Understanding the “first past the post” voting system

Professor John Curtice, of Strathclyde University, said: “The Lib Dem vote is more concentrated than it was, because they have targeted certain seats. But it is still more evenly distributed than Labour and the Tories. They may get 30 per cent of the vote everywhere, for example, but one of the others will tend to get 40 per cent, and the Lib Dems will lose.”

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The United Kingdom general election was held on Thursday, 6th May 2010, to elect members to the House of Commons. The election took place in 650 constituencies across the United Kingdom under the first-past-the-post system.

None of the parties achieved the 326 seats needed for an overall majority. The Conservative Party, led by David Cameron, won the largest number of votes and seats but still fell twenty seats short. This resulted in a hung parliament where no party was able to command a majority in the House of Commons.

This was only the second general election since World War II to return a hung parliament, the first being the February 1974 election. Unlike in 1974, the potential for a hung parliament had this time been widely considered and predicted and both the country and politicians were better prepared for the constitutional process that would follow such a result.

The coalition government that was subsequently formed was the first coalition in British history to eventuate directly from an election outcome.

Labour garnered 8,608,517 votes or 29.0% of the popular votes and won 39.7% of the seats.

Conservative garnered 10,703,654 votes or 36.1% of the popular votes and won 47.1% of the seats.

Liberal Democrat garnered 6,836,248 votes or 23.0% of the popular votes and won only 8.8% of the seats.

As you can see, the ruling party then, Labour, won only 30% of the votes but 40% of the seats. Conservative, the opposition party, won 36% of the votes but 47% of the seats. Both parties did not win enough seats to form the new government. Hence Lib Dem, who won 23% of the votes but a mere 9% of the seats, became the kingmaker.

Conservative and Lib Dem then formed the government with a total of 59% of the votes and 56% of the seats.

Initially, Lib Dem was supposed to have gone with Labour (as promised before the election) but that would have given them only 52% of the votes and just 48.5% of the seats, not enough to form the government.

And that is what the “first past the post” voting system is all about, the same system that Malaysia has. And to understand why this is so, read the following article.

****************************************

UK General Election 2010: most votes may still mean the least seats (April forecast before the May general election)

The Liberal Democrats could get more votes than Labour or the Conservatives yet still win the least number of Commons seats.

The Telegraph, 2010

This is due to our “first past the post” voting system, which means a party's share of the national vote does not equate to the number of seats it wins.

It rewards the party whose supporters are most efficiently located around the country, which is not necessarily the party with the most supporters overall.

The Liberal Democrats suffer because their support is more evenly spread.

This was illustrated in the 1983 general election. The Liberal/SDP alliance, as it was then known, received 25.4 per cent of the vote to Labour’s 27.6 per cent, yet won only 23 seats to Labour’s 209.

Professor John Curtice, of Strathclyde University, said: “The Lib Dem vote is more concentrated than it was, because they have targeted certain seats.”

“But it is still more evenly distributed than Labour and the Tories. They may get 30 per cent of the vote everywhere, for example, but one of the others will tend to get 40 per cent, and the Lib Dems will lose.”

Anthony Wells, of the UK Polling Report website, said: “In areas they have not targeted, they now have too much of a mountain to climb.”

Assuming the Lib Dem surge is spread evenly, they will hold their existing seats more safely, and pick up a handful from the Tories and Labour.

But because Labour piles up votes in safe urban seats, as the Conservatives do in safe rural seats, the swing to the Lib Dems will usually not be enough.

The system is more heavily biased towards Labour, as their safe seats tend to have fewer residents, who are also less likely to vote.

This is why Labour could come third in the share of the national vote and yet still win the most seats in the Commons.