Jolly old 2.5

 

The country that I chose to look at is the United Kingdom. More specifically, I chose to analyze the House of Commons in the system that the United Kingdom currently has. This House of Commons has 650 individual constituencies. They consist of 533 constituencies in England¹, 59 constituencies in Scotland, 40 constituencies in Wales, and 18 in Northern Ireland. These individual constituencies have 1 representative per their constituency, or in other words, the system is a single-member constituency. This is an example of a single member plurality system. They are directly elected in a plurality election, meaning that each candidate doesn’t have to win over 50% but rather just receive more than any other candidate.

There is a slight source of limiting that potentially has very little effect unless a party is just starting out wherein each candidate must deposit 500 pounds into an election fund that is later reimbursed if the candidate reaches a threshold of 5% of the constituency. This could be potentially hard on lesser-known, developing parties because in order for them to run, they not only have to register as a new political party, but also pay $500 dollars if they want to run and try to get their name out more. This, among other factors makes it hard for lesser parties, or parties that are just starting to get seats and votes in the House of Commons. This means that there are going to be fewer effective parties than in other systems of election. In fact, if you mathematically find the number of effective parties using the NE_ff formula², you find that there are 2.58 effective parties in the United Kingdom.

Having 2.58 effective parties in the United Kingdom means that there are in essence, 2 major parties; they are the Conservative Party, the Labour Party. Unlike the United States, where there are really only 2 parties, the United Kingdom experiences a sort of half effective party which is called the Liberal Democrats. They received 57 of the 650 seats in the last election. This doesn’t seem that significant until you look at the swaying power that has in parliamentary votes in the House of Commons. Then, out of the 2 major parties, the Conservative Party received 306 seats and the Labour Party received 258. This means that though the Conservative party has a clear lead in any votes in parliament, they do not have a majority if the people in the Liberal Democrats choose to align themselves with the Labour Party. It creates an interesting dynamic because so much power is given to such a small constituency. This is a contrast to the United States where whichever party has the voting power, or lead in seats, typically has a majority and can occasionally obtain a super majority. Such a thing is almost impossible in the United Kingdom’s system given the amount of political cleavage that allows for much more support of other, smaller parties that more accurately reflect the individual ideologies of the constituencies.

Duverger’s law³ holds true in the United Kingdom’s House of Commons. The Single Member Plurality System only truly holds 2 effective parties. It also holds true in its assumption that more parties exist in a Proportional Representation system predicated upon the amount of political cleavage. We can accurately assume this given the United Kingdom’s system, and how much political cleavage there is in the United Kingdom. Because of the high amount of political cleavage, more parties formed. But, because of the electoral rules, only 2 parties remain truly effective, though there are smaller parties with quite a bit of say within the system.

 

1.      “United Kingdom: Electoral System” Web page, IPU.org, accessed 11/1/12

2.      Laakso, M.; R. Taagepera (1979): Effective Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to West Europe. Comparative Political Studies 12:3-27.

3.      Maurice Duverger, "Factors in a Two-Party and Multiparty System," in Party Politics and Pressure Groups (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1972), pp. 23-32.