SUMMARY

— The so-called "first-past-the-post" system is the main reason that various disadvantaged groups are under-represented in the House of Commons.

— In particular, the system creates and relies on "winner-takes-all" contests, which make it difficult for members of disadvantaged groups to obtain selection as candidates.

— We need a new electoral system which gives more choice and power to ordinary voters, not party machines.

SUBMISSION

  1.  I claim no special academic or other qualifications to comment on this subject, other than that as a member of the public I am free to express my views.

  2.  In my view, the main reason that the House of Commons is so unrepresentative of various disadvantaged groups in the population at large is the so-called "first-past-the-post" system.

  3.  This system is inherently unrepresentative. The majority of MPs come from a single party with only minority support. In the current House of Commons the ruling party has a large majority even though its candidates received just 35% of votes at the last general election.

  4.  The system also turns individual seats into "winner-takes-all" contests, with three main kinds of candidate:

  4.1  Sitters. Most MPs represent safe seats, and in effect are chosen by party members rather than the wider electorate. There is no electoral imperative to choose any kind of candidate, but there is intense internal competition for safe seats from ambitious would-be MPs which can disadvantage members of minority groups. Local parties typically choose someone whom they regard as "one-of-us", or else someone who will bring them a bit of prestige. They are self-confident and resent external interference, so that national parties risk a rebellion if a minority candidate is imposed.

  4.2  No-hopers. There are few obstacles to being one of these other than the risk of losing your deposit, and the futility of a hopeless campaign. Although they make-up the largest group of candidates—and some ambitious candidates cut their teeth as no-hopers, and independent candidates or those from third parties sometimes manage to become realistic challengers if they manage to get into second place—no-hopers do not directly influence the composition of the House of Commons.

  4.3  Champions. In marginal seats where elections can be won or lost on a small swing, parties feel they need carefully selected champions with wide electoral appeal. The parties pour resources into their champions, and do not want to take risks by choosing candidates who are not prepared to dedicate themselves almost full-time to the campaign, or unusual candidates who will not attract wide support in the constituency. Successful champions aim to build up a personal following so that they can become sitters.

  5.  A large proportion of the population feels disenfranchised by the "first-past-the-post" system, and this will typically include minority groups. Except in seats with so many members of a minority group that they become a majority, members of a minority group will find it difficult to become either "sitters" or "champions". The larger the disenfranchised minority the bigger the sense of alienation; the position can become explosive, as for example in Northern Ireland before the troubles.

  6.  Women are not a minority, and often have greater electoral appeal than men, so are prized as champions. However, they are disadvantaged in various ways and need to be exceptionally determined in order to be chosen as either a sitter or a champion.

  7.  What is not needed is more restrictions on voter choice, such as party list systems which give even greater influence to party machines. Instead we need a system that gives more power to ordinary voters, such as the ability to choose between alternative candidates from the same party, and to prioritise between candidates from minority parties and independents who might otherwise be eliminated as no-hopers. We need a system which eliminates exclusive "winner-takes-all" contests, so that both national and local parties are more willing to trust voters to decide which of their own members should represent them in the House of Commons.

  8.  That system is the electoral system adopted in Northern Ireland (as well as the Republic), namely single transferable vote with multi-member constituencies. Perhaps the best illustration of the success of this system in promoting the election of women and minority groups is the election of Anna Lo in Belfast South.

  9.  Unfortunately, the "first-past-the-post" system is difficult to change, because it entrenches power in the hands of groups who are unwilling to give it up, such as the majority of MPs themselves, the two biggest parties, both at local and national level, and their financial backers. As long as this system persists, there is a danger that the distortions which give these groups disproportionate power will be exploited through corrupt practices, and intolerance and erosion of liberties for both disenfranchised groups and the rest of society.