The UK electoral system is 47% efficient.

The Centre for Thinking Futures (CTF) announces its report on the UK electoral system.

In the closing weeks of the 2017 UK general election, the Centre for Thinking Futures at Thinking.Institute has analysed the efficiency of the UK electoral system. Answer: it is very inefficient, and so undemocratic.

Much has been made by such as the Electoral Reform Society of how unequal (unfair) the current UK electoral system is to parties. This CTF analysis shows imparity for the individual voter. 

Summary

Efficiency is defined as the extent to which voters’ choice is evenly counted in the allocation of seats. In a 100% efficient electoral system, every vote would count equally towards the final seats allocated to parties. While this is an ideal, it is (probably) impossible to achieve in practice. But, the UK electoral system does not come close. Voters are not getting even treatment. With a CTF Efficiency Index of only 47%, over half the votes are not taken into account. Moreover, the CTF Power Index shows that different seats are grossly unequal for voters. Is that fit for purpose? If the standards of Unfair Trading Act were applied, the system would be in the dock.

Key facts

1. Over 50% of electoral votes make no difference to voter representation. They do not improve legitimacy at a seat level and do not translate into MP representation. Our intra-constituency index shows a mean efficiency of only 47%.  
2. The CTF Efficiency Index measures how well voter choice is translated into representation within the seat. A low efficiency means a relatively large number of votes count for nothing. The CTF UK Efficiency is the average of all 650 seats, weighted according to the size of the turnout.
3. To compute the seat, or constituency, Efficiency, all the votes of the winning MP are counted up to 50% of the votes cast. If the winner gained 50% of the vote the efficiency would be 50% since none of these votes would contribute to direct representation in Parliament. For margins above or below 50%, an adjustment is progressively made. The reasons and method for this are outlined in the report. In brief: In the case of minority winners (where the winner gets less than 50% of the votes cast), the argument is that the smaller the percentage gained by the winning candidate the less legitimacy and therefore efficiency. In the case of majority winners (where the winner gets more than 50% of the votes cast), a good winning margin contributes to legitimacy, but the votes make no difference to the results at a practical level. A party that wins in one constituency by 20,000 votes and loses in 10 seats by 2000 votes each might prefer to see its votes better distributed. And the electorate might prefer to see their votes making a difference. Since this is a real factor in the electoral results, it should not be skated over.
4. The CTF Power Index measures the relative Power of votes in constituencies of different sizes. The very largest constituencies are more than twice the size of the smallest and yet each returns one member of Parliament.
5. Together these factors mean that where you live makes a difference to your representation. That is undemocratic.
6. 42 constituencies have an Efficiency Index of 33% or less. Two thirds of the vote is essentially thrown away. 153 have an efficiency of less than 40%. More than half of the vote counts for nothing in more than half of the constituencies (328).
7. Constituencies vary in size. The Power Index (the relative power of votes in different constituencies of different sizes) shows that the 15 largest constituencies are on average almost twice the size of the 15 smallest (Power Index Equals 1.93).
8. In a constituency like Ynys Mon, an MP can be elected with only 10,781 votes. It is the ninth smallest electorate and has an Efficiency of only 22%. 78% of the votes did not count.
9. By contrast, in West Ham, the winning MP gained 36,132 votes. West Ham is one of the 15 largest constituencies, so, despite having a relatively high efficiency (59%), West Ham voters had less bang for their vote.

The full report provides additional details, rationale, and a full list of constituencies and their efficiencies. Report on Thinking.Institute.

General Information

The Centre for Thinking Futures at Thinking.Institute is an independent socially-concerned research organisation directed by Angus Jenkinson, the author of this report. It researches methods for social renewal, organisational life and the interfaces between social and natural ecologies. It has books in preparation on: how to think (ecologic), the life of organisations (social science) and the design of change.

About the author: Angus Jenkinson was one of the pioneers of the digital revolution, particularly in the field of customer information management and service. He has been a professor of integrated marketing and is a fellow of the RSA, the Chartered Institute of Marketing and of the Institute of Direct & Digital Marketing.