them to electoral systems. This chimes but that it would be form a majority Coalition. It is, with our own experience, in incomparably better and more again, difficult to doubt that a which a Conservative minority representative of British voters Liberal Democrat-Labour have frequently governed the than the actual outcome: Coalition would have been UK almost by default. Looking nearly two decades of better that the Conservative- at historical electoral trends, it Thatcherism. Liberal Democrat one actually is rational to conclude that the formed. Furthermore, we can UK would have had Yes, the Liberal Democrats expect the Liberal Democrats significantly more progressive chose to go into Coalition with to remember what happens and less conservative the Conservatives in 2010. But when they abandon government if we had used PR the Liberal Democrats had a progressive promises in throughout the modern era. 2 3 T H E M A N Y , N O T T H E F E W

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION WILL ENABLE US TO BUILD A GOOD SOCIETY

So PR is not only healthier for democracy and for Again, this is a subject on which political science politics, it also is likely to lead to more years of has much to say. The world has provided a large progressive or left-leaning governments. But we sample of proportional and majoritarian are not in politics to seek power for power’s countries, and academics have been able to use sake; our project is to put power, wealth and this to draw some robust comparisons of their opportunity in the hands of the many, not the performance. By looking at their findings with few. Regardless of who is likely to be in power, respect to issues we in the Labour Party are we need to know that PR is consistent with the interested in, we can find out whether PR is likely kind of equal and egalitarian society we want. to help or hinder the building of a good society.

INCOME EQUALITY in terms of income equality all use PR. The UK and US, with FPTP, are right down at the bottom The evidence with the likes of Israel, Turkey and Mexico - There is a body of evidence showing that countries which face notably different countries with proportional electoral systems challenges from our more comparable peers. have considerably lower income inequality Explanation than those with majoritarian systems like First Birchfield and Crepaz explain these results as Past the Post [8]. Based on the evidence, follows: "The more widespread the access to political scientists have concluded that there is political institutions, and the more a causal relationship at work: “consensual representative the political system, the more political institutions [which use PR] tend to citizens will take part in the political process to reduce income inequalities whereas change it in their favour which will manifest majoritarian institutions have the opposite itself, among other things, in lower income effect" [9] and that when the degree of inequality. Such consensual political institutions proportionality of a system increases, income make the government more responsive to the inequality decreases [10]. Analysis has found demands of a wider range of citizens". This these effects to be highly significant, with PR should ring true to us as democratic socialists. accounting for 51 per cent of the variance of As put it, “democracy is the most income inequality among countries [11]. revolutionary thing in the world, because if you The Gini Coefficient is a metric used to have power you use it to meet the needs of you quantify income equality - with lower scores and your community.” We are unsurprised that indicating better income equality. The table democratic countries have better income below shows the thirty-five OECD nations (the equality than authoritarian states, because with advanced democracies) ranked in order of Gini democracy the general population has the Coefficient, using the most recent data political power to seek to rebalance wealth. A available for each country. more representative democracy provides better This powerfully illustrates the relationship income equality than a less representative established by political science. The top 14 democracy for exactly the same reason. T H E M A N Y , N O T T H E F E W 2 4 2 5 T H E M A N Y , N O T T H E F E W

WELFARE AND SHARING By now, most North Sea oil has gone and production is OF PUBLIC GOODS in decline. In Norway, the legacy of exploiting this huge The evidence natural resource is that the Norwegian people own the There is a similar relationship between electoral world’s largest sovereign wealth fund. This $900 billion systems and the sharing of public goods. Arend fund owns on average 1.3 per cent of every publicly Lijphart found that “consensus democracies”, listed company in the world. which use proportional electoral systems, In contrast, the UK has no such fund. John Hawksworth, demonstrate “kinder, gentler qualities” in a PricewaterhouseCoopers, made what he called a number of ways; including that “they are more conservative estimate, that if UK oil profits had been set likely to be welfare states”. He found that they aside in the same way it would have been worth £450bn spent an average of 4.75 per cent more on social by 2008, with Professor Sukhdev Johal, University of expenditures than majoritarian democracies, London, estimating as much as £850bn [12]. Not only was describing this relationship as “strongly positive this not done, but the extra tax revenue raised over the and statistically significant”. oil-producing era does not register as an increase in public investment or expenditure. Hawksworth's conclusion: In a 2009 study, Carey and Hix looked at 610 elections “The logical answer is that the oil money enabled non-oil over 60 years in 81 countries and found that PR taxes to be kept lower”. Canada, also with FPTP, has countries garnered higher scores on the United followed the same model as the UK. Nations Index of Human Development, which incorporates health, education and standard of living The UK and Norway faced a very similar opportunity. indicators. Carey and Hix consider the Index to Norway now has a vast public asset, while the UK has provide "a reasonable overall indicator of government little to show for it. This is clearly due to the decisions performance in the delivery of public goods and made by successive governments in Norway and the UK. human welfare.” But the evidence suggests that the electoral system Explanation influences both the composition and decisions of those governments. The better performance of PR countries as social democracies can be explained in a similar way to their Periods of centre and centre-right government have improved income equality. When a general passed in Norway (1997-2005; 2013-present) without the population has better access to political power, oil fund being abolished, plundered or privatised. It is governments are more likely to act in the interest of striking that in majoritarian UK, saving up oil profits under the whole of that population. public ownership has been politically unthinkable; whereas in proportional Norway, it is ceasing to do so As an illustration of this, we can compare the way that that is unthinkable. British and Norwegian governments have managed the proceeds of our respective North Sea oil and gas We cannot be certain that Norway would have resources. The discoveries occurred around the same squandered its oil wealth if it used FPTP for its General time, were of roughly comparable size, and were Elections, or that the UK would have treated its responsibly significant enough to place both countries among the if it used PR. But these are the kind of effects that political most important oil producers in the late 20th and early science leads us to expect each of these electoral systems 21st Centuries. While the UK uses FPTP, Norway uses to have on their societies, and in this instance these PR and is usually governed by coalitions. expectations appear to hold true. T H E M A N Y , N O T T H E F E W 2 6

CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES The evidence Studies have found that countries Our total use of renewable energy is among using proportional systems set stricter the lowest in Europe, despite the UK having some of the best clean enerrgy resources environmental policies [13] and were faster to ratify the Kyoto protocol [14]. On environmental performance, Lijphart and Orellana [15] found that countries with PR scored six points higher on the Yale Environmental Performance Index, which measures ten policy areas, including environmental health, air quality, resource management, biodiversity and habitat, forestry, fisheries, agriculture and climate change. Explanation Using data from the International The UK has historically lagged behind its European peers when it comes Energy Agency, Orellana found that to action on climate change and uptake of renewable energy. between 1990 and 2007, when Depressingly, this is despite having by far the best offshore wind and carbon emissions were rising marine energy potential in Europe. Successive governments have at everywhere, the statistically predicted best taken relatively limited action to move away from fossil fuels and increase was significantly lower in reduce emissions, or at worst have actively resisted such progress (with countries with fully proportional the current government determined begin shale gas production systems, at 9.5 per cent, compared to despite overwhelming opposition from both local communities 45.5 per cent in countries using [16] and the general public [17]). winner-take-all systems. Orellana found use of renewable energy to be In his 1990 book, Electing for Democracy, Richard Kuper offers an 117 percent higher in countries with explanation for this which remains true to this day. “Were the Greens”, fully proportional systems. he writes, “in a position to obtain representation in proportion to their vote, it is inconceivable that Labour would not already have in place a coherent and much strengthened range of environmental policies in order to head off the challenge.”

Because a vote for the Green Party remains a wasted vote in almost every constituency, we in the Labour Party have little electoral incentive to worry about winning those voters back by competing with the Greens on environmental credentials. On the contrary, since the swing voters in marginal seats may not be keen on the idea of a wind turbine at the bottom of their garden, an electoral agent may well advise us not to make too much of a fuss about climate change. 2 7 T H E M A N Y , N O T T H E F E W

LONG-TERMISM AND DECISIVENESS

The preceding three issues all point to a that greater economic equality, fairer fundamental flaw with FPTP: the distribution of public goods and effective exaggerated incentive to focus on short- action on climate change are symptoms of term issues. Because electoral victory is all- weakness or indecision is clearly an absurd or-nothing and a Parliamentary majority is one. In the UK, the so-called “strong” and paramount, parties do not have the luxury “decisive” FPTP system has coincided with of coming together to find solutions to some of the worst inequality in Europe, the long-term problems. Decisions which need absence of an effective housing policy for to be made, but which might prove many decades, and inadequate action on unpopular, are routinely deferred until climate change. after the next election - often repeatedly. Indeed, Arend Lijphart’s Patterns of It has been suggested that this is a Democracy found that “majoritarian contributing factor to the UK’s housing democracies do not outperform the crisis since a proper response would mean consensus democracies [which use PR] on building on some of the green belt, much effective government and effective policy- of which lies in marginal constituencies making - in fact, the consensus where the cities meet the countryside. democracies have the better record” [18]. Further research would be required in order to test this hypothesis. The so-called “strong” and “decisive” However, the evidence on the issues FPTP system has coincided with some discussed above also exposes the myth of the worst inequality in Europe, the sometimes repeated by proponents of absence of an effective housing FPTP, that coalition governments formed under PR are “weak”, “indecisive” or policy for many decades, and “unable to get anything done”. The idea inadequate action on climate change. T H E M A N Y , N O T T H E F E W 2 8

WAR AND CONFLICT Explanation Leblang and Chan comment: “What is it about The Evidence the nature of a PR system that discourages Leblang and Chan found that the electoral foreign belligerence? ... Instead of supposing system is the most important institutional that only competitive politics can restrain war predictor of a democracy’s involvement in involvement, an informal culture and a war. Established democracies with traditional practise of consensual politics may systems of PR tend to have significantly serve as an equally and perhaps even more less involvement in armed conflict. They effective barrier to such involvement found, “a proportionate-representation ...European countries with a PR system tend to system turns out to be consistently have parliamentary majorities based on an significant in dampening war involvement oversized coalition with participation from in all three meanings we have several parties. Even where there is one operationalized in this context.” dominant party, they tend to offer a more encompassing coalition with institutionalized The three meanings of “war” referred to representation of various sectoral interests. are: 1) likelihood of being the first to enter Their political process acknowledges multiple into war; 2) likelihood of joining a veto groups and promotes regular multinational coalition in an ongoing war, consultation to develop consensual policy.” and 3) likelihood of remaining in a war it is already involved in. In short, when the people are fairly represented in Parliament, more of those Separately, Orellana found that the groups who may object to any potential war predicted level of military expenditure for have the access to the political power that is countries with majoritarian systems was necessary to prevent it. In a proportional more than twice as high as for countries democracy, war - like other national decisions - with fully proportional systems. generally requires the consent of the majority. 2 9 T H E M A N Y , N O T T H E F E W

THE TIME IS NOW

It is no exaggeration to say that in the It would mean that the default setting of 21st Century, Proportional Representation British politics would never again be is a prerequisite of a properly-functioning Conservative majority government, but democracy in which power, wealth and government determined by the wisdom opportunity are in the hands of the many, of the progressive majority that has not the few. almost always existed in the UK throughout modern times. By recognising this and committing to reforming our voting system, we would take And to many voters - who are more an overdue step to empower our voters diverse and less tribal than ever - it would and members. We would be putting our offer an important change to vote for in trust in the voters and showing them we the coming election. are serious about democratizing the UK.

G E T I N V O L V E D

www.LabourCampaignForElectoralReform.org.uk @Labour4PR www.facebook.com/lc4er

www.makevotesmatter.org.uk

@makevotesmatter

www.facebook.com/makevotesmatter

www.facebook.com/groups/votingreformteam T H E M A N Y , N O T T H E F E W 3 0

END NOTES

[1] The electoral systems of the OECD nations can be broken down as follows: 21 List PR; 2 List PR with plurality bonus; 2 Additional Member System; 1 Single Transferable Vote; 4 Supplementary Member; 3 First Past the Post; 2 other majoritarian. "List PR with plurality bonus" includes Greece and Italy, which use PR but award a bonus to the largest minority in a way that usually results in a majority government. "Supplementary Member" systems use plurality and majoritarian systems for elections to a single legislature simultaneously, resulting in partially proportional results. We judge that Hungary's unique system most resembles SM and have categorised it as such. All of the systems ensure that everyone has a vote that has some influence on the outcomes except for First Past the Post.

[2] Norris (1985); Matland (1998); Reynolds (1999); Kenworthy and Malami (1999); Siaroff (2000); Moser (2001); Salmond (2006); Lijphart (2012) [3] See https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3575/ [4] Cusack and Engelhardt (2002); Cusack and Fuchs (2002); Powell (2002); Doring and Manow (2017) [5] Doring and Manow (2017) [6] Cusack and Engelhardt (2002); Cusack and Fuchs (2002) [7] Among parties who have won at least 0.4 per cent of the vote in at least one election during this period, the following are excluded from the “Other Progressives” category: Sinn Féin (not sitting in Westminster); Referendum Party (single issue); BNP, DUP, National Front, UKIP and UUP (not progressive). [8] Lijphart (2012: 282); Birchfield and Crepaz (1998); Vincenzo Verardi (2005) [9] Birchfield and Crepaz (1998) [10] Verardi (2005) [11] Birchfield and Crepaz (1998) [12] Aditya Chakrabortty, Guardian (2014) [13] Fredriksson and Millimet (2004) [14] Cohen (2010) [15] Orellana (2014) [16] www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/fracking-lancashire-cuadrilla-sajid-javid-planning- permission-overturned-a7347576.html [17] www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/13/british-public-support-for-fracking-sinks-to- lowest-ever-level [18] Lijphart (2012)

PHOTO CREDITS

David B Young - London Austerity Protest June 2014 - www.flickr.com/photos/david0287/16298651041 Maina Kiai - Oliver Cromwell "decorated" with a gas mask - www.flickr.com/photos/mainakiai/26419618832 Gage Skidmore - Donald Trump - www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/25927626806 David Holt - Refugees Welcome Demo - https://www.flickr.com/photos/zongo/21178395279 3 1 T H E M A N Y , N O T T H E F E W

REFERENCES

Allen, Graham. (1995) Reinventing Democracy. London: Features Unlimited. Birchfield, Vicki and Crepaz, Markus (1998). “The Impact of Constitutional Structures and Collective and Competitive Veto Points on Income Inequality in Industrialized Democracies. European Journal of Political Research 34: 175–200. www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/Birchfield&Crepaz1998.pdf Economist Intelligence Unit. (2017). Democracy Index 2017. Available at: www.eiu.com/public/topical_report.aspx? campaignid=DemocracyIndex2016 [Accessed 30 April 2017] Carey, John M. and Hix, Simon (2009). “The Electoral Sweet Spot: Low-magnitude Proportional Electoral Systems.” PSPE Working Paper 01-2009. Department of Government, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK. Chakrabortty, Aditya. (2014). Dude, where’s my North Sea oil money? Available at: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/13/north-sea-oil-money-uk-norwegians-fund [Accessed 30 April 2017] Cohen, Darcie (2010). “Do Political Preconditions Affect Environmental Outcomes? Exploring the Linkages Between Proportional Representation, Green parties and the Kyoto Protocol.” Simon Fraser University. http://summit.sfu.ca/item/10084 Curtice, Cusack, Thomas R., and Lutz Engelhardt. 2002. “The PGL File Collection: File Structures and Procedures.” Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin fur Sozialforschung. Cusack, Thomas R., and Susanne Fuchs. 2002. “Documentation Notes for Parties, Governments, and Legislatures Data Set.” Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin fur Sozialforschung. Döring, H., & Manow, P. (2017). Is Proportional Representation More Favourable to the Left? Electoral Rules and Their Impact on Elections, Parliaments and the Formation of Cabinets. British Journal of Political Science,47(1), 149- 164. Doi: 10.1017/S0007123415000290 Fredriksson, P.G., & Millimet, D.L. (2004). Electoral rules and environmental policy. Economics Letters, 84(2), 237-44. Georghiou, Mary & Linton, Martin. (1993). Labour’s road to electoral reform. Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform. Hopkins, Jonathan. (2009) Electoral reform and the left. Compass. Retrieved from www.compassonline.org.uk/publications/electoral-reform-and-the-left/ Ipsos Mori. (2015). How Britain voted in 2015. Available at: www.ipsos- mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3575/How-Britain-voted-in-2015.aspx [Accessed 30 April 2017] Iverson, Torben & Soskice, David (2006). Electoral Institutions and the Politics of Coalitions: Why Some Democracies Redistribute More Than Others. Available at: www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/Iversen- Soskice2005.pdf [Accessed 30 April 2017] Kuper, Richard. (1990) Electing for democracy: Proportional Representation and the left. Worcester: Socialist Society. Leblang, D., & Chan, S. (2003). Explaining wars fought by established democracies: do institutional constraints matter? Political Research Quarterly, 56(4), 385–400. Lijphart, Arend (2012). Patterns of Democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. New Haven, CT: Yale Press. Linton, Martin & Southcott, Mary. (1997) Making votes count: the case for electoral reform. London: Profile Books. OECD. (2017). Income inequality. Available at: https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm [Accessed 30 April 2017] Orellana, Saloman (2014). Electoral Systems and Governance: How Diversity Can Improve Policy Making. New York: Routledge Press (summarized by Fair Vote Canada: http://tinyurl.com/gmjtg2t Pilon, Dennis. (2007). The Politics of Voting: Reforming Canada’s Electoral System. Toronto: Emond Montgomery. Powell, Bingham. 2002. “PR, the Median Voter, and Economic Policy: An Exploration.” Paper presented at the 2002 Meetings of the American Political Science Association, Boston. Vaughan, Adam. (2016). British public support for fracking sinks to lowest ever level. Available at: www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/13/british-public-support-for-fracking-sinks-to-lowest-ever-level [Accessed 30 April 2017] Various. (2007) Reversing Labour Retreat: the challenge and change of electoral reform. London: Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform. w w w . m a k e v o t e s m a t t e r . o r g . u k

A s t h e 2 0 1 7 G e n e r a l E l e c t i o n a p p r o a c h e s , t h i s n e w r e p o r t b y M a k e V o t e s M a t t e r a n d t h e L a b o u r C a m p a i g n f o r E l e c t o r a l R e f o r m a r g u e s t h a t L a b o u r m u s t n o w b a c k P r o p o r t i o n a l R e p r e s e n t a t i o n f o r t h e H o u s e o f C o m m o n s .

N o t o n l y i s e l e c t o r a l r e f o r m d e s p e r a t e l y n e e d e d t o r e v i t a l i s e d e m o c r a c y i n t h e U K ; i t i s i n c r e a s i n g l y c l e a r t h a t P R i s a n e s s e n t i a l f e a t u r e o f t h e m o d e r n s o c i a l d e m o c r a c i e s a r o u n d t h e w o r l d t h a t t h e L a b o u r P a r t y w o u l d w i s h t o e m u l a t e h e r e i n t h e U n i t e d K i n g d o m .

I t i s n o e x a g g e r a t i o n t o s a y t h a t i n t h e 2 1 s t C e n t u r y , P r o p o r t i o n a l R e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s a p r e r e q u i s i t e o f a d e m o c r a c y i n w h i c h p o w e r , w e a l t h a n d o p p o r t u n i t y a r e i n t h e h a n d s o f t h e m a n y , n o t t h e f e w .

w w w . l a b o u r c a m p a i g n f o r e l e c t o r a l r e f o r m . o r g . u k