1.

Introduction

“The British electoral system is not a gamble.” (Butler, 194). This famous quotation
by the British political scientist David E. Butler gives a first insight into how
intricate and controversial the topic has been discussed. The quotation also shows
that the British voting system never lacked criticism and the fact that Butler has
to deny that the electoral system of his home country is ‘a gamble’ makes clear
that also a lot of sarcasm was involved while judging it. All of this seems rather
negative. However, in this paper it is not my aim to just condemn the electoral
system of Britain, nor do I want to prove that it is a gamble. Yet, the severe
criticism must have a reason and cannot be completely unfounded. A main
argument of critics that is often discussed is a possible lack of democracy.
Therefore I would like to examine how far the British voting system can be
reconciled with basic democratic principles.

To do so, it will be necessary to give a short overview about democracy and its
main features. I also don’t want to neglect to talk about democracy as a political
system. In accordance with the main topic, namely the electoral system, I will
specifically talk about the competitive and consensus democracy because they
are most suitable when it comes to discussing the two main voting systems, viz.
proportional representation and majority voting.

As it has probably become clear already, I do not want to limit this paper to the
British electoral system itself. To illustrate the discrepancy between the
first-past-the-post system and the proportional representation, I will use the
example of the Federal Republic of Germany. This country can be seen as a
representative for a typical consensus democracy and in addition it is using
proportional representation quite successfully. By providing information about
the common alternative system of voting, instead of just describing the system
which is actually examined, it will hopefully become easier to judge the latter in
the end.

Arguable now, to what extent the British electoral system deserves to be criticized
or even disapproved. Is it “unpredictable” and “bizarre” as Marco Evers claims? (cf.
Evers, 84). Or does the long-lasting tradition of using the majority voting system
prove once more that its advantages outweigh its weaknesses and that there
should not be any worries concerning its democratic compatibility?

2. Democracy

2.1 Definition of Democracy

In order to be able to judge the British electoral system and its compatibility with
basic principles of democracy, it is necessary to define the term democracy now.

The topic of democracy is very intricate and consequently many books were
written about it. However, it is not possible to discuss this type of government at
full range in this paper. Nevertheless I would like to explain those aspects which
are most important for judging a voting system later on.

As mentioned, democracy is a form of government. Due to the original Greek

meaning (‘démokratía”) there is another name that is frequently used, namely the
‘rule of people’, but this description can be misleading. In fact, it is not the people
who have the power to rule, but representatives who were elected. Therefore it
would be rather correct to call it a passive or indirect rule of people. Still, the main
characteristic of democracy is that it finds its legitimation in the will of the people.
(cf. Holtmann, 110).

But since it is not possible to enforce the individual will of everyone without
causing a great conflict, a way to register the people’s will is essential. Holtmann
mentions the “majority rule” as the most common way to do that. (cf. ibid, 111). To
ensure that the will of the people gets involved in ruling and political decisions, it
is necessary to provide a system that is able to guarantee this. In case of
democracies this is ensured through periodical elections in which people can
express their will by voting. Another possibility which democracy provides is the
general opportunity of participating in parties or pressure groups to gain a certain
influence on governmental work.

2.3 Competitive Democracy

Like the name already shows, are competitive democracies rather characterized
by competition and exclusion. Great Britain almost seems to be a prime example
for a typical competitive democracy which is probably the reason for the fact that
it is often called ‘Westminster-model’ (ibid, 14).

In contrast to consensus democracies the governmental power is concentrated in

one-party-cabinets. So usually there is no need for coalitions. Consequently,
another criterion of the competitive democracy is that there are mainly two
parties which compete for power. That is, in the case of Britain, the Conservative
Party and the Labour Party. Yet, the Liberal Democrats should not be disregarded;
especially not concerning the latest developments of the election in 2010. So
apparently there are more than two parties which compete for power.
Nevertheless it is important to mention here that only the Conservatives and
Labours were able to win a majority so far; this is the reason for the term
‘two-party-system’. Consistent with that, the majority voting system is used in
Britain. (cf. Becker, 15)

As already brought up above, the government is dominant compared to the

executive and legislature. But this is one of the rare similarities with the consensus
democracy. As far as the handling with pressure groups is concerned another
great difference occurs. Pressure groups are not incorporated, the way they are
dealt with is much more pluralistic. Thus, in an ideal competitive democracy, every
pressure group has the same influence on the government and can only increase
it by competition.

3. Voting Systems

3.1 Proportional Representation using the Example of the

Federal Republic of Germany
In the Federal Republic of Germany the proportional representation is the chosen
electoral system. In contrast to the British voting system, also often referred to as
“one person, one vote”, the German voter casts two votes. Casting the first vote
might remind you of the British electoral system. In every constituency one MP is
elected. The candidate who got the most votes wins the constituency. However, it
is important to mention here that German constituencies are usually much
bigger than British constituencies. (cf. Rothe, 393). So according to that the
comparability has to be moderated.

While looking at the cast of the second vote, the proportional representation
comes into play. With his second vote, the German citizen elects the party he
favours. But the fact that the number of constituencies does not match the
number of mandates makes it impossible to use the rather simple ‘British way’ of
voting. In compliance with the number of second votes, every party wins a certain
number of seats. Rothe cites the following example: Assuming that party A got
42% of all second votes, it gets 42% of 656 seats, namely 275. (cf. ibid, numbers
taken from the general election in 1999). After this calculation the seats every
party got through the first votes are subtracted. The remaining seats are
distributed on the basis of the party list, another feature that cannot be found in
the British voting system.

After this description which still only covered the main characteristics of the
German electoral system, it becomes obvious how much more complicated and
intricate the proportional representation is. Arguable now, whether the ‘simple’
British system can compete with the ‘sophisticated’ German way of electing.

3.2 Majority Voting System using the Example of Great

Britain
In Great Britain the majority voting system, also known as “first-past-the-post”, is
used to elect MPs. This kind of electoral system can also be found in countries
such as Canada or New Zealand. In general it is rather found in countries which
are based on an Anglo-Saxon Law.

Currently, Great Britain is divided in 650 constituencies and each of them sends
one MP to Westminster.[1] Hence, there are 650 mandates that can be appointed.
The person who gets the most votes wins the particular constituency. Concerning
this, it is important to say that it does not matter if the person who got the most
votes does not have the majority of votes. Thus, it is still possible to win the
constituency if someone only gets 25% of the votes for example.
Finally, the party with the most won constituencies is allowed to appoint the
prime minister. One of the main differences compared to the system of
proportional representation can be found in the fact that all the remaining votes
are left unconsidered. (cf. Hübner, 94). Therefore there is to say that this system
sometimes creates disparities between seats and votes. However, Kavanagh
points out that “over the long run the aggregate shares of votes and seats for the
main parties have not diverged too sharply.” (Kavanagh, 96). Since this question
seems to be disputable, it shall be discussed in greater detail in chapter 4.

Sarah Ruhnau (Autor), 2010, The British Electoral System - A Demoratic

One?, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/160121
Taken from:https://www.grin.com/document/160121