The election results in the UK are almost settled. As of writing, 648 out of 650 seats have been called with 33% of the vote going to Labour, with 63% of seats going to them.
And for the conservative Tories, the previous governing party, they got smashed into oblivion, receiving 23% of the vote leading to them only holding just over 18% of seats.
👉The reason for this strange difference between what the people voted for and what they ended up getting is that the UK uses a stereotypical version of democratic voting called first past the post.
It is the voting style that most people think of when they think of voting. Essentially it means whoever gets the most votes wins.
🇺🇸 In a two party situation this makes sense, for instance in the US where people largely focus on the office of President, whichever of the two main presidential candidates gets the most votes wins.
Makes sense.
However it becomes an issue when more than one party is involved. And especially becomes an issue when voters are voting on localized candidates instead of focusing on one national leader.
Essentially what it means is that although reform got over 14% of the vote, these votes where spread differently in different areas depending on the candidate and the people in that locality.
What this means is that it is theoretically possible that in a democratic system operating like this, it is possible to get 49% of the nation’s vote, yet hold 0% of seats. Although this is incredibly unlikely.
In preferential voting however, like in Australia, seats are spread more evenly between the overall voters choices, or close enough to their choices.
In this system, if reform were the first choice on the ballot for a voter, and that candidate lost, then their second choice, the Tories, would take that vote instead.
🇬🇧 In first past the post voting, you can waste your vote by voting for a riskier candidate. Your vote cannot be redistributed.
This means that you are encouraged to vote for a party that is more likely to win, or face a potential landslide. Which is what happened.
🇦🇺 In preferential voting, you cannot waste your vote, so you can take riskier voting decisions. Your vote can be redistributed to your next choice.
So if a minor party was to try and become a major in the UK, it would be incredibly difficult since a lot of those votes would be wasted.
Wasted until maybe a few elections later and the public no longer views the minor party as that much of a risky choice anymore.
Reform could probably do this, and sail out to eventually become the second rate major party of the line.
If a minor party in Australia tried to become a major party, it would be considerably easier.
👉As people who typically vote liberal can relax and place libertarians or one nation before the liberal party, knowing if their minor party candidate loses, their vote will be used for liberals anyway.
Getting over 14% of the vote but getting less than 1% of seats is not necessarily a bad thing for reform, it’s actually quite good. It’s just the nature of first past the post voting when used in the way that Britain uses it.
It is wild, but potentially exponential, 14% of votes now is less than 1% of seats, 20% later could be 8% of seats, and then 35% after that could be 70% of seats. Almost unpredictable, unless you study every single locality thoroughly.
But it’s a good result for reform given the circumstances.
Alex James.