9.2.5 The voting system in the United Kingdom was traditionally a simple majority system known as ‘first past the post’ or ‘plurality’ system. In such a system a winning candidate need achieve only one more vote than the next candidate in a constituency in order to take a seat as a Member of Parliament (MP).

9.2.6 Criticisms of the first past the post system include the fact that it is defective in securing democratic representation since it ignores all votes except for the winning candidate. Hence the smaller political parties and minorities often have little or no representation. For example:

• • in 1951 Labour won more votes than the Conservatives but lost the election;
  
• • in 1974 the Conservatives won more votes than Labour but lost the election;
  
• • in 1983 the Liberal Party gained 25% of the votes but won only 3.5% of the seats; and
  
• • in 2001 Labour won only 40.7% of votes but secured 62.6% of seats in the House of Commons.

9.2.7 In 2005 the General Election results were as follows:

In 2010 the General Election results were as follows:

9.2.9 It is notable that in ‘Loyal Opposition’ to the Conservative majority Government elected in May 2015, as well as 232 Labour MPs, there sits a group of 56 Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) MPs, who between them received only 4.7% of the votes cast in the United Kingdom as a whole, but occupy 8.6% of the seats.

9.2.10 Contrast this with the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), whose 12.6% share of the national voting won them a single seat in the Commons.

9.2.11 Outright ‘proportional representation’, with a share of the vote transferred to a straightforward share of 650 seats in the Commons, as opposed to the ‘first past the post’ system currently used, would have secured UKIP more than 50 seats.

At this point we can now address other electoral system formats used in the United Kingdom today.

9.3.2 The major political parties considered reform of the electoral system as part of their manifestos for the 2010 General Election with:

• • the Conservative Party advocating continuing with the first past the post system for Westminster;
  
• • the Labour Party stating that it would hold a referendum by October 2011 on using the Alternative Vote system;
  
• • the Liberal Democrats stating they would introduce the Single Transferable Vote system and multi-member constituencies and reduce the number of MPs to 500.

9.3.3 The Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition Agreement 2010 led to a national referendum in 2011 on the introduction of the Alternative Vote system of electing Members of Parliament to the House of Commons, which was rejected.

9.4.5 The Electoral Commission was established under the PPERA 2000 as a new independent body charged with responsibility for all aspects of elections, local and general or regional, in the United Kingdom. The body as a whole is accountable to Parliament.

9.4.6 The Electoral Commission’s duties include:

• • reporting on the administration of elections;
  
• • reviewing law and practice;
  
• • promoting awareness of issues and systems to the public; and
  
• • compiling an annual report.

9.4.7 The Commission deals with issues relating to the transparency of political campaigns and parties, for example:

• • registrations of donations received;
  
• • monitoring of bans on foreign donations;
  
• • control of campaign expenditure;
  
• • maintenance of various registers; and
  
• • monitoring of compliance with the PPERA 2000.

9.4.8 One important role is to regulate the funding of political parties. The PPERA 2000 defines permissible and impermissible donors and requires the disclosure and recording by the Commission of donations. Anonymous or unidentifiable donations are impermissible.

9.4.9 An impermissible donation should be returned to the donor; if it is from an unidentifiable source it should be returned to the Commission. The Commission may apply for a court order if an impermissible donation is accepted.

9.4.10 The Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 granted the Commission a variety of additional supervisory and investigatory powers; increased the transparency of donations to political Parties; and proposed a range of new civil sanctions that may be imposed on donees and political Parties.

9.4.11 The Electoral Commission is also responsible for monitoring compliance with the Transparency of Lobbying, Non Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 (‘the Lobbying Act’), which affected the responsibilities of ‘non-party campaigners’.

• • £319,800 in England;
  
• • £55,400 in Scotland;
  
• • £44,000 in Wales; and
  
• • £30,800 in Northern Ireland.

9.4.13 Perhaps most importantly, non-Party campaigning groups can only spend a maximum of £9,750 per constituency in the build-up to an election – greatly limiting their ability to advocate in favour of a particular candidate in crucial constituencies for a particular political Party.

9.4.14 This new regulation of non-Party campaigning groups was introduced to increase transparency in the way that financial support is indirectly marshalled behind particular political Parties.

9.4.15 The Commission continues to review the future development of electoral systems and regulations and produces consultation documents on new ideas such as the expansion of electronic voting systems. In particular, the impact of the new Lobbying Act will be reviewed by Government in an inquiry led by Lord Hodgson, beginning in 2015. (Critics of the Lobbying Act 2014 have called the legislation the ‘Gagging Act’ because of the way that it limited spending on political awareness-raising by non-Party campaigning organisations, such as trade unions, which naturally support the Labour Party, in the run-up to the General Election 2015.)