VOTERS in Warrington North and Warrington South can expect to see 72,538 of their votes go to waste in the upcoming general election, according to electoral reform campaign group, Make Votes Matter.
Some 75.6% per cent of Warrington North’s votes and 73.9% of Warrington South’s votes are set to make no difference to the outcome, either because they went to a losing candidate or because they were surplus votes for the likely winning candidates Charlotte Nichols and Sarah Hall.
Analysing data for each constituency from Electoral Calculus1, researchers at Make Votes Matter found that under the First Past the Post voting system, nearly 22 million people could see their votes wasted across the UK.2
Only 27.4 per cent of an expected 30.3 million votes look set to have any impact on the result, with over half of voters projected to be left with an MP they did not support.
At the 2019 election, the Electoral Reform Society identified seven seats in which more than 90 per cent of votes were wasted.3 This new analysis suggests that in the upcoming election, that number may increase to 25, with a remarkable 145 seats where more than 80 per cent of votes go to waste.
The First Past the Post system also means that votes for certain parties effectively count for more than votes for other parties. Make Votes Matter’s analysis of the polling data suggests Labour would receive just over 13.5 million votes nationally to elect 485 MPs, meaning on average, it would take around 28,000 votes to elect each Labour MP.
By contrast, the Green Party are projected to receive over 1.25 million votes but have just two MPs, meaning they would need 628,000 votes per MP. Conservative MPs, meanwhile, would each be worth 117,000 votes.
Reform UK fared worst of all parties, with the seat level data suggesting they would receive over 2.5 million votes but not a single MP.
Andy Watson, a spokesperson for Warrington’s local Make Votes Matter group, said:
“First Past The Post simply does not deliver a fair reflection on how we vote. Both Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair won Majorities above 100 on around 42% to 43% of the vote. Whereas John Major despite winning a similar share of vote, only secured a Majority of 21. Some current polling suggests Sir Keir Starmer is on course for a majority above 200, despite a projected vote share below 40%. There is clearly no link between how we vote and the make-up of parliament, and this is something that should not be allowed to continue.”
Alberto Smith from the Make Votes Matter national office, said:
“Under First Past the Post, too many voters are left unrepresented. More than half of voters at the next election can expect to end up with an MP they didn’t vote for, while many others will simply end up padding out comfortable majorities in safe seats. That’s not democracy, that’s a distortion of the people’s will.
“Politics is broken. Fixing it starts with a system where Parliament accurately reflects the way the country votes and where every voice is heard.”
7 Comments
I stopped listening to polls years ago as they very seldom come anywhere near the actual results. More Money wasted by asking people how they’ll vote, only to be told what they think the pollsters want to hear or give completely false answers to confuse them.
The assertion on which this article is based is that Proportional representation is the only fair system. The major problem with PR is that it acts at a member level in the elected assembly but them coalitions are formed to decide which group forms a government. That happens behind closed doors and often gives the final minority party to join the winning coalition power well beyond their level of support by the electorate. A contemporary example is the religious far right in Israel which has power over Likud well beyond the percentage of the vote because withdrawing support would collapse the government. There is no fair system of forming a government based directly of the preference of the electorate. The article is therefore flawed.
PR is not the panacea it is made out to be. Vote in first past the post are not really wasted , rather they count as protests!
We and Belarus are the only European countries where the FPTP electoral system is used. Under our system the outcome of virtually every post war election has been determined by how voters in a very small number of marginal constituencies marked their ballot papers. So essentially disenfranchising large swathes of the electorate. Our system is also blighted by the “safe seat” anomaly, which has occurred here in the North Warrington constituency. Which confirms that FPTP suits the two main political parties but offers in the way of voter candidate choice or policies the parties chose to adopt.
Erratum: offers little in the way for the voters on choice of candidate or policies the parties chose to adopt.
Neatly ignoring the fact that two of the the largest democracies in the world use FPTP in the shape of the USA and India. The argument is stilted to fool those who don’t look for themselves. The list of countries who use FPTP is large but contains a large number of mature democracies with traditions handed by the British who have not seen a need to change, like Canada, Australia etc.
Hardly surprising the USA, Canada and India use FPTP, they are all former UK colonies. On some of others you are wrong. Australia along with New Zealand, Ireland, Cyprus, Malta and South Africa now use differing forms of PR. Demonstrating they have the maturity to think and make decisions for themselves, and not be misled by what was once known affectionately as “The Mother of all Parliaments,” But thanks to the antics of Johnson, Truss and Sunak has lost some of its previous gilt. Over a hundred countries use a form of PR and less than 50 FPTP. You are surely not arguing that supporters of PR are any less able than those who favour FPTP to look or think for themselves?
If the polls are to be believed Reform UK will get over 15% if the popular vote for 2 or maybe 3 seats in parliament. The SNP with 3.5are predicted to win 22 seats. Much as I dislike Reform UK, this cannot be right in a democracy.