Madican's Meditations on Life

​

This article contains an analysis of voting figures for UK elections since 1910. It is not a comprehensive, complete or in-depth analysis. I have drawn out certain anomalies and made comparisons and comments on aspects that I have noticed from studying 110 years of election data. No doubt you will make your own comparisons and draw your own conclusions.

​

The data in the table below shows voting figures for UK elections from 1910 – 2019. It has been compiled from data found in various websites and The Longman Companion to The Labour Party 1900 - 1998 by Harry Harmer.

​

Some of the table is incomplete as some figures are not available or I could not locate them online or there was too much information to easily include e.g. figures from the coalition governments of 1931 and 1935 plus figures for the smaller parties “others” from 2001 -2010.

Some of the figures have been rounded up or down. Because of this, some % totals may not add up to exactly 100%. I have not attempted to check them all. You can do so if you wish. However, the general totals are a reliable enough record of the figures available for an analysis to be made.

 

Governments in Power It has to be said that Labour has not been as successful in government as the Conservatives.

​

No of Govts               No  of years       Ave % of  vote        Ave no of seats won

Labour   11                  34  years             36.10%                  253

Cons      14              49 years              41%                       308

Nat Govt 2              18 years

​

Labour has been in power for roughly 34 years compared to 67 years of Conservatives in power (including leading the Nat Govt of 1931-45).

Why is it that Labour is not more successful? Why do millions of people vote for the Conservatives? Why don’t millions of people vote? How are people persuaded or cajoled into putting their confidence into someone like Boris Johnson? Is Labour just really bad at getting its message across or is there something more to it? Labour has consistently been subject to media hysteria from the Zinoviev letter to the rather idiotic branding of Ed Miliband as “Red Ed” or Jeremy Corbyn as anti-semitic.  Are most people politically savvy or are people often so easily misled or fooled?

​

It is something to ponder over, but first let us look at the figures from the last 110 years of general elections in the table below.  Labour Governments are high-lighted in red and Conservatives in blue. SNP figures from 2015 -2019 are in purple.

​

 

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

​

​

Observations and Anomalies

 

In 1918 the electorate had increased by almost 14 million due to the 1918 ACT which enfranchised all woman over 30 and the men who had not been previously enfranchised by the various Reform Acts.

 

In 1929, the electorate had increased again due to the 1928 Act which enfranchised women under 30 years of age. The extra approx. 7 million women voters seem to have divided mainly between Lib (2.5 million) and Lab (3 million) with some (1 million) going to the Conservatives.

 

In 1951 Labour won more votes (1.3 million), but the Conservatives won more seats and so formed a Government.

 

In 1955 with an almost equal no of votes cast, the Conservatives still won 50 more seats than Labour.

 

In 1974 the Conservatives won more votes (0.2 million), but Labour won more seats and so formed a Government. Ted Heath complained about this at the time, but was referred to 1951.

 

In 1974 with 18% of the vote the Liberals only achieved 14 seats. Results like this led them to support Proportional Representation which they continued

to raise on many occasions.

 

In 2005 with 3% more of the vote, Labour won 157 more seats.

 

COMMENT  There is an inherent unfairness about the first-past-the-post system. However, it works both ways with both major parties benefiting from it. Tony Benn had opposed proportional representation. He argued that it would result in a set number of seats being allocated to each Party and that the Leader of each Party would then be able to choose who would be the MP for each seat. This would give enormous powers of patronage to the Leaders.

 

Additional information on the voting public

 

In 1950, 6 million people (who were registered) did not vote. In 1970, 11 million did not vote.

 

In 2001, 18 million did not vote (This was the 1st time since 1918 that the % of voters fell below 70%).

 

In 2019, 16 million did not vote. (The % of people voting has risen since 2001, but still not reached 70%+ again).

 

Between 2001 and 2019 on average 16 million people did not vote which is roughly 33% of people. These are known as the "unheard third".

 

In 2010 just 44% of people aged 18 to 24 voted in Britain’s general election, compared with 65% of people of all ages.

 

The FIVE biggest reasons for not voting are 1) too busy with work 2) illness or disability 3) not interested/won't make a difference

4) don't like the candidates 5) out of town   ISSUE about people who are registered but don’t vote.

 

Labour membership collapsed after 1997 :-

400,000 (1997) 

272,000 (2001)

198,000 (2005) 

177,000 (2007)

156,000 (2009)

 

The rise of the SNP since 2015 has sapped Labour of between 35 - 56 seats in Scotland.

 

The current population of UK is 67 million.

 

Approximately 16 million people are between 0-19 years old and approximately 4 – 5 million people are not on the electoral register.

 

In June 2017 the Electoral Commission reported that approx. 7 million people in UK who were eligible to vote were not registered.

 

This figure included 30% of under 34s and 28% of people who had moved home in the past year and not updated their details.

 

An estimated 7 million people in the UK are not on the electoral register. Guardian April 2019.

 

One in four black and Asian people are not registered to vote, according to the Electoral Commission, 18 November 2019

 

The Electoral Commission estimates that between 8.3 and 9.4 million eligible voters in Great Britain are not correctly registered at their current address.

 

COMMENT  There is obviously an issue about the number of people who are on the electoral register, but do not vote. This was 16 million in 2019. No Government has ever achieved office with 16 million voters so persuading even a small % of these people to vote would potentially be a game changer.

 

There is another issue about people who have not registered at their new address. There are many reasons for this including HMOs and the high turnover of some people in rented accommodation.

 

In 2001 there were 5 million fewer votes cast than in 1997. There may be a connection between the fall in the numbers of people who voted from 1997

onwards and the dramatic decrease in Labour Party members. Did British people become less interested in participating in main-stream politics?

 

Finally, there is an issue with people who have not even registered to vote. Again persuading a small % of these 7 million people to vote could change

the face of British politics.

​

What could be done?

​

Democracy (rule by the people) was developed in ancient Athens where being involved in politics was a civic duty. You could argue that the ancient Greeks had slaves and that women couldn’t vote. Those are both true statements. However, democracy came into being about 2500 years ago. If you go back 200 years in British history then slavery was still legal. Indeed, if you go back 102 years then no women had the vote so I think we should give the ancient Greeks some credit for their democracy whatever its limitations when judged by 21st century standards. Citizens were expected to participate and general assemblies of all adult males were held. They gathered on the hill of the Pnyx which makes that hill one of the most important sites in the development of democracy. Anyone could speak and they stood on a small stone platform (the bema) to do so. If any citizens were slack in attending then the Greeks had an answer for this. Two men would patrol the city carrying a rope between them that had been dipped in red dye. If they spotted a citizen, the two men would catch him using the rope and drag him up to the assembly on the Pnyx. The dye would leave a stain on his back and this was seen as a mark of disgrace. Not only that, but it was also difficult to get the dye out of your clothes!

 

We could therefore enforce democratic participation by introducing a system of compulsory voting. Such a system exists in several governments around the world. These governments want to ensure high turnout of votes, promote voter awareness, and enhance democracy. On the other hand, making voting mandatory and even imposing penalties for not voting may be deemed as contradictory to freedom. Let us look at the pros and cons for compulsory voting.

​

Pros of Compulsory Voting

​

1. Fosters Enfranchisement   When voting is not mandatory, it often disenfranchises minorities – those people who are impoverished and uneducated. With  compulsory voting, voting becomes a civic duty for all citizens, giving everyone a say in how the country or the government is run.

​

2. Improves Vote Turnout When there’s a low turnout of votes, the will of the majority is not achieved or represented. In some countries where voting is not compulsory, turnout of votes could slip below 50%, as compared with 70% to 90% in countries where there is compulsory voting.

​

3. Makes Voting Easy  To encourage participation in the elections, the government makes programs to facilitate voting, even abroad. For instance, in Australia, people who cannot leave work may vote on a Saturday, and in some countries there are postal voting and online voting for those abroad.

 

4. Reduces Political Polarization  With high turnout of votes and improved voter participation, compulsory voting also reduces political polarization. People and politicians are encouraged to act according to what the majority needs, and not according to the individual interests of their political party.

 

5. Fosters A More Serious Election  When voting is not mandatory, some people take the right to suffrage for granted. But when it is mandatory with fines for non-participation, people begin to take elections more seriously to avoid the consequences.

 

Cons of Compulsory Voting

​

1. Violates Freedom of Choice   For some people, voting should be a right not a duty. By making voting compulsory, there is a shift from civic right to civic duty, which is deemed a violation of one’s freedom of choice.

 

2. Violates Religious Beliefs   Some religious groups discourage or restrict their members from participating in the elections. If voting is made compulsory, people who are bound to their spiritual beliefs feel discriminated against.

 

3. Fosters Ignorant Voting   When people are forced to do something or suffer punishment, they tend to do it blindly out of fear. An electorate who are misinformed or uneducated may vote to avoid a penalty, but in doing so, they may cast votes out of ignorance.

 

4. Does Not Guarantee Legitimacy    A 100% turnout of votes does not guarantee 100% legitimacy of the government because there are always donkey votes, random votes and ignorance votes that make the election results more dubious.

 

5. Increases Costs   Elections need money. When there is compulsory voting, more people are expected to participate and to vote. This means that more election equipment, paraphernalia, and staff are required. The more voters there are, the more money is needed to pay for the elections.

 

Which countries have compulsory voting? As of August 2013, there were 22 countries recorded as having compulsory voting. Of these, only 10 countries (additionally one Swiss canton and one Indian state) enforce it. Of the 30 member states of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 10 had forms of compulsory voting.

 

Enforced These are the countries and sub-national entities that enforce compulsory voting:

• Argentina – Introduced in 1912 and compulsory for citizens between 18 and 70 years old, non-compulsory for those older than 70.

• Australia – Introduced for state elections between 1915 and 1942. There is a $20 dollar or $50 fine for 2nd offence.

• Belgium – Introduced in 1894. Every citizen and registered non-Belgian voter, from the age of 18 has to vote.

• Brazil – Compulsory for literate citizens between 18 and 70 years old.

• Ecuador – Introduced in 1936. Compulsory for citizens between 18 and 65 years

• Liechtenstein

• Luxembourg – Compulsory for Luxembourg citizens aged between 18 and 75

• North Korea – Everyone over age 17 is required to vote. However, only one candidate appears on the ballot.

• Nauru – Introduced in 1965.

• Peru – Introduced in 1933. Compulsory for citizens between 18 and 70 years old, non-compulsory for those older than 70.

• Singapore – Compulsory for citizens above 21 years old

• Uruguay – Introduced in 1934, but not put into practice until 1970.

• Switzerland – Never existed at the national level. Introduced by several cantons

 

Not Enforced Countries that have compulsory voting by law but do not enforce it:

• Bolivia – Introduced in 1952.

• Costa Rica

• Dominican Republic – Compulsory from the age of 18.

• Egypt

• Gabon

• Greece

• Honduras

• Libya

• Mexico

• Panama

• Thailand

• Turkey – The 22 Lira  fine in law is generally not enforced.

 

The main argument for compulsory voting in my opinion is politics. You may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you.

 

Everyone pays taxes in some way or other. Either directly through taxation on your earnings or indirectly through taxes on products you buy. That money goes to the government and the government decides what to use it on – shall we put more money into hospitals or buy another bomb? Everyone is a part of society and therefore should take some interest in how that society operates not just for themselves, but for their fellow citizens. What we collectively spend our tax money on is important. Having said that you do need to cater for people who do not want to vote for anyone. Or just want to spoil their paper. This is most easily done by including NOTA – None Of The Above – on the ballot paper so people can register that as a protest if they want.

 

A small aside - I am reminded of the story about a voter who put a swastika on the ballot paper in the box next to a candidate. The counting officers were persuaded that this really represented a cross and as it was completely inside the box it was counted as a vote. Another voter drew a penis inside the box next to a candidate. Again the officials were persuaded that this counted as an albeit unusual way of casting a positive vote.

 

Be warned therefore that if you do want to spoil your vote then make sure you think (and draw) outside the box.

 

Safeguards These would need to be built into any compulsory voting system. Most of the countries listed above do not force people over 70 (or 65) to vote. In the UK voting could take place on Saturdays rather than Thursdays to make it easier for people who work (on Mondays to Fridays at any rate). Easier ways to register your vote could be introduced e.g. by use of secure electronic means. Anyone not voting could be fined as in Australia. Money collected from these fines could be put towards the greater costs of the election. I have only dealt with General Elections here, but the same arguments could be used for council or mayoral or other elections which often only draw 30-40% of voter participation. However, enforcing these would be resisted (in my opinion) at least until the general idea of compulsory voting for general elections had bedded in and been accepted by the public at large over several elections.

 

A Final Look at Seats and Majorities

 

In 2019 there were only 5 seats with a majority of less than 200 votes (which is usually less than 0.5% of the vote).

 

Across the UK, 141 seats out of 650 were won by a margin of less than 10 percentage points.

 

Turnout numbers vary from constituency to constituency, but 2% of a vote is approx.  1000 votes so 10% could be as high as 5000 votes.

 

The number of women MPs is now 220, the highest ever, from the previous all-time high of 208 in 2017.

 

In 2019, the Conservatives won 365 seats to Labour’s 202 and the SNP’s 48. Labour would have needed to win 82 more seats to have been the party with the most seats.

 

Of the 650 parliamentary constituencies, 67 seats were won by a margin of 5% or less of votes cast in the 2019 election. This is 30 fewer than the 97

won by such narrow margins in the 2017 Election.

 

Across the UK, 141 seats out of 650 were won by a margin of less than 10 percentage points in 2019.

 

What if…   If 82 of these 141 seats were Conservative then it is possible to calculate the maximum number of votes that Labour would have needed to gain in all of those seats combined in order to have won those seats and so formed a minority government albeit with backing from the SDP.

 

Turnout in 2019 was 67.3%. The total registered electorate was 47.6 million. The number of people who voted was 31.8 million.

 

Divide 31.8 million by 650 (number of constituencies) in order to obtain the average number of voters per constituency = 48,923.

 

The average 10% of voters per constituency = 4892.3

 

Multiply 4892.3 x 82 to obtain the maximum no of votes Labour would have needed to win in those 82 seats = 401,169.

 

Therefore with than less than half a million votes in the right places, Labour could have been in power albeit with the backing of the SNP.

 

And with another 1.2 million votes in Scotland Labour could have won all 48 Scottish seats from the SNP and been a true majority government.

 

Think about that next time you are bending down to stick a leaflet through a floor level letterbox or trudging along knocking on doors and wondering if any of this could possibly make any difference whatsoever…

 

Solidarity

 

Brian Madican

February 2020

 

 

​

​

​