One of the features of existing democracies is their tendency to operate with reference to constituencies for voting purposes.  In the UK parliament or example, there are currently 650 MPs – each of which represents a single constituency.  There are two definitions that can be used for the concept of a constituency:

Th British Democratic system operates using the first of these definitions – the district or area method – as the basis for its constituencies; with constituencies forming geographical boundaries within which a specific number of the electorate resides.  Although the specific number varies from constituency to constituency, the aim is to have parity between the numbers within each of the countries that form the United Kingdom (72,000 per constituency in England, 56,000 in Wales etc).

A combination of this type of district constituency system and a plurality voting (often referred to as First-Past-the-Post) system is called the ‘Westminster Model’ since it was first introduced formally in the United Kingdom.  This system may be considered to be undemocratic as it invariably results in a large number of the electorate being represented by an MP with whom they are not politically aligned – in any one constituency, the winning candidate need only have more votes than the closest opponent and does not require an outright majority.  When such a ‘Westminster Model’ is used in conjunction with a Party Political system, the issue of the district’s electorate not being politically aligned with their MP is extended to a national level, the result being that the political party which governs has been elected by only a minority of the electorate.  In fact, only one political party has received more that 50% of the popular vote since the start of the 20th Century; the Conservative Party in the General Election of 1931.

Although it is perhaps unfair to describe the plurality voting system as entirely undemocratic (it does after all permit that every voter has a voice), it is without doubt a system which, in all probability will lead to a percentage of votes being ‘lost’ – i.e. assigned to a losing candidate.  The more candidates who stand for election, the higher the chance that votes will be lost.  – in the 2015 General Election, 9 candidates stood for the constituency of Belfast South, and Alasdair McDonnell was elected with less than a quarter of the vote (24.5%).    As a voting system however, it is made worse through its application in a voting system which uses district constituencies.

The district constituency system was used in the creation of the first elected parliament in Britain – the parliament of 1265, through the assembling of knights of the shires and shire burgesses.   In an age when the normal travel distance for a full day’s travel was 30km, it is possible to understand that creating ‘local’ voting groups would facilitate both the communication and the voting processes.  I would argue however, that the fact that such a system may have been relevant for 13th Century Britain, does not imply that it is relevant for today.  Individuals in the world today are able to travel far greater distances than those of 700 years ago (30km is a 30 minute car ride), and hence are less bound to their immediate locality.  The average commuting time to work in 2016 was 57 minutes, which may mean a commute away from your constituency (and its issues) – resulting in a great number of people being directly affected by factors outside the boundaries of their immediate constituency on a daily basis.  Furthermore, with national press, radio and television, there is no limitation on the ability for a candidate to speak to the whole electorate, so it is no longer necessary for a candidate to be local for a voter to be aware of them or their policies.  Indeed, it is not even necessary that the MP reside in the constituency (or even the UK!) they represent.

The required criteria (for the 2022 election) for determining the boundaries of the geographical constituencies are purely numerical – each constituency should comprise 5% of the electorate (excepting four small islands which are exempt from this ruling.)  If the criteria are no more than numerical and there is no limit to communication, then surely the boundaries need not be geographical?  The electorate could be sorted alphabetically, or by age… (equally arbitrary criteria).

Why then do we persist with a system which is not only undemocratic but also unjustifiable and unnecessary?  Perhaps because the system of geographical constituencies is open to gerrymandering? – Something which would be impossible with alphabetical voting groups.  Perhaps the geographical bias supports the assumed voting patterns for the political parties, allowing them to maintain key personnel in ‘safe’ seats?

Perhaps part of the reason that the citizens tend not to engage in the political process is because they do not feel that they have a real voice.  The feeling that your vote is a ‘wasted’ vote can be disillusioning, and the current system perpetuates that.

We should remove all constituencies, and allow votes to be cast for any candidate.  Each candidate should be given equal access to publicity via a national platform.  We, the electorate can then vote for the person that we feel best represents our wishes, and those with enough votes can be called to parliament. By removing the chance to blindly vote for a party and by removing the chance to have a vote ‘wasted’ simply because of where we live; we can restore the need and the motivation for us to inform ourselves about how we are governed.  Perhaps this too will result in MPs actually trying to truly represent the people who voted for them rather than relying on re-election because of their location.

Constituency politics (like party politics) and plurality voting are both limitations to democracy, not mechanisms of democracy.  Shouldn’t I have the chance to vote for someone who will represent my views?