Replay of council elections highlights options for local electoral reform

The study suggests that problems of increasingly low participation in local elections (the ‘turnout time-bomb’) and of one-party dominance or even corruption in some councils can be partly traced to the existing ‘first-past-the-post’ electoral system. Using the polling patterns from two sets of local elections in 12 localities to simulate results under alternative electoral systems, it concludes that:

• The Additional Member System (where winners from first-past-the-post contests are ‘topped-up’ from party lists in proportion to the number of votes cast) would have delivered a consistently good match between parties’ share of the votes and the number of councillors elected. The system would encourage effective opposition in authorities currently dominated by one party, while retaining links between local councillors and their wards.
• The List Proportional System – used earlier this month in the European Parliament elections – would deliver roughly proportional results, but tend to favour large parties over smaller ones. The system would require much bigger wards electing larger numbers of councillors.
• The Single Transferable Vote – used in elections to the Irish parliament – would maximise voter choice, allowing them to record multiple preferences, but would also require large wards. In some districts, the simulations produced results that appeared anomalous.
• The Alternative Vote and Supplementary Vote systems would allow additional preferences, but not improve the match between the support a party received and its share of elected councillors.

The report, by Prof. Patrick Dunleavy of the London School of Economics and Dr Helen Margetts of Birkbeck College, University of London concludes that electoral reform in local government would be possible with any of these systems. However, the Alternative Member System performed best in terms of proportional representation. Under the first-past-the-post system, it is difficult for any party with less than 20 per cent of the local vote to win a proportionate number of council seats. Under an Additional Member System of voting around 10 per cent of the vote would normally be enough to secure a ‘top-up’ seat for a minority party.

The report pays particular attention to the Government’s plans for all local authorities to hold annual elections – where a third of councillors would face re-election each year. Even under first-past-the-post, many councils that do not currently hold annual elections (such as London boroughs) would need to alter ward boundaries to create the necessary three-member wards. 

The Additional Member system would require larger wards, to allow for the ‘top-up’ seats. Annual elections under the Single Transferable Vote and List PR systems would require wards that were even bigger, electing five or more councillors each year. Wards of this size would damage any sense of a local link between councillors and their constituents.