Why does representative democracy often fail to give effect to the will of the majority?
When Enoch Powell’s gave his so-called ‘Rivers of blood’ speech in 1968, opinion polls showed three-quarters of people supported him. Yet this did not prevent Powell being condemned by all three major political parties and mass immigration continuing almost unabated.
Similarly when capital punishment was abolished, opinion polls showed the public were against it. More recently the EU referendum of 2016 showed a majority for leaving but it seems unlikely that the UK will leave the EU in anything but name – and this with the support of all three of the major, and supposedly democratic, UK political parties.
We have regular elections which are still largely free and fair. How is it then that the three established political parties have not been swept from power by parties whose views reflect those of the majority on matters like immigration?
The answer depends on a number of factors which include the huge cost of political campaigning in mass electorates and the influence this gives to political donors, the power of the mass media to define the prevailing political narrative, and the effect of long-standing tribal political loyalties.
But here I will focus on a structural factor – that elections involve voting for parties and not voting directly on the issues. I will use ideas derived from what is known as public choice theory.
Each voter has one vote but there are many issues; a general election campaign may well involve, among other issues, the economy, welfare, the NHS, law and order, the EU and immigration. This presents the voter with a dilemma: what if he supports one party on one issue but another party on another issue? An example would be a working-class voter who supports Labour on the economy but prefers the Conservatives on immigration.
This hypothetical voter cannot have everything he wants. He has only one vote. He must either vote Labour following his best economic interest, or Conservative in accordance with what he wants on immigration. His vote then will depend on his priorities. Which issue is more important to him: the economy or immigration?
We know that a majority of voters in general elections in the UK vote on the economy; issues like the EU and immigration are only usually third or fourth in their priorities. But this is not true of all voters – some may vote on the EU or immigration. So what is important is not simply the number of votes on an issue but the priority the voters give to that issue relative to others.
To illustrate this, let us give a simplified example from the hypothetical country of Ruritania. Ruritania has two major political parties – the Ruritanian Socialist Party, supporting big state, high tax policies, and the Ruritanian Traditional Party, supporting small state, low tax policies. On economic issues, the Ruritanian electorate is fairly evenly split between these two parties.
However, Ruritania also has an issue with immigration – 90% of voters support strict immigration controls while only 10% support open, liberal immigration policies. But significantly, the Ruritanian electorate is not entirely homogeneous: it comprises 90% of voters of settled, indigenous origin who generally want low immigration and 10% of voters of more recent immigrant-descent who generally support high immigration. Even more significantly in Ruritania this 10% of voters of recent immigrant origin, who favour high immigration, are more likely to make immigration their priority issue in voting, whereas the 90% of voters of settled origin usually vote according to their economic preference.
Rational, vote-maximising politicians in Ruritania will understand this: that notwithstanding that 90% of Ruritanian voters want less immigration the only voters who are likely to vote on immigration are the 10% of Ruritanian voters who want more immigration. If, say, the Ruritanian Socialist Party starts to offer open immigration policies to gather support from voters who will actually vote on immigration, the Ruritanian Traditional Party will feel constrained to follow suit to recover its electoral position. Hence both major parties will end up offering high immigration policies even though a majority of voters support low immigration. The 90% who favour low immigration will always be outvoted on immigration by the 10% of voters who support high immigration because the latter actually vote on that issue.
This example provides a plausible explanation of one of the reasons why today in the UK both major parties have in practice (if not always in rhetoric) favoured high immigration policies. A majority of voters overall vote on the economy but we also know that an overwhelming majority (perhaps 80% plus) of voters of immigrant descent vote Labour; and that Labour have a reputation for being more pro-immigration than the Conservatives.
So why does any of this analysis matter? There are two reasons.
First, it provides an explanation of why many representative democracies become dominated by two major parties to the exclusion of third parties. Most voters vote on the economy and their economic interest; but there are usually only two directions they can vote to take the economy in – either more productivity through lower tax and less redistribution or more equity through more tax and more redistribution. Just as you only need two buttons to control the direction of a lift – up and down – you only need two parties to control the direction of the economy. These two major parties, once they have occupied all the plausible positions on the priority issue for most voters – the economy, leave little space for a third party to break in, however popular its policies on non-economic matters because these are seen by most voters as subsidiary.
The second reason why this analysis matters is because it is only through properly understanding why democracies fail that it is possible to start to think whether there are any feasible solutions.
In The Socialist Case (1937) Douglas Jay wrote: “in the case of nutrition and health, just as in the case of education, the gentleman in Whitehall really does know better what is good for people than the people know themselves”.
Yes, this statement was mercilessly exploited by the anti-socialists at the time but they were absolutely right that this was the thin edge of the wedge. The state aimed to get bigger and bigger and now we have an almighty state that ignores the will of the people.
Can anyone blame the small state Americans for sending Marshall aid to Europe rather than squander its money for Britain to create a welfare state?
Thank you, I also think this is coming very close to home.
There is one overriding requirement needed to make any progress on anything in this country.
Brexit, Islam, Accountability, Corruption, Corporatism, Immigration, you name it, one answer!
We must discredit, undermine, outmanoeuvre, out publicize, out popularize, out class and out everything else. To remove the corrupt parties of Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat, and you can throw the SNP in there as well.
How? By finding those things we all agree on, ALL, everyone. Basic things like Independence, Freedoms, Patriotism, Social Responsibility and Democracy.
The way? Information, information, and information. Isn’t that how the Referendum was won.
Remind the electorate that the established parties have got ALL of those things so very wrong.
Good article, Richard W, and the platform, Change British Politics. Go out on the ticket of getting those parties who wanted to give our country away, out of office.
Somehow I think those parties know their days are numbered. They seem to be asking for the boot. Like ‘please get rid of us we are fed up with taking the British electorate for the fools that they are’. There’s a good analogy there somewhere.
The final answer. Put the information through the front doors of every household in the country. Direct, unsolicited, damning, incorruptible, addictive active, rousing and truthful.
Do it, it is the only way, you know it, I know it, and when it is done everyone will know it! But do it together.
Then you can talk of Electoral Reform, Hard Brexit, Islam and hunting down all those Ideologues.
I think proportional representation is a disastrous system. Look at the state of so many European countries following elections? Germany and Italy right now. The problem with PR is that almost inevitably it must result in coalition governments. The one thing you know about that is you get a government nobody voted for that is full of compromises and generally results in the population being critical of it. Look at our last coalition between Tories and Liberals and that was under our FPTP system and so was a rare outcome. Minority parties need to work harder to persuade enough voters they are the party to govern the country. That is tough but you almost always get a majority government, even though on many occasions from a minority vote because of the different sizes of constituencies and multiple parties splitting votes. When we propose change we must be very careful what we wish for and even more so when it is politicians who make the changes. Look at the mess the House of Lords is in. It worked far better when it was a hereditary House despite the obvious privilege associated with that. The benefit was it was that its members were not in the pockets of politicians, something the politicians hated and so changed it to become a political party based House and so destroy its merits as a second chamber.
Tim I completely disagree with you on PR.
The only excuse you people that hate it have is that it leads to multiparty rule. Good! That way, one party, that perhaps never got more than say a third of the popular vote, is denied five years of hegemonic rule, and the populace in effect bash their respective heads together and cooperate. Now would THAT be novel in Britain?
Please see my response to Harold A, below.
Trouble is that does not happen anywhere and the compromise PR government carries out a completely different set of policies than anyone voted for or is so weak it cannot do anything useful. I accept there are two different viewpoints but talking to people in PR system countries there are very many who are unhappy with its results. Frying pan to fire is not a great move even though as a UKIP supporter I understand our frustrations.
Interesting article Richard W.
Your analysis seems to match with the reason why UKIP has done well in the EU elections but not so well in the UK parliamentary elections. In this case, the result of the EU elections would not apparently directly affect our economy, NHS, etc., and additionally the candidates were, for the better part, unknown.
Looking back to the Leave/Remain referendum, a binary choice, again not apparently directly affecting our economy, NHS, etc., but in this case interference by political parties and their well known ‘faces’ and scare stories, not to mention outside influences such as Obama and others most certainly skewed the result.
Thank you, Richard C. UKIP’s relative success in the Euro elections is indeed another example which I hadn’t thought of. In the Euro elections the EU is the top issue for voters and UKIP does well. In a general election the economy is the top issue for most voters. On this Labour and the Tories between them have occupied most of the politically feasible positions, thereby making it difficult for third parties like UKIP to break in. I think there is a case for saying Obama actually helped us in the Referendum (unintentionally, of course). I seem to recall Leave’s poll rating went up after his intervention!
The reason the majority cannot succeed against the political parties and media is that there is no medium through which their views can be coherently organised so that they can cooperate together. This is in contrast to the organisation of the political parties and the media who work hand in hand. Just think of the occasions when the media say things like ‘the British people do not support….’ or the likes when ion fact they cannot possibly know what are the views of the people. The new social media routes theoretically provide a platform but it is still very difficult to get engagement as a mass of people.
This is a pertinent observation, Tim. An organisational mechanism for organising and campaigning against Brexit betrayal is vital. The Veterans and DFLA are doing good work in organising demo’s, as is MBGA in publicising those demo’s. But none of the other pro-Leave groups are doing any campaigning, as far as I can see. Unfortunately, UKIP is wedded to a hierarchical top-down organisational structure designed for another era and quite unsuited to the bottom-up, populist campaigning which is required now.
Richard W
In your article you state that immigrants will support further immigration. What proof do you have for that statement?. I would suggest that immigrants will support fellow immigrants (of the same culture/country) whilst they might not support immigration from a separate culture/country. It is of value for an immigrant not to support further immigration because iof the increase in competition for available aid.
An example of the latter can be seen in the UK where the EU’s Freedom of Movement has produced problems that are costing the host country billions of Pounds Sterling. If your two fictitious parties are aware of public feeling then the parties will suggest lower levels of immigration, not higher levels. Many of the British politicians are not interested in the UK.
You have also not taken into account presentation. Presentation allowed Tony Blair to become a Prime Minister whereas poor presentation nearly cost Theresa May her premiership. Another factor that you have not taken into account is the voter who votes for the party who he/she sees as the lesser of the two evils. Until UKIP decided to field a candidate I never voted for a particular party I voted for the one, that in my opinion, would do the least damage.
How do you explain the poor performance of the Liberal Democrats?
UKIP has an opportunity to become the third British Political Party if its Lack Lustre Leadership looks past leaving the European Union.
David T.
At Last. We’re beginning to look at the problem using a bit of logic..Well done Richard W.
Thank you Mr Spokes. The ideas I employ are derived from public choice theory. We often tend to rather lazily assume that majorities must be more powerful than minorities. Public choice theory shows why this is often not the case. Relatively small cohesive special interest groups with a large interest in an outcome will usually prevail over a much larger, but disorganised and disparate, group with a smaller interest. I merely applied this to immigration. Another example would be the way the pro-EU voice of a relatively small number of large businesses who benefit from EU membership drowns out the voice of miilions of small businesses who do no trade with the EU, and who overall would benefit from leaving the EU.
Democracy fails more often than not where and when elections are carried out under FPTP(First-Past-The-Post) instead of PR(Proportional Representation)!
Spot on Seton. proportional representation is what is required, The FPTP system is outdated and not fit for purpose. A system that has brought the country to a choice between May and Corbyn should be abandoned PDQ. If not sooner!
The answer is the Swiss system of referenda.
If 60,000 people want a referendum on any particular topic, one must be held.
The result is binding.
I agree, Mr Armitage. The Swiss system of referendums is an important reason why Switzerland is one of the world’s best-governed and richest countries, and also outside the EU! But, unfortunately for us here in the UK, the Lib/Lab/Con political oligarchy have learnt their lesson from 2016. They will not be granting us any more referendums, other than one to reverse that 2016 referendum result. So it is necessary for democrats and independence supporters to start discussing other electoral strategies to give effect to the majority will on matters like the EU.
The bottom line is that the UK has a totally dysfunctional electoral system in FPTP.
It serves a corrupt Establishment to perpetuate it.
We will get NOWHERE until we have a fair system of proportional representation ~ no system is perfect but I would be happy for starters to go with that which is used in EU elections ~PR based on quite large Regions, with which to some extent at least people do identify. And people are used to this system.
This is why UKIP should be majoring equally on obtaining a Real, Full On BREXIT equally with getting PR for elections to the Commons.
Yes Rhys, PR for election to the Commons would be the right way forward. But would turkeys really vote for Christmas?
We have to turn it into a major electoral issue like the referendum.
This essay overlooks a major problem with the existing two party system which is institutional capture by donors who then dictate the policies, e.g. trade unions on employment law and rich individuals demanding a ‘liberal’ immigration policy.
Populism requires a fair electoral system but does it also require large donations from backers or has the age of the internet and social media cut the cost of electioneering? Is this how Lega and 5 Star have achieved such rapid electoral success. When people understand that their individual vote can count, this can change behaviour radically. People may say what about En Marche! in a FPTP system overlooking the fact that this party was manufactured by the backers of the traditional parties who recognising their unpopularity in the face of an ascendant FN, used their control of the MSM to sell Macron as uncritically as a new soap product.
Re. our recent referendum.
It never crossed the UK political elite’s mind that we’d vote to leave.
Especially after we all received the government leaflet through our letter box.
Hence the liar in chief’s abdication.
But it’s the EUSSR way to keep having referenda ’til the required result is achieved.
And end up like Italy?
Well, it certainly makes politics interesting, especially for the likes of us. Pity the general populace doesn’t see it the same way.
Debbie I have the greatest respect for you. But can you candidly tell me how one can expect the general populace to change their attitude when election after election, they are forced to hold their nose and vote Gotta-keep-Labour-Out, Gotta-Kick-the-Tories-Out, or just completely waste their vote?
UKIP indeed did very well in the 2012-14 period, which coincided with the Can’t-put-a-fag-paper-between-them phenomenon. People who up till then ordinarily held their nose to vote Tory or Labour felt it was ‘safe’ to venture out and try this party.
Sadly that was replaced by fear of Milliband propped up by the SNP, followed by fear of Corbyn and Momentum.
And throughout all this, the Conservative party relaxes in glorious complacency, in the comfortable knowledge that, for THEM, everything is safe and well – thanks to First Past the Ruddy Post.
No, Rob, I can’t. But that shouldn’t stop us trying. I guess it’s just a great deal of hard work – talking to people, trying to make them understand that politics affects every single issue in their lives, even if they don’t know it.
I will say again: public relations is so important. When we’re out on the knock we’re talking to one or two people; if we can get a piece in a local paper, we’re talking to hundreds; in a national paper – thousands.
Public relations is not just putting our policies forward, as important as that is, it’s putting the word ‘UKIP’ into the public eye time and time and time again. Mike Hookham understand that and is regularly posting on the party website.
But that’s not good enough. You have to be active – an activist – to go online and read it. We need to reach those who do not/are not activists and that involves a proactive approach so that the party name is thrust into their faces so they don’t have to do anything and still they’ll absorb our details.
And we have to be forceful. One of the press statements on the party website is ‘Batten responds to BBC Teach video’. How lame! If that had gone out to the national press as ‘Batten slams ‘propaganda’ BBC’ it would have made at least some of the media, and this is the sort of thing that is happening again and again.
I despair sometimes.
Never mind FPTP’s dire effect on parties like UKIP : just look at what else it distorts : for example the SNP got ( from memory ) just below 50% of the popular vote last summer ~ but over 80% of the Commons seats accorded to Scotland.
Their influence on legislation and Government decision making is hugely out of proportion to their actual popularity as recorded in votes for the SNP.
The UK could still end up being destroyed by the SNP ~ and therefore, indirectly, by FPTP.
I think it has been calculated that over 450 ( of 650 ) of the seats in the Commons voted by a clear majority to LEAVE the EU ~ yet last summer’s General Election produced a Commons with a massive Pro~Remain majority.
Under a PR system it would have been possible for pro EU versions of Lab and Tories, as well as anti EU versions of same to campaign against one another…………..thus producing a massive leave majority Commons. ( Even without the large number of UKIP MPs that there would be with a fair, PR, voting system.
FPTP has so distorted the ultimate outcome of the election to the Commons that it is well on the cards that we will end up with a Hotel California version of Brexit…………..We checked out in 2016……….but we will never leave.
What do mean end up like Italy? At least they now have a government that was actually popularly voted into office. And they now have a sporting chance of doing something to improve their country, and you can tell that, because the EU are clearly rattled by activity south of the Alps. We haven’t a cat’s chance in hell of improving Britain under First Past the Ruddy Post here. I mean, come on!
And it’s a coalition in Italy – SO???
You like many other people in UKIP appear to equate good government with one party rule. So what do you think of the AfD in Germany, another coalition country? Don’t you think they will help the cause of freedom – real freedom – for Europe? I suppose you want UKIP or some other popular party to magically (and it’ll have to BE magic) make ‘one more heave’ into power, and then sit on that, whilst the party MPs slowly corrupt themselves in relaxed complacency. And that, long term, helps WHO, exactly?
Don’t mean to be rude but there are far too many people especially in UKIP, who think FPTP is ok, thereby condemning the rest of us to the status quo. You’re ok with that then?
I have always held the view that fptp works well as it offers more stability and that were UKIP to gain a number of seats they could build on that.
However given the state of UK government over the past 30 years, I have given up on my views.
There needs to be a complete shake up of the interminable useless three party system occupying parliament and house of lords.
Yes why not give PR a chance it can hardly be worse.
Yes definitely abolish the 800-900 club of bishops and expense claimers, House of Lords, it has proved useless in stopping bad legislation and bad treaties.
Yes I now also consider a republic may offer individual citizens a certain framework of liberties and freedoms that cannot be undone by this monarchy parliamentary democracy’s majority imposed legislation, free speech, right to defend oneself (and possibly the right to own arms though given the make up of this UK population now, that is no longer an option).
I would want to keep the monarchy as the thought of Heath, Blair, Kinnock presidency is too much to consider. Just ditch the Bishops. Buy them another Royal Yacht, the royals not the bishops.
Italy’s been a shambles for years. They haven’t had a serious government since Mussoilini.
Join the discussion…Hmm, PR based on large regions . Isn`t that the long term aim of the EU?
What’s that got to do with anything ?
You don’t have to be in the EU, or anything to do with the EU, to have a PR voting system.
I believe they have PR in New Zealand now, or some version of it : what has that got to do with the EU ?
Yes Rhys. New Zealand has a system called MMP which was designed by the allies after world war two for implementation in Germany to help the country become a democracy and prevent the rise of another dictatorship.
It works very well in both countries. Actually it is not all that different from the system used for the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly.