This year’s local elections showed the unfairness of First Past the Post in action. A third of England went to the ballot box this May, but seats ultimately failed to reflect votes thanks to the unrepresentative voting system.
Unrepresentative local government
As with the House of Commons elections, English councils are elected via First Past the Post. And of course, the same problems persist at the local level: citizens aren’t fairly represented. Take, Kent County Council where Reform won a majority of seats on 37% of the vote. Our Shropshire where the Lib Dems took a majority of seats on a minority of votes.
England’s local electoral system is not first for purpose. Especially in the age of multi-party politics.
There’s a lesson here to be learnt from Scotland. Local authorities from Dumfries & Galloway to Shetland have successfully used STV to elect councillors since 2017. STV ensures that how Scots vote is reflected in local councils, so why not England? The upcoming elections Bill strikes as a clear opportunity to push this issue.
Unlike Scotland, England also has a number of directly elected executive mayors. This year six mayoralities were up for grabs, now all elected using First Past the Post having either previously been voted via the Supplementary Vote or brand new mayors. All mayors were elected with less than half the vote. The worst culprit here was the West of England where Labour’s candidate won on 25% of the vote.
Greater Lincolnshire: Andrea Jenkyns (Reform): 42.0%
Hull and East Yorkshire: Luke Campbell (Reform ) 35.8%
Doncaster: Ros Jones (Labour): 32.6%
North Tynside: Karen Clark (Labour): 30.2%
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough: Paul Bristow (Conservative): 28.4%
West of England: Helen Godwin (Labour): 25.0%
With such weak mandates, while there are flaws with single-member executive positions, if we are to have them in England they should be elected via preferential voting (the Alternative Vote also known as ranked choice voting).
The current system of low votes is unsustainable.
Similarly, while Scotland doesn’t have mayors currently, if they are introduced after the Holyrood elections they should be elected via such a preferential method.
English local government needs reform. Scotland had the answers.
Every now and again someone suggests introducing term limits for list MSPs. The argument being that lost MSPs are supposedly not elected by voters unlike their constituency counterparts.
However, list systems are normal in the democratic world and it is valid for someone to be elected as part of a list. When someone votes on the party list, they aren’t just blindly voting for said party, they are backing a slate of candidates.
That said, while term limits aren’t the answer, AMS lists aren’t perfect.
The real problem with the list element at Holyrood is two-fold.
First of all lists are closed, meaning voters have no say over what order candidates are ranked in. Tinkering with AMS is one option to improve Holyrood by introducing an open list element as part of the voting process. This is is used in Bavaria’s similar MMP system to empower voters at the ballot box.
But that only takes you so far. The second problem is the two-tier nature of MSPs. Having constituency and list MSPs creates a two-tier system. While in theory the two types of MSPs have the same jobs, this isn’t always the case in practice. Furthermore, it ends up creating attitudes that list MSPs aren’t real MSPs.
Instead of tinkering with AMS, although opening up lists would be a welcome step, Holyrood’s electoral system needs a major overhaul.
AMS provides broadly proportional parliaments but there is significant room for improvement. Switching to the Single Transferable Vote would end the two-tired element, strengthen proportionality (if designed fairly), and empower voters to rank candidates. An open list system where parties are ranked preferentially, and voters can vote for individual candidates within parties is also an alternative.
The Scottish Parliament is now over a quarter of a century old. AMS has done well to ensure that what happens in the ballot box leads to representative outcomes but there are fairer alternatives. The next Scottish Government and Parliament should address the democratic deficits at Holyrood to upgrade Scottish democracy for the next 25 Years and beyond.
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.
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.
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.
Next year marks 25 years of devolution following the re-establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999. After some bumps along the way, the Scottish Parliament is undeniably a success story. However, while its use of a broadly proportional voting system makes it more representative than the parliament in Westminster (what with FPTP in the Commons and the continued existence of the House of Lords), the Scottish Parliament needs reform. Put simply, Holyrood needs an upgrade.
Upgrade Holyrood champions better democracy in Scotland. With next year marking a quarter of a century of devolution, it will be the perfect time to reflect, assess and improve upon the democratic mechanisms of the Scottish Parliament.
First things first, Scotland’s voting system sounds great at first glance but there is significant room for improvement. The Additional Member System (AMS) ensures broad proportionality but only goes so far as having a mechanism for regional proportionality. What’s more it fails to address overhangs, retains single-member districts and leaves open the possibility for parties to “game the system” as seen with Alba’s failed attempt to win a “supermajority” for independence at the 2021 Scottish Parliament election. Furthermore, voters still have limited powers over individual candidates.
The system is significantly more proportional than First Past the Post but alternatives do exist – and those alternatives must be examined and adopted. There are three likely routes that the Scottish Parliament could take on this issue: AMS with modifications, Open List PR or the Single Transferable Vote.
Tinkering around the edges by adopting a German style mixed-member voting system to address overhangs and ensure national party proportionality would be a minor improvement but it would cause some headaches of it’s own – Germany’s Bundestag is growing with each election. The Scottish public are likely to be approving of significantly more politicians. What’s more such a system would retain single-member constituencies.
Open List PR with levelling seats – as in Denmark, Sweden or Iceland – this would improve proportionality, give voters power over individual candidates and crucially end single-member districts. This would be one option for the Scottish Parliament that’s worth considering. If we were to go down this route then we would to ensure that any lists are regional, open for voters to enhance their power and have levelling seats to ensure both regional and national proportional representation.
The final alternative is often seen as the gold-standard voting system (if implemented properly) – the Single Transferable Vote. Already used to elect councillors in Scotland, STV would provide proportionality (depending on district sizes), give voters an enormous amount of power at elections and provide voters with multi-party representation. What’s more, the system is backed by the SNP, Lib Dems, as well as some Labour and Conservative MSPs. The Scottish Greens recently supported it before backing Open List PR.
The Scottish Parliament must therefore examine its voting system in any 25-year review of devolution.
But it’s not just the electoral system where the Scottish Parliament needs improvements.
Holyrood needs to end dual mandates – primarily for joint MSP-MPs and MSP-Lords but also place restrictions on MSP-councillors. Dual mandates are unfair on voters who deserve fully-committed representatives. On top of that, there also needs to be a restriction on second jobs for MSPs, again for similar reasons.
We also need a return to four-year parliamentary terms. It’s right that election terms are fixed – as they give a level playing field to all parties and candidates – but five-year terms are too long and are only something the Scottish Parliament slipped into during the last decade as a result of Westminster’s very brief adoption of fixed five-year terms.
What’s more, the Scottish Parliament also needs a recall rule. Holyrood is ahead of Westminster on many fronts but the lack of ability for constituents to recall MSPs is a major flaw. In practice this will be difficult to achieve due to the mixed-member system and by-election blueprint for recalls at Westminster but any review of the functioning of the Scottish Parliament should include a reform of this nature.
2024 will be a milestone year for Scotland – 25 years of devolution have undoubtedly changed the Scottish political landscape forever.
Devolution works and what’s more it works well. This should be celebrated. But with that success comes room for improvement. There will be time to take stock next year and assess a way to move forward on these reforms – hopefully with cross-party support. It’s time to upgrade Holyrood.
By Richard Wood(Founder of Upgrade Holyrood, electoral reform campaigner)
The big stories of this year’s US elections were the Republican wave failing to materialise – thanks to the Democrats holding the Senate – and a razor-thin win for Republicans in the House. But November 2022 should also be remembered as a significant time for electoral reform in the USA.
Before getting into the details here, it’s worth framing the nature of electoral reform in the US. American reform movements by and large make the case for Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). In the case of single-member districts, RCV is simply the Alternative Vote (used in the Australian House of Representatives) whereas multi-member RCV districts are simply the Single Transferable Vote (used for Scottish local councils, as well as elections in Ireland, Malta and the Australian Senate).
Fair Vote USA (a 30-year-old organisation) and new campaign Fix Our House both advocate for proportional US elections.
The biggest win for Proportional Representation in November 2022 was the outcome of a referendum where people voted to adopt proportional multi-member Ranked Choice Voting.
Voters in Portland, Oregon backed wide-ranging proposals to reform the city’s charter including a provision to abolish First Past the Post voting and instead introduce multi-member districts with candidates ranked in order of preference. In 2024, the city of around 650,00 people will now have its first elections conducted under proportional Ranked Choice Voting. This is a massive win for better democracy campaigns and credit should be given to the Portland for Change campaign group who backed the reforms.
Measure 26-228 has officially been called by @Oregonian, passing with 57% of the vote and counting! A huge thank you to everyone who made this win possible.
On top of that, on the other side of the country Portland, Oregon’s namesake Portland, Maine (with a population of 68,000) also voted for STV.
It’s also worth highlighting that other places voted to replace First Past the Post with RCV in single-member districts. The Alternative Vote is far from perfect for electing multi-member bodies but in the American context this is an exciting development. According to Fair Vote USA, the places that did this are: Nevada; Seattle, WA; Portland, OR; Multnomah County, OR; Fort Collins, CO; Evanston, IL; Portland, ME; and Ojai, CA.
The USA is unlikely to adopt Proportional Representation at a national level any time soon, but progress is being made in the right direction. That the US’ 26th largest city voted in favour of PR should not be underestimated.
The previous Welsh government, an effective coalition between Labour, the Liberal Democrats and an independent, introduced legislation that gives Welsh local councils the opportunity to switch from First Past the Post to the Single Transferable Vote. But time is running out for councils to adopt it before the next set of local elections.
The Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021, which enables councils to make changes, was a great step forward as it allows the opportunity for significant upgrades to Welsh local democracy.
Of course, it’s disappointing that there wasn’t an automatic switch for all 22 councils, like in Scotland due to the Labour-Lib Dem coalition (2003 – 2007). Instead, individual councils have to make the decision themselves. But we are where we are.
There are real opportunities for change. However, the decks are stacked against reform campaigners. The Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 sets a deadline for reform ahead of the next elections. The legislation says the following:
“A resolution to exercise the power has no effect unless it is passed before 15 November of the year that is three years before the year in which the next ordinary election of the council is due to be held.”
With the next local elections due in May 2027, the deadline for reform is 15 November 2024, three years ahead of the elections. That’s now just two years away.
That may seem like a while away, but it’ll be November 2024 before we know it. Electoral reform campaigners in Wales will be very much aware of that.
Sweden went to the polls on Sunday 11 September 2022, four years after the previous vote in 2018. The country uses a system of Proportional Representation to elect members of the Riksdag, ensuring that how Swedes vote at the ballot box is reflected in parliament.
The country’s electoral system is worth exploring as an alternative to Holyrood’s broadly proportional but flawed Additional Member System.
What electoral system does Sweden use?
Sweden uses a system of Open List Proportional Representation with levelling seats to ensure national proportionality.
The country is divided into 29 constituencies – ranging from 2 to 43 members (Gotland and Stockholm county respectively) – to which parties present lists of candidates in each constituency. Voters get to vote for one party but also have the option to vote for individual candidates, which can alter the list ordering within their constituency. This is the open element of the system, thus further empowering voters at the ballot box.
Elections in Sweden are extremely proportional due to larger multi-member constituencies, however, what sets the country’s system apart from country’s such as Estonia and Latvia which use list PR systems, is that Sweden’s electoral system also employs levelling seats. Once all the votes are counted and seats distributed as per the voters’ wishes, parties win additional seats across the country to ensure that the overall results are as proportional as possible. Of the 349 seats in the Riksdag, 310 are distributed in the first instance while a further 39 are distributed to further improve proportionality. There is also a 4% national threshold for parties to enter the Riksdag. Sweden is not unique in this regard; Norway, Denmark and Iceland also have levelling seats to ensure proportionality overall.
How did Sweden vote at the 2022 election and how proportional was it?
The previous Swedish general election took place in 2018, which was followed by tough negotiations and even a no confidence vote in Prime Minister Stefan Löfven. However, Löfven emerged to lead a minority left coalition made up of his own party the Social Democrats, as well as the Greens. Löfven resigned in 2021, making way for party colleague Magdalena Andersson, who led her party into the 2022 election.
The most recent election was an incredibly close-run contest between the left and right blocs. On the left, the Social Democrats maintained their dominant position as the largest party in parliament. however, right of centre parties managed to win a very slim majority of seats, leading to Magdalena Andersson’s resignation on Thursday. The far-right Sweden Democrats replaced the centre-right Moderates as the second largest party in parliament but the Moderate leader is likely to become prime minister due to the toxicity of the Sweden Democrats even amongst the rest of the right. What influence they will have this parliament – and in the years to come – remains to be seen.
But how proportional was the 2022 election? Thanks to Sweden’s Open List PR system, the answer is very.
The Social Democrats for example won 107 seats (30.7%) on 30.4% of the vote. The Sweden Democrats took 73 seats (20.9%) on 20.5% of the vote while the Moderates won 68 seats (19.5%) on 19.5% of the vote. Overall, results were extremely proportional with seats reflecting votes. Furthermore, voters were empowered by the open element of the allowing them to express support for individuals within their chosen party.
Swedish Election Result (6,568 out of 6,578 Districts Counted):
Social Democrats: 107 (+3) Sweden Democrats: 73 (+11) Moderate: 68 (-2) Centre: 24 (-7) Left: 24 (-4) Christian Democrats: 19 (-4) Green: 18 (+2) Liberal: 16% (-4)
How do the Swedish and Scottish electoral systems compare?
The Scottish Parliament’s broadly proportional Additional Member System (AMS) is significantly fairer than the unrepresentative First Past the Post voting system used for the House of Commons. However, it has a number of flaws that need to be addressed. Problems associated with Holyrood’s mixed-member system are listed below:
1. Regional not national PR – As list members are distributed on a regional basis only, there is no mechanism to ensure overall nationality proportionality. While regional proportionality tends to result in broadly proportional outcomes overall, there is still room for improvement.
2. Limited voter power – Under AMS voters have no power over the ordering of party lists. Furthermore, the constituency vote element limits voter power by creating safe seats and targeted marginal seats while also being “lists of one”.
3. Two types of MSPs – Due to the nature of mixed-member systems, the Scottish Parliament has two types of MSP. While in theory they perform the same functions, this can vary in practice, particularly on the casework side of things.
4. The two-vote problem – Voters have two votes, and while they should ideally work in tandem to result in proportional outcomes, it creates the opportunities for parties to exploit this by only standing in the list and asking established parties’ supporters to back them on the list. This was highlighted when Alba was established with the express intention to do this in 2021. This clearly goes against the spirit of AMS and could create highly disproportionate elections.
5. Constituency seats remain (and dominate!) – Single-member constituencies still come with many of the flaws they have in FPTP. They result in wasted votes and can lead to safe seats, as well as marginal seats which can result in parties focusing on them rather than giving attention to the wider region or country. Furthermore, the fact that constituency seats make up a significant majority of seats in the Scottish Parliament, this can result in overhangs (which aren’t addressed by AMS) and skew overall proportionality – particularly if one party dominates single-member seats.
Upgrade Holyrood is committed to making the case for improving Scotland’s democracy, and that includes arguing for a review of the current system and outlining alternatives. The type of system used for Swedish elections – an Open List PR system with levelling seats – is one option that would address many of the faults of AMS.
Levelling seats would rectify the problem of limited national proportionality. And while there would technically be two types of MSP, under a Swedish model, these are given back to constituencies, minimising that problem to a minimum. Furthermore, voters would only have one party vote, ending the two vote problem, and single-seat constituencies would come to an end. Voters would also be empowered by being able to influence party lists unlike under AMS where parties present unalterable lists.
But what would such a system look like in practice?
Ballot Box Scotland is a strong advocate of Holyrood adopting an Open List PR system (with levelling seats), which they categorise as Scandinavian-style PR. For those wondering what Holyrood would look like if it adopted a system like Sweden, BBS has designed such a model for Scotland and used the most recent Scottish Parliament election results to give an indication of what seat distribution would look like.
This is shown below. Of course, it’s worth noting that the size of any constituencies in such a system if it were to be adopted would be up to the designers so it wouldn’t necessarily reflect the below. Furthermore, in terms of seat projections, the below uses the regional vote to determine how people would cast their singular Open List PR vote. In reality, many who voted ‘SNP constituency and Green regional’ might instead have use their one vote for the SNP although this is all speculation of course. In addition, the type of voting system used very much determines how people vote and so how people may have voted under this system could be completely different (e.g. smaller parties may be more considered).
Final Large Change: Abolish all trace of current model, introduce Scandinavian Style PR! https://t.co/1Vj8klBW7h
SNP ~ 55 (-9) Conservative ~ 32 (+1) Labour ~ 24 (+2) Green ~ 11 (+3) Lib Dem ~ 7 (+3)
— Ballot Box Scotland (@BallotBoxScot) June 3, 2021
So, what support is there for a Swedish-style system among Scottish parties? The Scottish Greens support a Scandinavian-style system while the Lib Dems favour the Single Transferable Vote (which again would be better than AMS if designed effectively), as do the SNP while Labour and the Conservatives are largely missing from this debate (although figures such as Labour’s Paul Sweeney MSP recognise the faults of the current system).
That all said, a Sweden-like system is not the only alternative to the current set-up at Holyrood. Two other alternatives would be the Single Transferable Vote (which would address many of AMS’ problems, ensure proportionality and vastly improve voter choice and power) and a modified mixed-member system with open lists and guaranteed overall proportionality (similar to Bavaria’s electoral system).
Sweden’s election provides just one model that Holyrood – and perhaps Westminster (although that seems far less likely and possibly undesirable for such a large populous) – could adopt to improve electoral outcomes. Reform is needed, and to achieve change it is vital that we look to other parliaments for guidance.
The citizens of Malta voted for a new House of Representatives on 26 March 2022. Unlike elections to the UK’s House of Commons, how Maltese vote is actually reflected in parliament due to the country’s system of Proportional Representation (specifically, the Single Transferable Vote).
Scottish and UK politics have much to learn from Malta.
In 2017, Joseph Muscat’s Labour Party won 37 seats (on 55% of the vote) ahead of the National Force’s 30 (on 43.7% of the vote). Unusually for a country using Proportional Representation, Malta has a fairly consistent two-party system.
The country changed prime minister’s in 2020 and at the recent 2022 election, Labour held on to power by winning one more seat than it achieved at the last election. Here’s what happened in 2022 and how Maltese elections work.
Malta uses the Single Transferable Vote to elect its representatives. The country is split into 13 constituencies, each with five members, and voters get to rank candidates in order of preference. This leads to largely proportional outcomes and a significant degree of voter empowerment.
Unlike in other countries using STV, a two-party system has dominated Malta for decades, with only a handful of third parties gaining representation despite the relatively low barriers of entry to the House of Representatives compared to the challenges they face in countries using majoritarian and pluralitarian systems such as First Past the Post.
Malta’s STV also has a final twist that doesn’t exist in places such as Scotland, Ireland and Australia’s Senate. Under standard STV it is still possible for the party with the most first preference votes to win fewer seats than an opposition party. The Maltese system addresses this by giving additional seats to the party with the most first preference votes across the whole of Malta. This is a sensible solution to addressing one of the flaws of an otherwise representing and empowering electoral system, one which could even be built upon for STV elections in Scotland and the UK.
Due to STV and the Maltese twist on it, elections in Malta are highly proportional.
At the 2022 election, the Labour Party won 38 (56.72%) seats on 55.11% of first preference votes. The Nationalist Party secured 29 (43.28%) seats on 42.74% of the vote. There was clearly a strong link between seats and votes.
But looking at the overall figures only offers one level of analysis.
One tried and tested way to measure proportionality, and crucially compare proportionality of different systems, is to calculate the Gallagher index for an elections. More on the mathematics behind the indices can be read here, but the closer to zero the index is, the more proportional it is.
In Malta’s case, elections are highly proportional with indices consistently around the 1 mark for elections in the 21st century. The election result in 2017 was similar to 2022 (Labour won 37 seats on 55.04% of first preference votes while the National Party won 28 seats on 42.12% of the vote). The Gallagher Index for that election vote was 1.01. In fact every Maltese election since 1987 has had a Gallagher index less than 2, showing just how proportional Malta’s electoral system is.
In comparison, Scottish Parliament elections are largely proportional – the Gallagher index for 2016 was 5.6 while the index for 2021 was 7.03. However, UK elections are highly unrepresentative thanks to First Past the Post, for example, the Gallagher Index for the 2019 elections was 11.80.
Elections in Malta are highly proportional while and empower voters to a high degree. The Single Transferable Vote is far superior to First Past the Post, used to elect MPs in the UK, and more representative, and empowering, than the Additional Member System used at Holyrood. What’s more a version of the “Maltese twist” on the traditional STV is one worth considering when it comes to UK elections.
At the last UK election, the Conservatives won a majority on 43% of the vote while parties such as the Greens and Lib Dems were significantly unrepresented. Had the UK been using STV, the election outcome would have been much more representative than under First Past the Post. Furthermore, the UK could build on the Maltese version of STV by implementing its own levelling twist. Say under STV one party won more seats than another but fewer first preference votes, a number of levelling seat could be added to ensure a fairer outcome and tackle questions of illegitimacy.
STV Proportional Representation is clearly fairer than First Past the Post, as shown by the Maltese election. However, STV is already used for Scottish local elections, as well as Northern Ireland’s Stormont and local elections. Westminster has much to learn from Malta but also from elections for devolved administrations.
upgradeholyrood.com 