Are you living in a safe seat? Vote anyway

The democratic principle of “one man, one vote” is simply not true in a UK
general election. A typical Warwick student will find they will actually
have between 0.08 and 0.35 percent of a vote, depending on where they live
during term time, according to the Voter Power Index.
How can this be the case? The three constituencies surrounding the
university are all deemed to be safe seats, in the sense they are unlikely
to change party affiliation at this election and thus voting for an
alternative party may well be pointless. So is there any reason to even
vote come the 6th May?

To understand where this predicament comes from, it is important to
understand how the UK electoral system functions. Britain operates under
a simple plurality system known as first past the post, where the winning
party needs an over 50 percent of the seats in the House of Commons to
form a government. First past the post has been used for every general
election in UK history. Each seat represents an area within the UK known
as a constituency, where the candidate with the most votes returns a seat
for their party. All ballot papers cast within that constituency that did
not go towards the winning party’s candidate are simply discarded. This
leads to a dramatic skew between the popular vote and the composition of
seats in the Commons that then form the government. Incumbent MPs in
areas that maintain large majorities, such as the ones surrounding the
university are unlikely to face a significant enough swing for them to
change party meaning your vote becomes nothing more than a statistic come
Election Day.

Students living in Coventry, Arthur Vick, Benefactors, Claycroft, Jack
Martin, Rootes, Tocil, Whitefields or Westwood should expect a Labour
victory in their constituency of Coventry South with an estimated 54
percent of the total votes discarded. Those residing in other halls of
residence or voting in Leamington Spa have the most influence with 0.35
votes per individual, yet they can expect 55 percent of their ballots to
be unaccounted for if Labour takes the seat. Finally, those who live in
Kenilworth are near guaranteed to expect a Conservative win with each
individual holding a poor 0.075 votes per person. Those of you planning to
vote for an alternative party in your constituency may just be
contributing to wasted paper. It’s a sad fact, but our electoral system is
iniquitous, unrepresentative and corrupts the very foundations of a
democracy. It does however contain its merits, mainly in the sense it
creates strong governments, but those who are likely to benefit from it
have avoided its reform. I don’t want to talk about the demerits of our
electoral system, but it highlights where the issues originate for Warwick
students hoping to exercise their right to vote, maybe for the very first
time. This could very well be the last election first past the post is
used to form a
government.

The election of 2010 is one of the most unpredictable in decades and
current polls are showing we are on the verge of a hung Parliament, where
no party has an absolute majority of seats. It is interesting to note how
the distribution of seats is not running in parallel to the popular vote.
A YouGov poll taken on April 18th has even suggested the Lib Dems now
maintain the highest support with 33 percent, followed closely by the
Conservatives with 32 percent and Labour trailing in third with 26
percent. If this were to happen on polling day, Labour would return the
most seats and the Lib Dems would return just over a sixth of the total
seats available. That would make the 2010 election one of the most skewed
to public opinion since before the unreformed Parliament of the 19th
century. First past the post is meant to create strong and decisive
governments, but the uneven distribution of votes looks to create a
government with little or no mandate that lacks the power, influence and
sovereignty it needs to manage a fragile economy.
You may be reading this and thinking “what’s the point in voting?”
Our election system may be flawed, some individuals may possess a stronger
vote than others, but that won’t stop your ballot paper having some
authority.

The reason to vote doesn’t lie in how much influence your choice of party
may have, but is established within the very foundations of what makes us
a democracy, for what your ancestors died for, by you constructing a
government accountable to its electorate. As a Warwick student your choice
who forms the next administration may be limited, but whichever party
forms the executive is now accountable to all those who placed their vote
into the ballot box. If, for example, the Green Party gains a reasonable
percentage of the vote, it shows that people want environmentally friendly
policies and administrations will react to that. When a party lacks a
significant mandate (a right to govern) it will find its scrutiny
increased and its de facto authority limited within the legislature. No
vote is wasted, it is just the case some wield more influence. However,
the reason I urge you to vote this year is one of principle.
Less than 100 years ago universal suffrage was nothing more than a
constitutional dream. Women only received equal voting rights to men
after the passing of the Equal Franchise Act in 1928. In 1800 only 3
percent of the adult male population were entitled to vote. Voting was a
privilege, not a right. Those who formed the electorate throughout much
of the 19th century were rich aristocratic landowners, whose votes were
brought by the highest bidding candidate. Every movement from the
Chartists to the Suffragettes devoted their cause and even their lives to
secure our right to vote. Britain never faced a revolution, but a 100
year piecemeal movement with the aim of creating a democracy was based on
a franchise of universal suffrage.

Our electoral system may well be flawed, but we are indebted to our
history and our ancestors who fought for the free and fair democracy in
which we now live and which other nations are still fighting for.