Ireland’s snap election: should Scotland use the Irish voting system?

Ireland is going to the polls later this year, highlighting its Single Transferable Vote system which could be used to elect Members of the Scottish Parliament.

STV is a preferential system where voters rank candidates in order or preference in multi-member constituencies. The system is already used to elect Scottish councillors, as well as various electoral chambers in Northern Ireland, Malta and Australia, and can have better outcomes than Holyrood’s Additional System when it comes to voter choice and proportionality (depending on the exact parameters of the STV system used).

The system has been used in the Republic of Ireland since the country’s independence from the United Kingdom. Two attempts have been made to revert to First Past the Post, however, the people of Ireland voted against these in referendums in 1958 and 1968, ensuring the continued use of STV to this day. The upcoming election shows an alternative future to Westminster’s First Past the Post and Holyrood’s broadly proportional, albeit flawed, Additional Member System.

Will 2031 be the first Scottish election to use STV?

Wales is changing its voting system. Why not Scotland? 2026 will be the first Welsh election not held under AMS. instead MSs will be elected via the more proportional, but less voter empowering, Closed List PR system.

The current Scottish Government has no plans to ditch AMS, meaning a change ahead of 2026 elections is unlikely. But change might be possible next parliament as political winds shift. Two-thirds of MSPs would have to support reform for a change in voting system to be enacted.

Ireland offers an alternative the Scotland’s Additional Member System, however, the Irish system isn’t perfect as constituency sizes range from three to five members, limiting overall proportionality. A Scottish system should account for this and introduce larger multi-member constituencies, similar to Northern Ireland instead.

STV offers an opportunity to strengthen Holyrood’s representation. The next election offers Scotland an opportunity learn from our neighbours and to seize reform.

Westminster’s Modernisation Committee should consider MSP-MP dual mandates ban

By Richard Wood

The newly formed Modernisation Committee in the House of Commons should consider recommending banning MSP-MP dual mandates as part of its remit concerning MPs’ outside employment.

Labour formed the government on the back of a manifesto pledge to clamp down on paid advisory and consultancy roles. However, the new committee has an opportunity to take those proposals further and tighten restrictions on second jobs more broadly.

Dual mandates, where an individual holds two full-time parliamentary positions at the same time, are bad for representative democracies. This includes MSP-MPs and MSPs-Lords. The phenomenon results in representatives not fully dedicated to their constituents in one clear capacity.

A ban on the practice is long overdue, with the most prominent example in recent years being Douglas Ross being an MP, and MSP and taking on further employment at the same time. That said, this is an issue something all main parties have been of guilty of, especially in the early days of the Scottish Parliament.

The Modernisation Committee should consider the issue as part of their remit.

What did Labour’s 2024 manifesto say?

“Labour will establish a new Modernisation Committee tasked with reforming House of Commons procedures, driving up standards, and improving working practices. The absence of rules on second jobs also means some constituents end up with MPs who spend more time on their second job, or lobbying for outside interests, than on representing them. Therefore, as an initial step,Labour will support an immediate ban on MPs from taking up paid advisory or consultancy roles. We will task the Modernisation Committee to take forward urgent work on the restrictions that need to be put in place to prevent MPs from taking up roles that stop them serving their constituents and the
country.”

Who is on the Modernisation Committee?

The Committee, chaired by Lucy Powell MP, is made up of nine Labour MPs, three Conservatives MPs and two Lib Dem MPs:

🔴Rt Hon Lucy Powell MP

🔴 Mike Amesbury MP

🔴 Alex Barros-Curtis MP

🔴 Markus Campbell-Savours MP

🟠 Wendy Chamberlain MP

🔵 Sir Christopher Chope MP

🔴 Sarah Coombes MP

🔴 Chris Elmore MP

🔴 Kirith Entwistle MP

🟠 Marie Goldman MP

🔴 Paulette Hamilton MP

🔵Joy Morrissey MP

🔵 Chris Philp MP

🔴 Jo Platt MP

Scottish Conservative leadership election exposes voting systems inconsistency

By Richard Wood

The Scottish Conservatives are using the Alternative Vote to elect their new leader, following the departure of Douglas Ross from the top job. The Alternative Vote is a preferential system for single-seat positions, allowing voters to rank candidates in order of preference to ensure the winner receives a broad base of support.

There’s no denying this system is fairer and more representative than First Past the Post. Indeed with at least six candidates standing to replace Douglas Ross, under FPTP the winner could in theory have been elected with less than 17% of the total vote. However, AV negates this possibility.

The Scottish Conservatives ultimately recognise the absurdity of FPTP hence their use of AV to elect their leaders. Furthermore, the party benefits significantly from the broadly proportional Additional Member System used to elect MSPs. If the Scottish Parliament used, First Past the, the SNP would likely have completely dominated at the 2021 election.

Yet the Conservatives continue to back First Past the Post for Westminster elections. If preferential voting is good enough for internal elections, it begs the question why not support the Single Transferable Vote for Westminster votes?

In fairness at least one leadership candidate has previously voiced support for STV. Back in 2021 Murdo Fraser outlined his arguments in favour of replacing AMS with STV at Holyrood in an article for the Scotsman.

Of course, the way we elect representatives isn’t going to take centre stage in this election. But it’s worth flagging the mismatch between Conservative support for First Past the Post at Westminster with their rejection of it to elect their own leaders.

Conservatives should consider that when ranking candidates one to six in the coming weeks rather than marking an “x” in the box.

Scottish Conservative leadership contest 2024

As of Tuesday 7 August six candidates are standing to replace Douglas Ross as Scottish Conservative leader:

Russell Findlay
Brian Whittle
Meghan Gallacher
Liam Kerr
Jamie Greene
Murdo Fraser

The contest will conclude in September ahead of the UK Conservative contest finishing in November.

Labour’s false “supermajority” and widespread tactical voting expose the flaws of FPTP

The UK’s new Prime Minister Keir Starmer

By Richard Wood

The 2024 UK General Election has exposed the flaws of Westminster’s First Past the Post once again.

The 4 July vote shows just how much the voting system used to elect MPs distorts how people vote at the ballot box. While Labour did well, Keir Starmer’s party won 63% of seats on just 34% of the vote.

This is a staggering mismatch between seats and votes, exposing the absurd unfairness of our electoral system once again.

Meanwhile, Reform secured 14% of the vote. Under a proportional voting system they would have roughly 14% seats but in the end they only scraped five seats. Similarly, the Greens only managed four seats on 7% of the vote.

The Lib Dems won 72 seats (11% of those available) on 12% vote, by coincidence broadly in line with their share of the vote. While the Conservatives – champions of our regressive system – suffered at its hands by winning 19% of seats on 24% of the vote.

The election has been called the most unrepresentative in British political history. In fact, the Gallagher index (a measure of electoral proportionality) was 24 (the highest ever in a UK election), backing these claims.

Some discussion of the Gallagher Index in the last few days, but the alternative Sainte-Laguë index paints an even worse picture – giving a disproportionality score of 48.8, a solid 49% more skewed than the second least proportional election (2015). pic.twitter.com/yoUHGrIEls
— Dylan Difford (@Dylan_Difford) July 6, 2024

Of course, anti-Consevative tactical voting likely widened the disparity between seats and votes – with Lib Dem votes piling up in areas they could win and Labour in areas they could take. But that’s no excuse for the reality where we have a system in which, forgetting all motivations for why people vote a particular way, the total number of votes per party doesn’t result in result in matching seat shares. Tactical voting is a symptom of First Past the Post, showing the need for electoral reform. And at the end of the day, people deserve to vote for their favoured candidates without the fear that their vote won’t count. You should be able to vote for something, rather than forced into voting against something else.

What next for the electoral reform movement?

First Past the Post has once again been exposed as a failed system. But with this comes opportunity for change.

While Labour’s leadership oppose a change in voting system, the massive mismatch is cutting through to citizens. There’s an opportunity here to stress this mismatch and make the case for Proportional Representation and continue the fight for reform.

It’s time to redouble our efforts to secure electoral reform. It’s time for Proportional Representation.

How you can help

The below organisations are fighting for fair votes. Learn more and join them below:

Image source: House of Commons (CC 3.0 License)

Douglas Ross’ decision to stand again exposes dual mandates as wrong

By Richard Wood

The Leader of the Scottish Conservative party Douglas Ross is seeking election to the constituency of Aberdeenshire North and Moray East after originally not planning to stand for Westminster. His decision came just hours before the close of nominations.

His original decision not to stand would have put an end to his dual mandate of being an MP and MSP. However, while his return to Westminster is far from certain, if he wins he will simultaneously sit in both parliament yet again.

When a politician holds two elected roles, they have a dual mandate.

These dual mandates are unfair on constituents who deserve full-time parliamentarians. Not part-timers. They are also highly impractical.

It may emerge that Ross plans on stepping down from his Holyrood role after the election but that remains to be seen. For now, it seems he is intent on maintaining his dual mandate.

Let’s not forget that we’ve been here before. A 2021 Panelbase poll even asked voters for their views on Ross’ intentions if he won seat at Holyrood (which he went on to do). It found that 67% of Scots think the MP for Moray should give up at least one of his numerous positions if elected to the Scottish Parliament in 2021. This suggested most Scots oppose dual mandates, as well as second jobs.

Douglas Ross’ decision ultimately exposes the absurdity of dual mandates in Scotland. It’s time to ban them once and for all.

(Image Source: Douglas Ross MP (by David Woolfall • CC BY 3.0))

First Past the Post will let down Scotland yet again, polling suggests

By Richard Wood

How Scotland votes at the ballot box will almost certainly not be reflected in the House of Commons come 4 July thanks to Westminster’s archaic voting system. Time and time again, First Past the Post skews the link between voters and their MPs, resulting in unrepresentative parliaments where seats don’t match votes. Here’s what’s happened in past elections and what could happen this summer.

Scottish Labour is expected to do well come 4 July while the SNP are anticipated to lose seats. However, the extent of this turning of the tides will be exaggerated by First Past the Post.

Until 2015, Labour constistenly won well over half of Scottish seats on less than half the votes. Labour secured 41 of 59 seats on just 42% of the vote in 2010. In 1997 they won 56 of 72 seats on 45.6% of the vote while the Conservatives lost all their seats but still won almost one in five Scottish votes.

First Past the Post consistently amplifies the support of the largest party, giving them a disproportionately large caucus at Westminster. The same has happened with the SNP since the yellow tsunami swept away Scottish Labour in 2015. At that election, the SNP won just under half of all votes cast, giving them all but three Scottish seats. Then in 2019, the SNP won all but 11 seats on 45% of the vote. All of these are truly unrepresentative results.

While the tides are once again turning in Scottish Labour’s favour, the currents are shaped by the underlying structure, a voting system which will likely to lead to yet another extremely disproportionate election.

Although mapping voting intentions onto seat projections has significant limits under FPTP – due to the system’s inherently chaotic nature – recent projections estimate Labour could win over half of all Scottish seats on a share of the vote between 30 and 40%.

The More in Common poll published at the end of May (fieldwork 22 – 25 May), puts Labour on 35%, the SNP on 30%, the Conservatives on 17% and the Lib Dems on 10%.

Under a proportional system, seats would match votes. And while we can’t know for certain what would happen under Westminster’s current voting system, Electoral Calculus estimates this would give Labour 29 of the 57 seats available. While only 5 percentage points behind Anas Sarwar’s party, the SNP would take just 16 seats – a significant fall from 2019. The Conservatives would win seven while the Lib Dem would win five. Under FPTP, seats won’t match votes yet again.

A subsequent poll by Survation suggests a similar outcome, indicating Scottish Labour could win 29 seats on just 36% of the votes.

The Additional Member System used to elect MSPs at Holyrood is far from perfect. This site has covered it’s flaws extensively – making the case for continuous improvement of Scottish democracy. But AMS at least ensures that that MSPs are broadly representative of how people vote unlike First Past the Post which lets down Scotland and the rest of the UK again and again.

Replacing First Past the Post with a proportional system is the single most important transformation needed to improve Westminter. Proportional Representation isn’t a silver bullet but it will improve our democracy by ensuring that voters are fairly represented in parliament. Whoever wins on 4 July should keep that in mind.

First Past the Post set to fail the UK once again

By Richard Wood

Prime minister Rishi Sunak has finally called the UK General Election, set for Thursday 4 July, after months of speculation.

Although polling points to Labour and the Lib Dem doing well, with the Conservatives and SNP on course for losses, the actual results are far from certain. One thing that’s clear though is that our voting system will lead to highly unrepresentative results.

Time and time again, First Past the Post leads to parliaments where seats don’t match votes. The Conservative won a majority of seats on just 36% of votes in 2015 while Labour won on just 35% in 2005.

And while the SNP did extremely well in 2015, it’s unfair they won all but three Scottish seats on one in two votes while the Conservatives got zero Scottish seats in 1997.

There’s a simple solution to address this system failure. Adopting a proportional voting system will ensure fair votes and make First Past the Post history.

With Labour on course for a majority of seats on less than half the votes, we are set for yet another election where seats don’t match votes.

We deserve far better than this. Let’s make 2024 the last election held under First Past the Post.

3 tests Anas Sarwar’s Scottish metro mayor plans must meet

By Richard Wood

Leader of the Scottish Labour Party Anas Sarwar has called for Scottish metro mayors in a speech marking 25 years of devolution.

The remarks follow his party winning all but one metro mayoral seats up for election south of the border this May, the most notable of which was Richard Parker’s win against incumbent Conservative Mayor Andy Street.

The main appeal of metro mayors is their ability to champion the areas they represent on scale not quite seen by constituency MPs. There’s little denying that Andy Burnham is able to grab media and government attention in a unique way suited to our current news and political landscape. Not to mention that to many voters elected mayors are seen as more accountable than a largely unnoticed council cabinet committee.

Furthermore, a metro mayor equivalent for Dundee for example could give different parts of Scotland the political attention they deserve, shifting focus away from the central belt.

However, metro mayors are far from a panacea. Despite the profile brought by the likes of Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan, the elections that put them in power are characterised by low turnout.

On top of that, elected mayors mark a shift away from deriving local government executives from elected councils. Concentrating such powers in one individuals would be a major jump from the culture of consensus set out with the set-up of the Scottish Parliament and shift to STV for local authorities, pushing Scotland in a more majoritarian direction.

Additionally, Scottish local government has far bigger problems such as funding and structural issues that imposing elected mayors or provosts won’t fix.

Any discussion about moving to a metro mayor system must be open, honest and frank. Crucially, three tests must be met if Scotland were to go down the path of introducing metro mayors.

1. Checks and balances

Elected mayors put a significant amount of power in the hands of one individual. Yes, they have a team that do much of the day to day work but ultimately directly elected executive mayors arguably give mayors too much power. A simple truth about democracy is that despite best intentions, one individual cannot fairly represent the views of all their constituents. Any elected mayors would need to be accountable to voters at elections and to elected councils – proportionately elected and with real powers of scrutiny – throughout their term.

2. Preferential voting

The UK government’s Election Act changed the voting system for directly elected executive mayors from the Supplementary Vote to First Past the Post. The Supplementary Vote was far from perfect but it at least gave a broader mandate to elected mayors as opposed to FPTP. If Scotland follows England, we should learn from the mistakes of the Elections Act and use the Alternative Vote to elect mayors. A preferential voting system would empower voters and give mayors the broad mandates they need to lead.

3. Referendum

Lastly, directly elected executive mayors should not be imposed on a populace without consent, whether that be by any new Scottish Government or local authorities themselves. Any proposals should be subject to a significant consultation process and conclude with a referendum to determine whether they are the right decision for each community. Likewise, communities should be able to vote to revert to a cabinet system for local government if they choose.

The adoption of directly elected executive Scottish mayors is an intriguing prospect but it would have significant downsides, notably the concentration of executive power in one pair of hands and a major shift away from the consensus-building democracy that has characterised Scotland in the age of devolution.

There are of course potential benefits as seen in England but any concrete proposals for reform should be carefully examined and criticised where appropriate.

If Scottish Labour, or any other party, do ever introduce elected mayors then their implementation must pass the three tests outlined above. However, lawmakers should in the first instance focus on more pressing issues facing local authorities as opposed to looking south for flashy reforms that aren’t necessarily what they seem. Anas Sarwar should consider all this if introducing metro mayors is ever something he gets the powers to do.

IMAGE SOURCE: This work contains Scottish Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Scottish Parliament Licence.

Wales has just changed its voting system. Scotland must follow

By Richard Wood

The Welsh Parliament has just approved the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Bill which will reform the voting system used to elect MSs.

The change, which comes into force for the 2026 elections replaces the Additional Member System with a Closed List Proportional Representation system. Under the reforms, the Senedd will increase from 60 to 96 members, made up of 16 multi-member constituencies of six MSs each.

While the Senedd uses a voting system aimed to deliver proportionality, the ratio of constituency MSs to list MSs negates much of this intent. At the 2021 election, Mark Drakeford’s Welsh Labour Party secured 30 out of 60 seats on 36.2% of the list vote (39.9% for the constituency), showing the mismatch between seats and votes.

The change to a party list system aims to address some of this, however, the proposed new system has its own flaws. In particular, the closed list element limits the say voters have over individual candidates. However, the change opens up a simple route to easily switch this change to an Open List PR system or the Single Transferable Votes if the Senedd sees fit.

The change in Wales highlights the need for reform at the Scottish Parliament as well. Scotland suffers a similar problem with its own Additional Member System although not to the same extent as Wales due to the slightly better ratio between constituency and list MSPs.

This year marks 25 years of devolution. And while Scotland’s voting set-up is more representative than Westminster’s chaotic First Past the Post system, the Scottish Parliament must follow Wales and commit to electoral reform.

End the FM merry-go-round: automatic early elections could improve Scottish Government accountability

By Richard Wood

When Humza Yousaf was elected as SNP leader by party members then first minister by MSPs early last year, the prospect of another change in first minister before the next election was seen as only a fringe possibility. Not anymore. The first minister’s unilateral decision to tear up the Bute House Agreement with the Scottish Greens could very well lead to his political downfall.

The Greens are furious. Alba are opportunistic. The SNP are divided.

Instead of adding more speculation to the state of play above, I want to address the mechanics of Holyrood’s democracy and how we can improve the status quo.

A change in government leader during a parliamentary term isn’t uncommon. And in theory it shouldn’t significantly alter the trajectory of a government if parties base their government policy on their most recent manifesto. But as much as we may want to keep the personality out of politics, the real world renders this impossible. We do not have a presidential system but voters do often cast their ballots with party leaders in mind, especially in the age of televised debates, the 24-hour news cycle and social media. Furthermore, when the leader of a government is replaced, in practice this can lead to significant policy changes, deviating from manifesto promises, without any citizen input. The most extreme example of this in modern times is the rise and fall of disgraced former Prime Minister Liz Truss. The Truss government set out to chart a very different course to the one her party was elected to deliver.

We live in a representative democracy where citizens elect a legislature which determines the government. Thankfully, MSPs do elect the first minister in parliament, unlike the chaotic conventions at Westminster. But when government leaders change, and crucially change policy direction from that set during the post-election government formation period (without any direct citizen input) we have to consider how accountable to voters this really is.

A province across the Atlantic offers a democratic mechanism that could be replicated at Holyrood, and indeed Westminster. The Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador has a landmass larger than the UK but a population smaller than Glasgow’s. Its House of Assembly has 40 members usually elected once every four years. However, when a premier is replaced between elections, an election is automatically triggered to take place within a year of the change. This happened most recently in 2021 after Liberal Andrew Fury took over from outgoing premier Dwight Ball.

Now there are drawbacks to this solution. Voter apathy resulting from multiple elections in a short space of time would be a possibility, not to mention costs of mandated additional elections. But a safeguard such as this would ensure that a change in government leadership has some input from the voters.

Of course, a third first minister in one parliamentary term has happened before. The death of Donald Dewar then the downfall of Henry MacLeish led to Jack McConnell becoming Scotland’s third first minister only a couple of years into devolution. The solution being proposed arguably would have added a layer of unnecessary chaos to the situation but it may have been less necessary back then. The Scottish Parliament had limited powers in those days and was still in its experimental phase. But now things are different. Devolution is a necessary part of our democracy, one to be protected and improved when necessary. Not to mention, the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government both have real teeth and should be held accountable by voters when there are major leadership changes.

And while we’re on the subject of accountability, Holyrood’s five-year terms are too long. Scotland switched away from four-year terms to avoid clashes with Westminster votes under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. With the act now repealed, Holyrood should follow Wales and return to four-year terms.

The events taking place this week may very well lead to an extraordinary general election later this year. That would be an extraordinary development but if we do end up with our third first minister in just over a year then an election would give much needed input from citizens.

What happens in Newfoundland and Labrador would need tweaking for a Scottish context. It’s not perfect and I’m not wholly committed to it as a solution, but it recognises the need to strike a balance between accountability and stability. With Holyrood currently tilted away from stability, an election trigger in the event of a changed first minister might just be a long-term solution.

Image source: Scottish Government (CC by 2.0)