We are accustomed to at least 25% of eligible voters at a general election not bothering to vote and to a party winning a majority in the House of Commons with anything above 35% of the votes cast. Speculation is rife that the turnover this time will be lower than 60%, it hovered around 60% at the last two general elections and has been in general decline for decades (see here).
Some argue that a party receiving, say, 40% of votes cast on a turnout of 60% lacks democratic legitimacy because it receives less than a quarter of the votes available. Of course members of the House of Commons are elected for individual constituencies on a first-past-the-post basis rather than by total votes cast nationally, but it still seems a bit rum that a substantial minority of votes cast can result in one party being dominant in the House and even rummer that their share of total possible votes can be as low as a quarter.
This is not a post about proportional representation, it is a wibble about how the non-voters should count. The traditional number crunching that happens after every election tends to ignore the non-voters. They are treated as if they do not exist and have expressed no opinion by their decision to stay at home. I suggest a different approach is more appropriate.
It's a matter of presumptions. What should we presume about those who don't vote? Should we presume they are anarchists who don't want any government, Socialists or other types of fascists who want dictatorship and won't sully their principles by engaging in the bourgeois electoral process, religious fundamentalists who believe the outcome is dictated by their god and that they should not seek to usurp his good work? I think it more realistic to presume that they are content to go along with what everyone else decides. After all, what everyone else decides will be the outcome so if they are not content with that all they have to do is walk to the polling station and hope they can remember how to draw an X.
The reason I believe this to be a valid argument is that every person eligible to cast a vote can either do so or not do so, but their decision is made against the certain knowledge that MPs will be elected and a government will be formed whether they use their vote or not. On election day we each have the opportunity to give authority to one party or another to form a government. It is a round-about process because we do not vote directly for a national government or a party we vote for our choice of MP for our constituency, nonetheless each vote represents the decision of the voter to give authority in one direction or another. Because we all know we have the right to give our little bit of authority we also know that failure to vote means others are giving authority for us. Directly they authorise the successful local candidate to be an MP and indirectly they authorise the party with a majority of MPs to form a government. We could use our single cross of authority ourselves, if we do not do so others use it for us. If we do not use our individual little bit of authority ourselves we have no right to complain about the authority of the victorious candidate to be the MP for our constituency or about the authority of the majority party to form a government, they have authority because those who bothered to vote gave them authority.
If you are an eligible voter in a constituency of 92,001 eligible voters and you are the only one who doesn't get out of bed on election day, each of the others exercises one 92,000th of your authority. You are stuck with the result whether you vote or not because the votes actually cast will be counted, MPs will be elected and a government will result from the exercise. You have the opportunity to vote, so you can't claim the outcome is illegitimate because it does not include your little bit of authority. By your default it does include your little bit of authority, you allow others to exercise it for you.
How, then, should we interpret this implied authority given to other voters by those who don't vote? Should we presume it is given in proportion to the votes cast for the various parties? Probably not because none of them could give a proportional votes, each could only give one whole vote. We could, I suppose, presume that in 2005 35.3% would have voted Labour, 32.8% Conservative, 22.1% Liberal Democrat and 8.4% for others because those were the nationwide figures. But that presumes they would have exercised a choice for one candidate or another, or one party or another, and we know they didn't exercise a choice, they stayed at home. The more realistic approach is to presume they are content to give their authority to whoever is the victorious candidate in their constituency and to whichever party gains a majority in the House of Commons.
At the last election Labour won with 35.3% of the votes cast and 61.4% of those eligible to vote managed to do so. The votes cast for Labour represented 21.7% of all possible votes, but 38.6% of eligible voters failed to manage the task. On the presumption I have made, the government could legitimately claim to have the authority of 60.3% of the electorate.
Going back through the elections since 1974 this exercise gives the following figures (I rely on Wikipedia for percentages of votes actually cast and the link I have already given for turnout statistics). In 1979 the Conservatives won 43.9% of votes cast on a 76% turnout, giving them the votes of 33% and the tacit authority of a further 24%, making 57% in all. They followed that with 42.4% of 72.7% in 1983 which is 30.8% of the total electorate in votes and 27.3% by default, a total of 58.1%. Their support remained pretty constant in proportion of votes cast in 1987 with 42.2% but turnout was up to 75.3% giving 32% plus the silent 24.7% for 56.7% in all. 1992 saw a further increase in turnout to 77.7% and victory with 41.9% of valid Xs, which represents 33% to which we can add the 22.3% who found it all too complicated, resulting in the support of 55.3%.
One of the most interesting snippets about the 1997 election, which is claimed by the left to have been a watershed at which the British public rose up as one to demand a change of government, is that only 71.4% bothered to vote, the lowest percentage up to that time. Labour won 43.2% of votes giving them the direct authority of 30.8% and the presumed authority of the missing 28.6% for a grand total of 59.4%. In 2001 Labour secured 40.7% of 59.4%, just 24.2% of possible votes to which we add 40.6% to give a massive level of support at 64.8%. Turnout rallied a little to 61.4% in 2005 and Labour won 35.3%, which was 21.7% of all possible votes, adding the 38.6% who did not vote the total is 60.3%.
There might or might not be anything to my hypothesis but it might help to explain why we generally accept the authority of the governing party to govern despite each one for more than 30 years having received far fewer than half the number of possible votes. The non-voters can hardly complain about this, they had their chance knowing they would be stuck with the result of other peoples actions. Adding the implicit authority of the non-voters to the actual authority of those who did votes has given every government democratic legitimacy.
Some argue that a party receiving, say, 40% of votes cast on a turnout of 60% lacks democratic legitimacy because it receives less than a quarter of the votes available. Of course members of the House of Commons are elected for individual constituencies on a first-past-the-post basis rather than by total votes cast nationally, but it still seems a bit rum that a substantial minority of votes cast can result in one party being dominant in the House and even rummer that their share of total possible votes can be as low as a quarter.
This is not a post about proportional representation, it is a wibble about how the non-voters should count. The traditional number crunching that happens after every election tends to ignore the non-voters. They are treated as if they do not exist and have expressed no opinion by their decision to stay at home. I suggest a different approach is more appropriate.
It's a matter of presumptions. What should we presume about those who don't vote? Should we presume they are anarchists who don't want any government, Socialists or other types of fascists who want dictatorship and won't sully their principles by engaging in the bourgeois electoral process, religious fundamentalists who believe the outcome is dictated by their god and that they should not seek to usurp his good work? I think it more realistic to presume that they are content to go along with what everyone else decides. After all, what everyone else decides will be the outcome so if they are not content with that all they have to do is walk to the polling station and hope they can remember how to draw an X.
The reason I believe this to be a valid argument is that every person eligible to cast a vote can either do so or not do so, but their decision is made against the certain knowledge that MPs will be elected and a government will be formed whether they use their vote or not. On election day we each have the opportunity to give authority to one party or another to form a government. It is a round-about process because we do not vote directly for a national government or a party we vote for our choice of MP for our constituency, nonetheless each vote represents the decision of the voter to give authority in one direction or another. Because we all know we have the right to give our little bit of authority we also know that failure to vote means others are giving authority for us. Directly they authorise the successful local candidate to be an MP and indirectly they authorise the party with a majority of MPs to form a government. We could use our single cross of authority ourselves, if we do not do so others use it for us. If we do not use our individual little bit of authority ourselves we have no right to complain about the authority of the victorious candidate to be the MP for our constituency or about the authority of the majority party to form a government, they have authority because those who bothered to vote gave them authority.
If you are an eligible voter in a constituency of 92,001 eligible voters and you are the only one who doesn't get out of bed on election day, each of the others exercises one 92,000th of your authority. You are stuck with the result whether you vote or not because the votes actually cast will be counted, MPs will be elected and a government will result from the exercise. You have the opportunity to vote, so you can't claim the outcome is illegitimate because it does not include your little bit of authority. By your default it does include your little bit of authority, you allow others to exercise it for you.
How, then, should we interpret this implied authority given to other voters by those who don't vote? Should we presume it is given in proportion to the votes cast for the various parties? Probably not because none of them could give a proportional votes, each could only give one whole vote. We could, I suppose, presume that in 2005 35.3% would have voted Labour, 32.8% Conservative, 22.1% Liberal Democrat and 8.4% for others because those were the nationwide figures. But that presumes they would have exercised a choice for one candidate or another, or one party or another, and we know they didn't exercise a choice, they stayed at home. The more realistic approach is to presume they are content to give their authority to whoever is the victorious candidate in their constituency and to whichever party gains a majority in the House of Commons.
At the last election Labour won with 35.3% of the votes cast and 61.4% of those eligible to vote managed to do so. The votes cast for Labour represented 21.7% of all possible votes, but 38.6% of eligible voters failed to manage the task. On the presumption I have made, the government could legitimately claim to have the authority of 60.3% of the electorate.
Going back through the elections since 1974 this exercise gives the following figures (I rely on Wikipedia for percentages of votes actually cast and the link I have already given for turnout statistics). In 1979 the Conservatives won 43.9% of votes cast on a 76% turnout, giving them the votes of 33% and the tacit authority of a further 24%, making 57% in all. They followed that with 42.4% of 72.7% in 1983 which is 30.8% of the total electorate in votes and 27.3% by default, a total of 58.1%. Their support remained pretty constant in proportion of votes cast in 1987 with 42.2% but turnout was up to 75.3% giving 32% plus the silent 24.7% for 56.7% in all. 1992 saw a further increase in turnout to 77.7% and victory with 41.9% of valid Xs, which represents 33% to which we can add the 22.3% who found it all too complicated, resulting in the support of 55.3%.
One of the most interesting snippets about the 1997 election, which is claimed by the left to have been a watershed at which the British public rose up as one to demand a change of government, is that only 71.4% bothered to vote, the lowest percentage up to that time. Labour won 43.2% of votes giving them the direct authority of 30.8% and the presumed authority of the missing 28.6% for a grand total of 59.4%. In 2001 Labour secured 40.7% of 59.4%, just 24.2% of possible votes to which we add 40.6% to give a massive level of support at 64.8%. Turnout rallied a little to 61.4% in 2005 and Labour won 35.3%, which was 21.7% of all possible votes, adding the 38.6% who did not vote the total is 60.3%.
There might or might not be anything to my hypothesis but it might help to explain why we generally accept the authority of the governing party to govern despite each one for more than 30 years having received far fewer than half the number of possible votes. The non-voters can hardly complain about this, they had their chance knowing they would be stuck with the result of other peoples actions. Adding the implicit authority of the non-voters to the actual authority of those who did votes has given every government democratic legitimacy.
Posts
6 comments:
The "presumed authority" principle is the one that predominates already - i.e. it is assumed that those who do not vote are presumed to accept the winnng party's right to govern.
That may be right, I don't know, but I personally don't think it is. Certainly there will be some who will be happy, but I believe more and more people are choosing not to vote because there isn't any real choice. The most common answer you will hear for people not voting is "it makes no difference - they're all the same anyway".
Some people argue that those people can vote UKIP or BNP or Green or Respect or even MRLP but that is dependent on whether a) there is a candidate from any of those parties standing in their constituency b) the voters being aware that there is a candidate from any of those parties standing in their constituency and c) whether those voters are aware of those parties policies and feel that they represent their own views.
My argument is that the increasing media focus on the three main parties marginalises the minor parties further and what coverage the minor parties do get is largely tinged with the bias that that media outlet has - e.g. The Guardian are not necessarily honest about UKIP or BNP, The Telegraph aren't completely frank about the Greens or Respect.
I only know the actual policies of parties like UKIP and BNP because I've made the effort to go to their websites and look at them. I've had no leaflets from these parties and no canvassers at my door (in fact, the only canvassers I have had have been Tory and Labour candidates for the local election).
As far as I'm concerned, any party that wins a majority in a General Election has achieved a democratic legitmacy - that is the way the system works and I'm happy with that. I'm totally opposed to PR or AV or AV+ which, in my view, are anti-democratic systems.
What I am not happy about is the increasing power of the media to effect the outcome of elections. It is this which threatens democratic legitimacy far more than anything else - the fact that public opinon is swayed by a relative small number of influential organisations which abuse their mnadate to "report" on the election by deliberate distortion of the facts.
"...so if they are not content with that all they have to do is walk to the polling station and hope they can remember how to draw an X [against the box that says, 'None of the above']."
Otherwise, why bother voting, and hence giving legitimacy, to a system that does not represent your views?
It's like the choice between Jamie and Gordon; ie, you've got the choice between a wanker and a tosser.
Perhaps of more interest is the note from Foamy Custard, which discusses the transition that has occured from a vertical dialectic (eg, gov vs the people) to a horizontal dialectic (eg, lab vs tory). Your presumption lends legitimacy to this form of tyrrany; ie, the faux choice that democracy (as currently practised) offers.
Hence, you can vote on whether to have a smack in the mouth or a punch in the face: if you don't vote for this choice, according to the fat bigot, and the majority votes for a punch in the face, there's a presumption that it is quite legitimate to receive a punch in the face.
Yeah, right. Try again, fatty.
Dear Fat Bigot,
I enjoy your blog, and I often find myself agreeing with you. Not in this case, though. No, fundamentally not.
Before the last election in 2005, I wrote a considerable screed on why I wasn’t going to vote. Looking back at it, I don’t think much of my view has changed. Here’s the link for your amusement:
http://www.libertarian.to/NewsDta/templates/news1.php?art=art898
gyg3s makes a good point about the smack in the mouth versus the punch in the face. Even if my vote counted (which it doesn’t – when was the last time a single vote made a difference in a general election?), it would still be no better than choosing between being hung and being shot.
If you start asking yourself questions like “Who do I vote for to get the fraudulent ‘global warming’ agenda stopped?”, “Who do I vote for to stop speed limits being reduced yet again?”, “Who do I vote for to get my light bulbs back?”, or “Who do I vote for to keep enough of my earnings to have the chance of a decent pension?”, you may start seeing why many people don’t vote.
Cheers,
Neil
If we do not use our individual little bit of authority ourselves we have no right to complain about the authority of the victorious candidate to be the MP for our constituency or about the authority of the majority party to form a government, they have authority because those who bothered to vote gave them authority.
I don't go along with that. If my local protection racket allowed me a say in whether Big Ron or Big Alan had the top job, it wouldn't put me in a position where I couldn't legitimately complain about the existence of a protection racket. Given that the state is just a dressed up protection racket, the same principle should apply.
There might or might not be anything to my hypothesis but it might help to explain why we generally accept the authority of the governing party to govern despite each one for more than 30 years having received far fewer than half the number of possible votes.
Do we accept it? I'm not so sure. As in the above example, I might choose to hand over protection money rather than having my legs broken. That isn't the same as accepting that the protection racket has some kind of moral authority.
I congratulate you FB on yet another interesting and thought-provoking post (gods be praised that you have returned to the blogging).
Have you noticed how over the last three elections the spoilt ballots have been increasingly ignored? Time was that the returning officer would always announce the number of spoilt ballots at the count, now they are not even shown in the results in the press. And yet a spoilt ballot is a legitimate vote for in most cases, apart from where the voter would seem to be a recent arrival from another planet, it is an expression of "none of the above".
@ Paul Lockett
I am pleased there is someone else who makes the connection between government and protection racket, something I deal with in my yet to be completed, never mind published, novel.
Thank you all for the very interesting comments.
I find: "why bother voting, and hence giving legitimacy, to a system that does not represent your views?" to be particularly interesting.
No government can reflect the views of all the people and no House of Commons can reflect the views of all the people no matter what voting system is in place.
I see no weight to the argument that a government that doesn't agree with my opinions lacks either legitimacy or authority to be the government under which I live.
The point I was trying to make is that our governments are treated by almost all of us as having the authority to govern. We might not agree with them 90% of the time but that does not prevent them being the legitimate government of this country.
We have only one way to give authority and that is by voting. My suggestion is that implied authority - not implied agreement with any policy - is given by those who could have had a say but preferred not to.
My little exercise in number crunching was designed simply to illustrate one way in which that authority can be explained.
The protection racket argument raises a different point, one which is far outside the scope of this post.
Post a Comment