May 2015 could be the ‘lottery election’ – where your vote is worth about as much as a lottery ticket
British politics is now truly a multi-party phenomenon. The SNP could win over 50 seats, potentially overtaking the Liberal Democrats, while UKIP and the Greens together currently have the support of over a fifth of the UK population. The era of everyone voting for the two main parties is long gone.
But what happens when this is combined with a worn-out electoral system like First Past the Post?
The answer is: chaos. May 2015 could be what the Electoral Reform Society is calling a ‘lottery election’ – where your vote is worth about as much as a lottery ticket.
The ERS asked polling expert Professor John Curtice from the University of Strathclyde to look at some of the possible post-May scenarios: he found that it could all depend on relatively small swings of the vote affecting the whole outcome of the election.
Take one example. Despite the surge of the SNP to double-digit leads over Labour, small swings in the vote and its geographical spread mean they could either end up with a handful of seats or dozens (see graph). A neck-and-neck Labour/SNP result would leave the nationalists with fewer than 20 seats to Labour’s near-40, while a ten-point SNP lead would almost completely reverse that result.
When the Greens and UKIP are thrown into the mix, the result becomes even more unpredictable. What is likely, however, is that both parties will be disappointed, with UKIP potentially failing to build on their two by-election victories even with an expected 13 per cent of the national vote. At the same time the Greens – though likely to retain Brighton Pavilion – could fail to make any gains even with the 8 per cent they are currently polling.
Yet the Lib Dem vote could to some extent determine the election, with their support hitting the Conservatives harder than Labour. To illustrate this, a Lib Dem vote of 10 per cent would mean the Conservatives need a seven-point lead for a majority. But a Lib Dem result of 15 per cent would raise that to a full ten points (see graph).
That’s what happens when you try to squeeze six or seven-party politics into a two-party voting system. All the parties are affected by the lottery election one way or another, and while some may got lucky, others are going to be sorely disappointed.
Is this any way to determine the make-up of the next House of Commons? What can we do to make it fairer?
What we need above all is an electoral system that reflects how diverse British politics has become. One positive result of the May election might be that debates around electoral reform come back on the agenda. Perhaps we could even make 2015 the last lottery election.
Read ‘The Lottery Election’ here.
Josiah Mortimer works for the Electoral Reform Society
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
36 Responses to “Comment: Let’s make this the last ever ‘lottery election’”
Leon Wolfeson
You want voting reform to be off the agenda, as you argue just that. If we had AV, they’d of said – as they made 100% plain – “that’s it, nothing more”.
Neither way would have lead to any flexability on future changes, and hence I opposed AV on the merits and issues of AV, which is absolutely the only sensible way to approach it.
Guest
Socialists don’t support pro-Hamas sites, in general, you know.
THAT’S WHAT’S IMPORTANT.
steroflex
Postal Voting, Mr Josiah Mortimer of the Electoral Reform Society?
Tower Hamlets?
The totally unfair boundaries where some constituencies are more constituent than others?
With a ballot box, with voting slips and a fair electoral roll, then a counting system that is open but not full of Lutfur Rahman supporters, first past the post is obvious, simple and fair.
All the other proportional systems are confusing, open to corruption and liable to lead to another coalition. Does Labour need that?
Leon Wolfeson
No surprise you’ll defend the Tories favoured FPTP.
No surprise you hate the idea of the elderly, etc. being able to vote, when we unlike many countries have a single polling day, very little other help for people to get to polling stations, etc.
That you claim massive differences between what people vote for and what they get are “obvious, simple and fair…” well, it’s clear your problem with Lutfur Rahman is he simply isn’t of the right party for you.
We have coalitions, they just *call* themselves parties and people don’t get what they vote for. That’s the FPTP you’re defending.
robertcp
The percentages are similar to those suggested in the Jenkins Report but first past the post would be used in the constituency elections. The Alternative Vote part of AV+ is not an option after 2011. To be honest, my post was aimed at people who currently support first past the post rather than people who want MMP or another proportional system.