The current electoral system is a huge barrier to seat access for female MPs
With less than a quarter of MPs currently women, a 50:50 parliament seems like a distant hope.
But there are grounds for optimism. Based on polling trends and an analysis of every party’s candidate for the upcoming election, the Electoral Reform Society has predicted that 192 MPs are likely to be elected this May – up 44 on the current 148. It would mean three in ten MPs would be women, the highest ever figure.
Parties are putting forward more female candidates than before, too, with every party except UKIP fielding a higher proportion of female candidates than parliament’s current make-up (see Table 1). And in target seats, Labour and the Conservatives are actually fielding a higher proportion of female candidates than their overall number, meaning they are clearly trying hard to get more women into the House.
This is good news. The predicted boost this May would see us rising up the world ranking for female representation in lower chambers from 56th to 36th. We’d finally be ahead of Afghanistan and other countries with less-than-positive track records on gender equality.
But we’d still not be world leaders, by any means. And while moving from 23 per cent women to nearly 30 per cent is a welcome rise, there’s one big barrier that’s blocking future progress: our electoral system.
Under First Past the Post, there are hundreds of effectively uncontested seats where parties have a big enough lead not to worry about opposition. That means many MPs can act as ‘seat-blockers’, occupying their seats for decade after decade.
Here’s the catch: the longer an MP has been in situ, the more likely he is to be a man.
As you can see in Table 2, there are 67 MPs first elected in 1992 or before who are standing again this May. 59 of them are men. Having held their seats for over two decades, we can guess that most of these men will keep their positions effectively unchallenged.
This is a major barrier in terms of increasing women’s representation in the future. We can’t allow the existence of safe seats to act as a block on reaching a 50:50 parliament. We need to reform our voting system.
Proportional representation isn’t a silver bullet, of course. It can only facilitate – rather than guarantee – more diversity in politics. But experience from other countries shows that nearly all of those with a high proportion of women in parliament use some form of PR. Moreover, larger multi-member constituencies would increase the likelihood that more women would be able to win seats, as voters would have a greater choice of winnable candidates. Under our current broken electoral system, less ‘traditional’ and ‘safe-looking’ candidates lose out.
Nonetheless, it’s good news that nearly 200 women will be elected in two months’ time. Let’s just make sure it doesn’t become a new ‘glass ceiling’.
Josiah Mortimer is Communications assistant at the Electoral Reform Society. Follow him on Twitter
21 Responses to “This May will be a boost for female representation – but there’s a catch”
keithunder
How is what happened in Italy fixable? I know about the terms you used and I have accepted that STV does not pass them please read my posts again. If MMP or AMS is more proportional than STV in practice then how is it that the last assembly elections in Northern Ireland was more proportional party wise than the last elections in Scotland or Wales despite STV not being a party system?
I know about Arrows theorem which you selectively quoted from, you keep telling me about what I don’t know and you are very short on facts. The fact that you claimed that the best way of gaming STV is only to vote for one candidate and not to transfer proves that you actually know nothing about how STV works. Why don’t you educate yourself and actually answer any of the questions I have posed.
In fact AMS/MMP is the preferred system of the Conservatives/Labour if they were forced to choose a PR system, because it gives the party total control over who gets elected rather than the voters, the opposite of STV!
If you are a left winger ..you certainly don’t argue like one!
Guest
Oh yes, I’m “not a left winger” because I don’t like your precise voting system, or go along with your lies.
Again, you evidently don’t know a thing about the topic, or the terms used, or you wouldn’t lead with idiotic questions. Or bring up smokescreens.
You then make up things about quotes, and lie about what I said. The FACT is that the only way you can be SURE you won’t hurt the candidate you want elected is to vote for him, and ONLY him under STV. This is mathmatically proveable.
You then make up nonsense about what the “Conservatives/Labour” want, as you again conflate AMS and MMP, lying your heart out, as you spout nonsense.
You’re a liar, plain and simple. That’s not ideological, that’s simply a statement of fact.
keithunder
You never answer any of my questions because ‘they are idiotic’ you accuse me of lying and then don’t say in what way.You appear to have some kind of problem with they way you think.
The only way in STV that a second or later preference is looked at under STV is if your first preference is already elected or if your first preference is already eliminated so mathematically it is impossible for a later preference to affect the chances of an earlier one. I suspect you are confusing STV with a Borda or points system (in which case what you say about later preferences would be true)
Please look up how STV is counted and then look at Borda and see the difference.
I still don;t know what the difference is between AMS and MMP and you can’t tell me because there is no difference.
Other questions you did not answer are:
How is what happened in Italy fixable?
How is it that the last assembly elections in Northern Ireland was more proportional party wise than the last elections in Scotland or Wales despite STV not being a party system?
If you are such an expert as you claim surely you can answer these simple questions.
Just as a passing note calling someone a liar because you are unable to answer their questions must make you a rather unlikeable and annoying person, if you can’t answer in a logical and inoffensive way then please stfu!
Guest
I answered them, you just don’t like my answers.
As you say, because I don’t agree with you, that I’m mentally defective. That’s your platform, right there.
You then keep blatantly lying about STV, showing you have no knowledge of the issue, You don’t even know about the multiple ways to count STV votes, as you outright deny that STV fails – as it does – the critiera of “independence of irrelevant alternatives” and “monotonicity”.
You are denying formal mathematical proofs.
Then you ask an answered question over and over, as you lie again, making up things I never said, as you try and deny STV allows parties now…sad. And of course you want to silence me for talking about the truth, as I’m sure you’d oppose me voting because I don’t agree with you.
And yes, you’re unlikeable and annoying, as you argue with basic math and scream and throw **** because of it, and then call for censorship and for your anti-logic to go unchallenged.
keithunder
You did not answer my questions which I will repeat:
How is what happened in Italy fixable?
How is it that the last assembly elections in Northern Ireland was more proportional party wise than the last elections in Scotland or Wales despite STV not being a party system?
I already accepted that STV fails the two tests you mentioned. Have you ever counted an STV election? Do you know how it works?