The latest poll from Ipsos shows why it’s time to ditch the Additional Member System used to elect MSPs.
The company’s latest survey grabbed the headlines for placing Reform second, behind the SNP, on the constituency vote. Neither Nigel Farage’s rising party, nor UKIP before it, have even won seats at Holyrood so this result would be a seismic shift in political behaviour.
However, beneath the headlines of Reform’s surge, the polling numbers alongside seat projections tell a different story. One of a creaking electoral system past its best.
The poll puts the SNP on 35% and 28% for constituency and list vote shares respectively. According to projections by Ballot Box Scotland, that is estimated to give the party 60 seats. That’s almost 47% of seats available.
The difference is staggering. Under AMS where seats are meant to match list vote share, BBS projects that the party would likely win around 40 seats. That’s still above the 28% of seats they would be entitled to under a fully proportional system (usual caveats about different voting systems impacting voting intention).
The biggest difference here is with the SNP. The party has lost significant support since 2021 but benefits from a fragmented unionist vote, with four parties competing for anti-independence voters – namely the Lib Dems, Labour, Conservatives and Reform.
BBS projects Scottish Labour would win 19 seats if Scotland voted like this. That’s 4 fewer than if a more proportional AMS was used (23).
Reform lose out the most, projected to win 6 short of the 23 they would win in a “better AMS”.
The Greens are projected to win 17 seats (AMS ideal: 21), the Conservatives 11 (AMS ideal: 14) and the Lib Dems 5 (compared to 8 under AMS ideal).
This result would mark a major shift in Scottish party politics, and a major decline in support for the Westminster duopoly. But that change risks not being fully shown in terms of seats.
Next year marks 27 years of devolution and the sixth Scottish election. Wales has reviewed and changed its fairly disproportional voting system for something somewhat better. Scotland’s sixth parliament should legislate to do the same.
The risk of 2021 was Alex Salmond’s Alba gaming the system to win a disproportionate independence supermajority. As we know, that outcome never emerged. This time, the threat of a seriously disproportionate election result comes from something much more likely. If the results in May look something like this, let’s hope they’re a wake-up call to our new legislators.
Before the return of Donald Trump, Canada’s Conservative looked set to sail to power in 2025, ending a decade of Liberal rule. But a maverick president and his trade war have shifted the dial dramatically, resulting in Liberal Mark Carney returning as Prime Minister, having called an early election just weeks into the job. The Conservative leader even lost his seat.
There are of course significant geopolitical implications flowing from this development as the world grapple with an emboldened President Trump, but it’s important to examine Canada’s election through the lens of electoral reform.
The flaws of First Past the Post exposed once again
Like the UK, Canada uses the unrepresentative First Past the Post system to elect MPs. As in 2024’s UK General Election, Canada has been given a parliament that doesn’t fairly reflect how people vote.
The Liberals have likely won just shy of a majority of seats on around 43% of the vote (although with some places still counting a majority government is still technically possible). Their vote share is the party’s largest in decades but that doesn’t legitimise the country’s unfair voting system and shouldn’t lead them to winning almost half the seats available.
The Conservatives have in fact won a vote share roughly proportional to the number of seats they won, but that is a rarity in FPTP politics and doesn’t mitigate the fact that millions of Canadians voted Conservative but are without direct Conservative representation.
Then there’s the NDP. The party have suffered at the hands of their former voters turning on them and backing Carney to oppose Poilievre and Trump. The party has been reduced to just 2% of seats on 6% of the vote, significantly fewer than if seats matched votes.
Of course, while the NDP stand across Canada and Bloc Québécois in only one province, the parties won similar vote shares but notably different numbers of seats (the Bloc doing better by winning over 20 seats).
Carney’s win follows two elections (2019 and 2021) where the Liberals under Justin Trudeau won the most seats, forming minority governments, but on fewer votes than the Conservatives.
While Canadians have avoided a third wrong-winner election in a row, seats overall still don’t match votes and voters are stuck with single-member ridings where MPs can’t fairly represent all their constituents.
Canada’s missed opportunity for Proportional Representation
Most campaigners for electoral reform across the English speaking world will know that Trudeau famously promised to abolish First Past the Post ahead of the 2015.
His party leapfrogged from third to first-place, forming a government with a majority of seats, then U-turned, making no effort to reform the voting system despite a decade in power.
Frustratingly, as in the UK, First Past the Post remains in place to this day. Voting reform didn’t even get a mention in Carney’s 2025 manifesto.
Canada, like the UK has a strong case to give FPTP the boot and embrace Proportional Representation.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
On 18 September 2023, Mick Antoniw MS, Counsel General and Minister for the Constitution, laid the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Bill before the Senedd. The Bill outlines a series of reforms, as part of the Welsh Labour and Plaid Cyrmu cooperation agreement, the Welsh democracy.
The headline changes are the switch from the Additional Member System (AMS) to a Closed List Proportional voting system and an increase to 96 Members of the Senedd.
One important change which hasn’t received much attention is a return to four-year terms. This means that, if the Bill becomes law, after the planned 2026 election the next Welsh election will be 2030 – not 2031.
This switch to four-year terms will improve accountability and strengthen the link between voters and their representatives. There’s no right answer as to how often elections should be, but five-year terms lead to zombie governments (just look at Westminster right now) and limited accountability. They also mean voters going to the polls just twice a decade. Two-year terms on the other hand lead to constant electioneering as seen in the states. And there’s definitely an element of this in Australia and New Zealand, which have three year terms, as well as limited ability to take long-term actions. Four-year terms however, strike a sensible balance between accountability and stable governance. The Welsh Government’s reform is the right move.
Unfortunately, like Wales, Scotland moved to five-year terms in the Scottish Elections (Reform) Act in 2020 to accommodate the UK’s now repealed Fixed-Term Parliaments Act. The next planned election after 2026 will be 2031, one year after Wales’ next vote after 2026. There’s nothing wrong with devolved elections being out of sync but the accountability deficit in Scotland will be larger than in Wales. Holyrood can do better. To empower voters, and hold MSPs to account, that should change.
The Scottish Parliament needs a democratic upgrade – Holyrood should follow the Senedd and return to four-year terms. Parties should consider this ahead of the 2026 election.
A system of Proportional Representation (PR) is one that ensures that how people vote at the ballot box is reflected in parliament. Unlike Westminster elections, in which the unrepresentative First Past the Post is used system to elect MPs (PR), the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Senedd and Northern Irish Assembly all use a form of PR to elect their legislators.
However, just because a legislature uses a PR system, doesn’t mean that results are purely proportional. The extent of proportionality depends on the type of system used and various parameters such as district magnitude and the ratio of list seats to single-member electorates if applicable. When it comes to PR elections within the UK, proportionality is a question of extent for these reasons.
Scottish Parliament
The Scottish Parliament uses the Additional Member System (AMS) to elect MSPs. Voters get two votes: one for their local constituency representative (using a First Past the Post voting system) and one for the regional list. Constituency votes are counted and seats allocated first. Party votes in each region are then added together to allocate regional MSPs. Crucially, regional MSPs are allocated by taking into account the number of MSPs won by each party in the constituencies to ensure broadly proportional results overall.
So, how proportional are Scottish Parliament elections?
One of the best ways to answer this question is to look at the Gallagher Index for Scottish Parliament elections. Simply put, a Gallagher Index for any election is a measure of proportionality that can be used to compare elections across time and between countries. The lower the score for an election, the more proportional it is.
For context, the Gallagher Index for the 2019 UK General Election was 11.8. Canada also uses First Past the Post and had a score of 13.39 in 2019. These are fairly disproportional results.
In contrast, the Scottish Parliament’s scores are on average considerably lower – meaning more proportional as we would expect with its Additional Member System. On average, Scottish Parliament elections have a Gallagher Index of 7. The vote in 2016 was 5.60 and 2021 was 7.03.
Overall, Scottish Parliament elections are pretty proportional but the extend of proportionality is limited by the ratio of constituency to list seats and overhangs. While Holyrood is more representative than Westminster, after almost 25 years of devolution, the Scottish Parliament needs reform.
The Welsh Parliament also uses the Additional Member System to elect its representatives, however, it’s proportionality is even more limited than Holyrood’s. This is mainly due to the fact that the ratio of constituency to list seats is skewed in favour of the former, with just 20 list seats to 40 list seats. Compare that to the 73 list seats and 56 constituency seats in the Scottish Parliament. Furthermore, Welsh electoral regions each only have four representatives compared to the seven in each Scottish region. With fewer MSs per region, the effective threshold for a party getting representatives is significantly higher than in Scotland.
When it comes to the Gallagher Index, since the institution’s creation in 1999, the six elections have had an average score of 10.57. The most recent Welsh election had a score of 9.36. In that election, Labour won more than half of the single-member constituencies but the additional element of proportionality ensure a more proportional result. However, if you dig a little deeper you will see that votes don’t match seats too well – Labour won 29 of the 60 seats available on just 31.5% of the regional vote.
Overall, Welsh elections are more representative than those for Westminster but not as representative as those for Holyrood.
Unlike the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Senedd, Northern Irish elections use the Single Transferable Vote to elect MLAs.
Under STV, the province is divided into multi-member constituencies (with five-members each). Voters rank candidates in order of preference resulting in proportional outcomes overall. Since 1998, there have been seven Northern Ireland Assembly elections with an average Gallagher Index of 4.33. However, the most recent election had a score of 7.80, a high in the modern era under STV.
Overall, Northern Irish elections are very proportional, and as they use STV they don’t have the problems associated with the Additional Member System.
The Canadian province of Manitoba is going to the polls October in what is set to be the third First Past the Post failure in Canada this year, following elections in Prince Edward Island and Alberta.
Manitoba, along with the rest of Canada’s provinces and territories, uses the First Past the Post voting system to elect its legislator. The system is also used to elect MPs to the Canadian parliament. Why is this important to know? First Past the Post ultimately skews the link between seats and votes, resulting in unrepresentative legislatures.
What happened in the last Manitoban election?
The previous Manitoban election took place in 2019 – the Progressive Conservatives retained their majority of seats, which they won on less than half the vote (47%). The opposition New Democratic party made modest gains but not enough to take the top spot from the right. Meanwhile, the Liberals won 15% of the vote but only 3 out of 57 seats while the Greens secured 6.5% of the vote but no seats across the entire province.
Overall, the election was pretty unrepresentative of how Manitobans actually voted.
How representative will the election be this time? What does polling currently say?
This time, polling suggests that the NDP and Progressive Conservatives are neck and neck when it comes to votes. However, thanks to First Past the Post the way the province actually votes is unlikely to be reflected by seats won in the legislature. The NDP may pull ahead on the day but there’s no guarantee that winning the most votes will result in a party winning the most seats – a feature of First Past the Post known as wrong-winner elections.
Put simply, as with previous Manitoban elections First Past the Post will distort how people vote at the ballot box. Whatever happens, seats are unlikely to match votes.
Manitoba follows Prince Edward Island and Alberta this year
Prince Edward Island held its election on 3 April, earlier than the election scheduled for October, a gamble that paid off for the province’s premier Dennis King. King’s Progressive Conservatives ultimately gained seats, taking 55.9% of the vote and an overwhelming majority of seats (22 of 27, 81.5% of those in the chamber). The party did win an overall majority of the vote but their seat share is an excessive overrepresentation.
The only other parties elected were the Liberals and the Greens. However, while the Liberals became the second largest part (with just 3 seats to the Greens’ 2), they won fewer votes than the Greens overall. Considering that the Liberals won 17.2% of seats to the Greens 21.6%, this was hardly a fair election.
The following month Alberta went to the polls. The province has very much evolved into having a two-party system: the United Conservatives took 49 seats on 53% of the vote took 38 on 44%. Due to the dominance of two parties, this election did in fact have seat shares that roughly reflected vote shares (56% and 43% respectively), however, just because seats matched votes on this level doesn’t mean the system didn’t fail Alberta. Single-member districts are a massive flaw of First Past the Post.
In every Albertan riding (constituency), a significant minority of voters are represented by candidates they didn’t vote for. Take the riding of Calgary-Fish Creek: the United Conservative candidate won 54% of the vote, however, 44% voted New Democratic and 1.5% voted Liberal. Almost 1 in 2 voters are not represented by someone they wanted to represent them.
Under a system of PR with multi-member districts, seats will closely match votes across the legislature and most voters will be represented by at least one represented by a party they gave their support to.
Like the UK, Canada has a democratic deficit thanks to its use of First Past the Post.
It’s up to those in Canada to make the case for Proportional Representation but this latest election demonstrates the need for fair votes in all democracies such as the UK and highlights the unfairness of the distorting nature of the status-quo.
Next year marks 25 years since the establishment of the devolved Scottish Parliament. In that time we’ve had six first ministers, six elections and a seismic shift in voting patterns best illustrated by the once dominant Labour now in third place and a pro-independence majority at Holyrood.
With a quarter of a century of devolution fast approaching, a full review of Scotland’s democratic apparatus is surely needed. Democracy is a process not an event; likewise our democratic institutions need to evolve and keep up with democratic best practice.
1. Better Proportional Representation
When it comes to the link between how people vote at the ballot box and how seats are distributed in the legislature, the Scottish Parliament is significantly fairer than the House of Commons (let alone the unelected House of Lords). The introduction of the Additional Member System (AMS) to elect MSPs from the outset, rather than the unrepresentative First Past the Post (FPTP) system, has ensured diverse representative parliaments where seats won broadly reflect votes cast.
That said, the benefits of AMS should not be overstated. The system has a number of flaws which should be addressed and remedied. Holyrood needs electoral reform as well as Westminster.
AMS is only partially proportional. A majority of seats are elected via FPTP and the proportional list seats are allocated on a regional basis leading to only regional proportionality and a risk of overhangs with no mechanism to correct them. Furthermore, the FPTP constituencies as an integral (and majority) part of AMS result in safe seats, retain a major drawback of FPTP.
There’s also the two-vote problem – having two types of votes can lead to divergence between constituency and list votes cast, messing with the ended outcome of proportionality. As part of that, the system can be gamed: although unsuccessful, in 2021 Alba tried to game the list vote to create a supermajority for independence, going against the spirit of a system designed to represent as many views as possible – as accurately as possible. This is compounded by the fact that there are two types of MSP, constituency and list, which while in theory have the same roles in practice can be rather different.
AMS is superior to FPTP but its flaws demonstrate the need to reform. The Scottish Parliament needs a system like the Single Transferable Vote to empower voters, deliver better proportionality and end the two vote/MSP problem.
Dual mandates occur when an individual holds elected office for two positions. In the Scottish context, this can be any combination of MP, MSP, Councillor or Peer. Scotland needs fair and accountable representation, through dedicated parliamentarians. We need to end dual mandates.
The main argument against dual mandates is one of two connected parts. In principle, parliamentarians are elected to serve their constituents at either Holyrood or Westminster. Each role has different responsibilities, and representatives owe it to their constituents to solely focus on representing constituents in one clear capacity. Dual mandates mean this cannot happen.
Related to that is the practical element. Being an MP or MSP is a full-time job and carrying out the duties of both roles to the same extent as a representative for one job is simply impossible. Constituents deserve better than that.
The only current MSP to hold a dual mandate is Scottish Conservative Leader Douglas Ross. That said, it’s worth flagging that while Labour MSP Katy Clark is also a member of the House of Lords she has stepped down active duty in that role while in the Scottish Parliament. Furthermore, until the 2022 Scottish council elections, 18 newly elected MSPs also held dual mandates from their roles as councillors they won before the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections.
In a similar spirit to the above reform, the Scottish Parliament needs to restrict MSPs from having second jobs. The problem is a big one at Westminster, with MPs in safe seats taking advantage of that job security and focusing time and energy into other pursuits. While not as a significant issue in the Scottish Parliament, there are no restrictions on MSPs taking additional employment. Constituents deserve 100% focus on them – MSPs having second jobs just doesn’t cut it.
There is of course a debate over to what exact reach any restrictions on second jobs should have. Clearly any jobs even relating to public affairs and lobby should be to prevent any conflicting motivations. Full-time jobs should also definitely face a ban. While at the other end of the scale there’s a case to doctors and similar professionals to work limited hours in that capacity to retain licenses.
There is of course a middle ground between those two ends and while it’ll be up to policy-makers to decide where the line is drawn, anything that takes up a significant portion of an MSPs time should be banned.
The Scottish Parliament was founded with fixed-term four-year parliamentary terms as shown by the 1999, 2003, 2007 and 2011 elections. Regular fixed elections ensure frequent accountability and democratic input from the voters. Westminster’s fixed-term parliament Act wasn’t perfect but it ensured a level playing field in normal times – all parties knew when the election was scheduled for. The reality was of course quite different due to Brexit and political upheaval but the principle is solid and is borne out in practice in much of the democratic world. In different times, the benefits would have been realised. The current uncertainty as to when the next Westminster election will take place is frustrating and places an obvious advantage in the hands of the incumbent prime minister.
With the principle of fixed elections established, it then follows how frequent these should be?
There is no right answer but the move to five-year Holyrood terms means just two elections a decade, less accountability and “zombie parliaments” at the end of a parliamentary term.
Two year parliaments, as seen in the USA with the House of Representatives, face the opposite problem: too much accountability leading to constant electioneering and voter fatigue. New Zealand and Australia have three year parliaments, which are popular over there but would be a radical shift in the UK and perhaps lead to the same voter fatigue seen during the Brexit crisis.
There is however, a happy middle that would ensure a fair balance between accountability and effective government. Four year terms would enable that – and it’s time for Holyrood to return to its roots.
During the last parliamentary session a disgraced former minister was able to claim his salary and expenses while not even turning up to the Scottish Parliament to represent his constituents. The minister brought the parliament into disrepute but there was no mechanism to remove him as an MSP.
Holyrood should learn from Westminster and introduce a recall rule to address this democratic deficit. A recall petition – that can lead to a by-election – is triggered if an MP receives a custodial prison sentence, is suspended from the House or is convicted of providing false or misleading expenses claims. A similar mechanism should be adopted at Holyrood, ideally as part of a new, fairer voting system, and built upon to include MSPs who don’t turn up and other actions that don’t live up to what is expected of MSPs.
The Westminster system is designed for FPTP so modifications would be required for AMS at Holyrood, especially the list element or any future better alternative. That said, whatever voting system is used it’s clear that there should be a mechanism to remove lawbreaking and absent MSPs. Anything less is an insult to democratic accountability.
The idea of more politicians will be off-putting for many but a moderate increase in the size of the Scottish Parliament would be a proportionate response to the increased powers held by the chamber. Furthermore, with around a fifth of MSPs on the government payroll (as ministers and junior ministers) an increase in members will improve overall accountability and scrutiny. MSPs also often sit on multiple committees in addition to party spokesperson roles and their work as constituency MSPs, a point recently made in the Herald.
Scottish representatives need the space to become experts in different areas. Freeing up time to limit multi-tasking would result in just that, further improving scrutiny.
An increase in MSPs would also allow greater flexibility when designing a new voting system for the Scottish Parliament. Sticking to 129 would place limitations on the exact make-up of any new election system.
7. Better ballot access
Better ballot access isn’t something that Upgrade Holyrood has directly advocated before but it’s a reform that’s well worth considering as part of a wider package of upgrading Scottish democracy. To stand for election at either Holyrood or Westminster, one must pay a deposit of £500, only returnable upon winning 5% of the vote. This has become such a normalised part of our politics it blurs into the background and is regularly accepted without question.
Yet is should be questioned. Requiring a £500 deposit to stand for election places an immediate barrier on potential candidates. Of course there should be a barrier to minimise non-serious candidates to only the most persistent but the nature of the £500 is a financial barrier which has obvious consequences for accessibility and equality.
Championed by Ballot Box Scotland, one alternative would be combination of entitlements and subscriptions, which are used in other democracies. Parties and/or candidates who win seats in the most recent elections would be entitled to automatically stand again if they wish. However, new parties or independent candidates would be required to gather signatures of say 0.1% of the electorate to demonstrate a level of support. This would result in a system with no financial barriers, only the barrier of proving that a party or candidate has a small but provable level of support and reduce frivolous candidates.
BONUS – Further powers for local councils and local democracy reforms
This isn’t strictly a reform of the Scottish Parliament, but to wider Scottish democracy. Decisions should be made as close to the people as possible at the level of governance most appropriate as possible. While the Scottish Parliament has gained powers since its formation, local councils have only seen some moderate increases in powers while power in Scotland has been increasingly centralised at Holyrood. Local councils surely deserve more of a say in how local areas are run.
Another set of local elections in England has left a bad taste in the mouths of better democracy campaigners. Yet this time is slightly different. This time – instead of the same old story of unrepresentative councils across the country – we have taken a significant step backwards when it comes to local democracy.
We can debate the merits of directly elected executive mayors another time but if we are to have them – which England does – they should have broad mandates. Until the Elections Act (2022), these mayors were elected via the Supplementary Vote (SV) system.
The SV system isn’t perfect but it gave mayors broad mandates, a crucial check on directly elected executive positions. Instead of making positive reforms, the Conservatives’ regressive Elections Act scrapped this system and imposed First Past the Post on mayoralties across England.
The situation will be far worse in 2024 when metro mayors and Police and Crime Commissioner elections are scheduled. Crucially, 2024 will see the first London mayoral election held under First Past the Post.
Again, the Supplementary Vote wasn’t perfect but it allowed for successful candidates to secure their mandates with broad support. Instead of imposing First Past the Post on mayoralties, the government should have improved the system by implementing the Alternative Vote for mayoral positions. AV would allow voters to rank candidates in order of preference and give directly elected executive mayors broad mandates.
Instead, this development comes on top of the usual story of unrepresentative councils thanks to First Past the Post. Right across England councils were elected with seat shares not reflective of vote shares. English local democracy should be upgrade more widely via the introducing of the Single Transferable Vote (STV) for council elections.
The Lib-Lab coalition of 2003 – 2007 did this in north of the border. Scottish local democracy’s success story since 2007 is undeniable. The country no longer has “one-party state” councils and has a vibrant multi-party democracy at the local level where how people vote at the ballot box is reflected in local councils.
Northern Irish local elections take place in two weeks time using STV. These elections will be a welcome contrast to those we saw in England at the start of the month.
A Conservative government at Westminster isn’t going to upgrade English local democracy any time soon. But the next Westminster power arrangement – possibly some combination of Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs – should look to the Scottish and Northern Irish success stories and upgrade England’s local politics. Preferential voting for both mayors and councillors would be a major leap forward. This year’s elections once again show that change is needed.
The general election for the Canadian province of Prince Edward Island has yielded yet another unrepresentative election. The province, like the rest of Canada, uses First Past the Post to elect Members of the Legislative Assembly. The case for Proportional Representation has raised its head yet again.
What happened last time? The 2019 election
Back in 2019, Dennis King’s Progressive Conservatives ousted the governing Liberal Party winning 13 of 27 seats (just one short of a majority) on a mere 36.7% of the vote.
The Greens, with only a limited presence at Canada’s federal level secured 30.6% of the vote, significantly up on their previous total. They took eight seats, only coincidently a seat share (29.6%) close to their vote share.
The Liberals took just six seats (22.2%) on 29.4% of the vote.
Overall, the election was moderately disproportional, largely shown by the inflated seat share won by King’s Progressive Conservatives.
The next election wasn’t due until October 2023 but King called an early election for Monday 3 April 2023.
In terms of fair representation, the results were worse than the previous vote.
The Progressive Conservatives gained seats, taking 55.9% of the vote and an overwhelming majority of seats (22 of 27 – 81.5% of those in the chamber). True, they won an overall majority of the vote but their seat share is an excessive overrepresentation.
The only other parties elected were the Liberals and the Greens. However, while the Liberals became the second largest part (with just 3 seats to the Greens’ 2), they won fewer votes than the Greens overall.
The Liberals won 17.2% of seats to the Greens 21.6%.
Overall, Canada’s latest provincial election was highly unrepresentative due to First Past the Post. Time and time again this system of voting undermines the link between seats and votes.
It’s up to those in Canada to make the case for Proportional Representation but this latest election demonstrates the need for fair votes in all democracies such as the UK and highlights the unfairness of the distorting nature of the status-quo.
upgradeholyrood.com 
