As the British ‘democracy’ prepares for a new election, voters find themselves once again free to vote for an elected member of parliament to represent them, but are choices really free? Can voters really vote for whom they please? Does the United Kingdom really operate a democracy?
Voters in the United Kingdom are categorised into constituencies – arbitrary geographical limits used to create groups of people to be represented by a single candidate. The creation and use of constituencies is current practice, and may be considered by some to be democratic, but may we not challenge this assumption? If the purpose of a constituency is to form a group of people to be represented in the democratic process then perhaps we should start by examining the word represented? In the UK political system, the ‘First Past the Post’ system is used – a system which accords the role of Member of Parliament to the candidate who receives the most amount of votes. This resulted in 2015 with an MP being elected with only 24.5% of the vote – the lowest percentage ever for an MP. In such cases, whom does the MP represent? Only those who voted in favour, or everyone in the constituency? Theoretically, the MP should represent the whole constituency, and yet the MP was elected based upon their stated views and principles, however if these views are in conflict with the 75.5% remaining voters how can they be represented? The combination of the ‘First past the Post’ system and the fact that the United Kingdom constituency system specifically precludes the creation of a constituency according to voting patterns/ preferences; the result is that in every single constituency there is a percentage of voters not represented by the candidate selected. Therefore, if people of like-mind cannot vote together, and we tolerate that MPs be selected with as little as a quarter of the vote; how, in a democracy can we justify the use of constituencies? As supporting evidence we can see the imbalance in this system through the results: in 2015 the Green Party vote represented nearly 4% of the votes cast nationally, and yet secured only a single MP (less than 0.5% of the MPs) and the Liberal Democrats polled nearly 8% of the votes cast, but secured only 8 MPs (around 1%).
The constituencies in the United Kingdom are established by the Boundary Commissions, of which there are 4 (England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales). Although these Commissions are established as independent bodies they do take direction from the government – such as the directive that the 2018 review should reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600. Each Commission comprises only 4 members, therefore they can request additional support in the form of Assistance Commissioners to perform formal reviews of the boundaries. These Assistant Commissioners are appointed by the Secretary of State (the Commission for England request an additional 21 for the 2018 review). During reviews there are certain conditions to which the constituency boundaries must adhere (e.g. the number of voters per constituency) and then there are other factors which may be taken into consideration, including: “special geographical considerations”; local government boundaries; existing boundaries; and inconveniences resulting from changes to constituencies. Each Commission has full discretion in the application of these ‘additional’ criteria, which may well be in conflict with each other. Considering the possibility for interpretation, and the ability of the government of the day to appoint the Assistance Commissioners, it would seem that there is room for doubt surrounding the independence of the Boundary Commissions
Is it not legitimate then to challenge the ‘democratic’ nature of any a voting system which permits that 75% of the electorate are not represented, and which uses arbitrary constituencies (that boundaries of which can be influenced by the government of the day – albeit indirectly)?
The question then becomes; “Can this be changed?”
In truth, no.
Change to the democratic processes in the UK is theoretically possible, however all changes must go through a parliamentary process. Which means that an MP (or Party) need to propose a bill to the house which is then voted through – which requires a certain number of MPs to vote and for the vote to be in favour of the bill. Whereas, the use of geographical constituencies is likely to result in the election of someone who represents the views of the single largest group for each constituency – which means that the candidates for election have a vested interest in appealing to as many people (within their constituency) as possible. By their very nature, radical policies do not appeal to the majority.
In order for any policy to garner support, it must be discussed. If candidates do not discuss such policies because they have little appeal, it is difficult to see how they can ever gain support. The result is a political landscape which is defacto controlled by the politicians. Even when political parties seek to involve the citizens at a grass roots level it is likely that only the most popular policies within the party’s support base will gain traction. Ultimately, it is the politicians who decide which policies to discuss nationally and therefore which themes lead the debate. It is difficult to image that a politician will actively raise for discussion a policy which is not already part of the debate and for which there is already a known base of support. In such a system, views which are very widely (but geographically disparately) held can remain entirely ignored, un-discussed even, by candidates since they are aware that such policies will not garner them enough support to become elected.
All of which would change of course if the constituencies were not geographical. Were it permissible to create virtual constituencies – which allowed people who shared opinions to come together and show their support for the issues which were important to them, we would see a landscape which could truly change with the mood of the country.