How are UK elections undemocratic?

Answer 1

It's not clear what you mean by "undemocratic", so there is room for dispute in this answer.

Short answerThe UK uses the "first past the post" (FPTP) system. Other countries use various combinations of FPTP, Single Transferable Vote and Proportional Representation. FPTP is biased against small parties. Also, both FPTP and STV give more power to some voters than others, depending on which constituency they live in. Long answerIn the FPTP system, used in the UK, the country is divided into constituencies. Each voter is assigned to the constituency where he or she lives. Each candidate stands in one constituency, usually as a member of a particular party. Each voter chooses one candidate from his/her constituency. Whichever candidate gets the most votes wins, and becomes the MP (Member of Parliament) for that constituency. If one party wins in the majority of seats, then that party forms a government. If not, then things get a little more complicated.

The Single Transferable Vote system (or "Alternative Voting") is similar to FPTP, but more complicated. Instead of simply choosing one candidate, each voter chooses as many or as few candidates as he/she wants, and ranks them in order. For instance, a voter (let's call her Anne) may choose Smith in 1st place, Wilson in 2nd place and Nelson in 3rd place, and not vote for any of the others. At first, only the number 1 choices count. But the system eliminates the weakest candidate and redistributes his/her votes. For instance, if Smith is eliminated, then Anne's vote counts in favour of Wilson instead. After this transfer of votes, the weakest remaining candidate is eliminated. Once again, the losing candidate's votes are redistributed. This process continues until one candidate has a majority. That candidate becomes the winner for this constituency.

Under Proportional Representation (PR), there are no constituencies. Every voter in the country has the same options. Each voter chooses a party. The seats are distributed in proportion to the number of votes cast. For instance, a party which receives 40% of the vote will be given 40% of the seats in the legislative chamber. Each party gives a list of candidates; if the party wins 60 seats, then the top 60 candidates on its list are elected.

So what are the problems with FPTP?Problem 1: Not all voters are equal. This is also true under the STV system. In some constituencies, it is obvious who is going to win. In others, it is a close race; these are called "marginal constituencies". The parties concentrate their efforts on marginal constituencies. That means they try to make their policies favour the marginals, at the cost of ignoring the vast majority of constituencies. In short, voters in marginal constituencies have more power than other voters.

Problem 2: FPTP is biased against small parties. A party may obtain enough votes nationwide to gain, for instance, 10% of all votes cast - intuitively, enough for 65 seats. But if those votes are spread evenly, then they may not gain enough votes in any one constituency to win a seat. Voters are well aware of this fact. Most feel that voting for such a party is futile, and instead choose the least bad of the main parties. So these small parties are penalised. The STV system is designed to give such voters the option of voting with their conscience, while simultaneously choosing which of the main parties they prefer.

This problem of bias, however, does not afflict regional parties such as the Scottish National Party; but for the Lib Dems, UKIP, Greens, BNP, etc it is historically a serious problem. That is why the Liberal Democrats have a long-standing policy of changing the voting system, while the Conservatives pledge to keep FPTP.