This is the eighth post in my series about the 2014 elections for the European Parliament – a major organisation in the European Union. Whatever your opinions of the effectiveness of the MEPs, these elections matter and I explained that in this post. After that, I looked at the turnout and we are historically one of the worst at voting. Then I gave you some information about the alliances of parties, which was followed by an analysis of the manifestos for UKIP, the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives and Labour.
In this post, I look at the voting system (Closed List Proportional Representation) used in this election. It isn’t the one used in the UK General Elections, but there are some similarities.
History
The voting system we have for these elections in the UK was borne out of indecision and argument. The original plan was to have a single voting system for the European Parliament Elections – which would have been entirely sensible. It is one elections, it’s just that it takes place across many countries.
However, no-one could agree. Instead, it was decided that they would adopt common principles/restrictions and member states can make a choice which complies with them. The following are those principles:
- The system must be a form of proportional representation, which uses either a party list or single transferable vote.
- The electoral area may be subdivided
- An election threshold at the national level must not exceed five percent
British MEPs have been elected using proportional representation since 1999 and all were elected using this family of systems since 2009 (the year of the last elections).
The formalised information for electoral procedures in the European Parliament can be found here.
How it works
There are variations to this system, but in the following is what is used in the for these elections.
So, what is a ‘Closed List’? Well, there are two versions of a party list system – open and closed. In the case of closed, you don’t get to choose the people who are elected – you only choose the party. In the context of these elections, you would make a single choice for e.g. Labour or UKIP. After the votes are tallied, a formula is applied. This works out the total number of seats that a party will get for a particular region.
There has been some criticism of the system and I agree with some of it. You do not get to choose your representatives. It’s the parties that do that. You only get to influence who gets the most seats. There is no set method for how the candidates are chosen either. It could be relatively democratic, or it could just be a leader (senior member) giving opportunities to friends. Also, if you are bottom of a long party list, then you have next to no chance of being elected. There is no guarantee you will ever go up.
What’s the ‘formula’? In the UK, we use something called the D’Hondt method. Other nations may use different formulas though. It was devised by a Belgian called Victor D’Hondt in 1878.
Total Votes/(Seats Won + 1)
In a theoretical election, a party with 20,000 votes in the first round, which finishes first in the poll, gets the first MEP seat and then their vote is halved for the next round. The vote totals of the other parties are unaffected. The same is done in the next round if another party has the most votes. In the event that a party is top more than once, the ‘Total Votes’ portion of the formula refers to the initial number of votes. For example, if the aforementioned party won a second seat, the formula would become 20,000/2+1. This effectively divides by three and means their number of votes is reduced to 6,667 (rounded up).
A region where the election is taking place has a limit to the number of MEPs it can have. Once that number of seats has been allocated, the election ends and there are no further rounds.
The following is a table showing an example of Closed List PR with D’Hondt:
| Parties | Votes | Round 1 | Round 2 | Round 3 | Round 4 | ||||
| Seats | VAFA* | Seats | VAFA | Seats | VAFA | Seats | VAFA | ||
| Conservative Party (ECR) | 20,000 | +1 | 10,000 | +0 | 10,000 | +1 | 6,667 | +0 | 6,667 |
| Labour Party (PASD/S&D) | 18,500 | +0 | 18,500 | +1 | 9,250 | +0 | 9,250 | +1 | 6,167 |
| Liberal Democrats (ALDE) | 7,200 | +0 | 7,200 | +0 | 7,200 | +0 | 7,200 | +0 | 7,200 |
| UK Independence Party (EFD) | 6,900 | +0 | 6,900 | +0 | 6,900 | +0 | 6,900 | +0 | 6,900 |
* – Votes After Formula Applied
In this example, I have included the alliance that the parties are members of in brackets, but you may not see this on your ballot paper.
The Conservatives finished top initially, so they get the first seat of four that are available. After that the formula is applied and their vote total is halved. The same is done to Labour in the next round, when they win their first seat. When the Conservatives win their second seat (3rd round), the formula becomes 20,000/(2+1). In this case, I have rounded up the figure. The same happens when Labour win their second second in the last round. You will note that the Liberal Democrats are now top, but as all the seats have been allocated, it’s too late.
Due to their being a closed list variation of this system in the UK, it means the top two candidates for Labour and the Conservatives in that region become the MEPs.
Although the D’Hondt method is repeatedly applied to a total that ceases to exist after a party gets it’s first MEP, you could argue that it ensures every vote is worth something right the way through the election.
I have also produced a presentation about Closed List PR that just covers the essentials of what it means for the voter, as well as how the seats are allocated. It’s part of a ‘How It Works’ series. I hope you find it useful.
Degressive
The number of seats a country gets in the European Parliament isn’t as a result of sheer randomness. Since the Treaty of Lisbon came into effect, ‘Degressive Proportionality’ is used. That means that smaller member states get a number of MEPs that is disproportionate to their population. This means (in theory) that they have more of an influence on legislation that affects them.
Whenever A new member joins, they will get a minimum of six seats. As the maximum number of MEPs is 750, this means that the totals of some nations will be effected at the next election and they will (again, in theory) have less power.
Equality, or something near to that is fine. However, if a nation wants more influence, it should start or join an alliance.
Better alternatives would be every country having an equal number of MEPs (e.g. 3 or 4) or maintain the existing limit of 750 and make it proportional (which was the case before the Treaty of Lisbon).
Finally…
I hope you found the explanation of the system useful. As I have mentioned, there are similarities for the voter – but it’s worth knowing about the differences. You need to know how you get your representatives.
As well as the presentation I have embedded in this post, you can find the other presentations in that series by going here.
I have done quite a few posts in this series about the elections so far. I’m not done yet though. The next ones I have planned are about the results. In the meantime, keep checking my Twitter profile and Google+ community for graphics that show you who your current MEPs are. Apparently many of you don’t know them.
So, what do you think?