In a script other than roman, or containing words prohibited by the

Secretary of State (s. 28). This seems to create a significant possibility

of executive censorship. Similar rules apply to party emblems (s. 29).

A registered political party is also subject to accounting and audit

requirements (Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000

Part III). Its accounts must be lodged with the Electoral Commission

and must be available for public inspection (s. 46). For the first time

the law has acknowledged that political parties are more than private

clubs and that they should be subject to external financial controls.

On the other hand, this creates a risk of state interference with political

freedom. Hence, despite a substantial body of opinion in favour, there

is no public funding of political parties election campaigns. However,

grants of up to two million pounds are available from the Electoral

Commission to parties represented in Parliament by at least two mem-

bers to develop policies (Political Parties, Elections and Referendums

Act 2000 s. 12). There are also parliamentary grants to opposition

parties for their parliamentary work (‘Short Money’ named after the

MP who proposed it).

11.4.5 Qualifications to vote

To be eligible to vote, a person must: i) be 18 years of age on the

date of the poll: ii) be either a British citizen or a ‘qualifying’

Commonwealth citizen: iii) not be subject to any legal incapacity

(below); iv) be registered on the electoral register for the constituency

249

The Composition of Parliament and Parliamentary Elections

(Representation of the People Act 2000 s. 1). A qualifying Com-

monwealth citizen is one who either does not require leave under

immigration law to enter the UK or who has leave.

To qualify for registration a person must be:

. 18 years of age or due to be 18 within 12 months beginning on

the first of December following the date of the application for

registration.

. Resident in a dwelling in the constituency on the date of the applica-

tion for registration.

‘Residence’ means the person is normally living at the address in ques-

tion as his or her home. This is a question of fact and seems to focus

on whether the dwelling is the applicant’s home for the time being as

opposed to being a guest or a lodger for some particular purpose (see

Hipperson v. Newbury Electoral Officer (1985) – temporary residents).

According to s. 3 (2) of the Representation of the People Act 2000

‘regard shall be had in particular to the purpose and other circum-

stances, as well as to the fact of his presence at or absence from the

address on that date . . . for example, where at any particular time a

person is staying at any place other than on a permanent basis he may

In all the circumstances be taken to be at that time (a) resident there if

he has no home elsewhere, or (b) not resident there if he does have a

home elsewhere.’

Temporary absence in performance of a duty arising out of work or

attendance on a course at an educational institution does not interrupt

residence if the applicant either intends to return to actual residence

within six months and will not be prevented from doing so by per-

formance of that duty or where the dwelling would otherwise be his

permanent residence and he would be in actual residence (s. 3 (3)).

Temporary periods of unemployment can be ignored for this purpose

(s. 3(4)). Detained offenders are not resident where they are detained

but remand prisoners, and mental patients unless detained as offen-

ders, can be resident where they are detained (ss. 4, 5).

There are special registration provisions for the benefit of certain

people who have to be absent from their normal residence for long

periods. These include overseas electors who have been resident in the

UK during the last 20 years (Representation of the People Act 1985),

mental patients both voluntary and compulsory, unconvicted prison-

ers, merchant seamen, members of the armed forces (service voters) and

certain other public employees. Moreover under the Political Parties,

Elections and Referendums Act 2000 s. 6, mental patients other than

250 General Principles of Constitutional and Administrative Law

offenders, unconvicted prisoners and the homeless, as an alternative to

establishing residence on normal principles, can make a ‘declaration of

local connection’ in relation to any constituency. In general the law

relating to eligibility to vote has become progressively more liberal

partly in response to a steady decline in turnout at general elections.

For example at the election of 2001 the turnout was less than 60%, the

government being elected by only 25% of the electorate thus raising

serious questions of legitimacy.

Incapacities

Even if they are on the electoral register, the following have no right

to vote:

. Members of the House of Lords other than bishops sitting ex officio.

. Convicted prisoners and mental patients detained as offenders

including persons unlawfully at large (Representation of the People

Act 2000 s. 2).

. Persons convicted of election offences (corrupt practices – five

years; illegal practices – five years in the particular constituency).

. Persons lacking the mental capacity to vote.

. Illegal immigrants and asylum seekers waiting for a decision (Politi-

cal Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 s. 2).

11.4.6 The voting system

There are problems with the workings of voting systems as reflections

of democratic values. First a system which always produces a genuine

majority government may be impossible to achieve. Kenneth Arrow

showed that, unless the vote is between only two alternatives, it is

impossible to rank preferences to achieve a pecking order on which a

majority will certainly agree. For example, in an election where there

are three candidates, different majorities might prefer A to B, B to C

and C to A. This has serious consequences for those who believe in the

idea of the ‘general will’ (but see Waldron, 1999, ch. 5).

Secondly both majority and plurality systems are defective in demo-

cratic terms in that they ignore all minority votes. Complex systems of

proportional representation can alleviate this but have the disadvan-

tages that a minority party may hold the balance of power in forming a

government, and in versions where voters vote for a ‘closed party list’

of candidates, the direct link between the voter and the MP is lost. The

choice between voting systems therefore involves a choice between the

251

The Composition of Parliament and Parliamentary Elections

incommensurables of strong government, giving effect to the general

will, and protecting minorities. The electoral systems that have recently

been introduced in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, London and for

the European Parliament are based on proportional representation.

The ‘first past the post’ system

The voting system used in elections to the UK Parliament and in local

government elections is the ‘relative majority’ or ‘plurality’ system.

There are single-member constituencies and the candidate with the

largest number of votes is elected, irrespective of the total number of

votes cast for that candidate. The plurality system has been much

criticised and different voting methods are used in the newer election

systems in the UK, including elections to the European Parliament, the

devolved governments, the Mayor and Assembly of London and pos-

sibly other local authority mayors (Local Government Act 2000 s. 42).

. It is not representative. Runners-up get no credit, however many

votes they earned. It is sometimes said that small parties are unfairly

treated but large parties suffer equally. The main reason why small

parties often have less seats than their share of the national vote

would indicate (for example in 1983 the Liberals won 25.4% of votes

but only 3.5% of seats) is because of geographical and class factors.

The two main parties, Conservative and Labour, each attract mas-

sive support in particular geographical areas from economic interests

which predominate in those areas. There are therefore numerous

‘safe seats’ for each party where the MP is effectively chosen by party

activists. Roughly 120 out of 650 seats are genuine contests at a

general election. Support for the smaller parties is scattered through-

out the country so that, except in a few ‘marginal’ constituencies,

their votes are not sufficiently concentrated to win seats.

. Except in a straight two-party fight, the winner is unlikely to com-

mand a majority. For example, the Labour government elected in

1974 had only 37% of the popular vote, and the present government

with a majority of over 170 has only 44% of the popular vote, which

is much the same as it had in the previous election which it lost.

In Parliament itself the members always vote by simple majority

in a straight, yes/no way between two propositions. The combina-

tion of these two forms of voting means that any particular law may

command the support of only about 20% of the public. In 1951

Labour won more votes than the Conservatives, but lost the elec-

tion. In 1974 the opposite happened. In 1976 the Blake Commission

on Electoral Reform (Hansard Society) castigated the voting system

252 General Principles of Constitutional and Administrative Law

as producing flagrant ‘minority rule’ and at the same time sup-

pressing other minorities.

. The plurality voting system is said to encourage mindless party

solidarity and to encourage swings between the two main parties,

with each seeking to reverse the policies of the other, thus producing

instability. However, one of the main objectives to proportional

representation (PR) is the risk of instability in that PR might pro-

duce constantly shifting coalitions of minorities.

. The plurality voting system accentuates divisions between different

parts of the country, notably the north and the south.

The present system can be defended on the following grounds:

. It produces governments which enjoy reasonably substantial sup-

port. A more representative system might lead to coalitions of small

parties, none of which enjoys much support.

. It is transparent and encourages accountable governments bound

together by collective responsibility. A party stands or falls as such

at an election and it must answer on its own record. It cannot blame

any minority parties, and governments cannot change, without the

consent of the electorate.

. It offers voters a clear choice. They know what they are voting

for. It usually produces strong, stable government. This argument is

not altogether convincing and the experience of other European

countries with different voting systems is a mixed one. The existence

of many or few parties seems to be due more to social factors than to

the electoral system as such. For example, the Netherlands has

enjoyed greater governmental stability than has Britain while France

has enjoyed less. It may be that the electoral system is a symptom,

not a cause.

. It is simple. This is particularly important in England where the elec-

torate, in comparison with those of most other European countries,

is poorly educated.

Other voting systems

Proportional representation (PR) is used in most European countries

and for elections to the EU Parliament. Within the UK, PR is used for

elections to the devolved bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern

Ireland. There are several variations of PR. They have in common the

use of mathematical and procedural techniques to make the outcome

correspond more closely to the distribution of the vote. Some have

safeguards to prevent extremist minority parties from holding the

253

The Composition of Parliament and Parliamentary Elections

balance of power. All have advantages and disadvantages. The main

forms of PR are as follows:

. The party list. This has several variations. The method applied in

Scotland and Wales (see Scotland Act 1998 ss. 1–8, Government of

Wales Act 1998 ss. 1–8) is the additional member system in which a

proportion of candidates are first elected on the first-past-the-post

principle in constituencies which are the same as those for elections

to the UK Parliament. This is then topped up by a second vote for

other candidates to represent eight regions in Scotland and five

regions in Wales. In Scotland each region has seven seats, in Wales

four. There are a total of 129 seats in the Scottish Parliament and 60

in the Welsh Assembly. The second vote can be either for an

individual candidate or for a registered political party. Each party

lists its candidates in order of preference. Each region is allocated an

‘electoral region figure’. In the case of individual regional candidates

this is simply the total number of votes cast for that person. In the

case of a party the electoral region figure is the number of votes won

by that party divided by one plus the number of seats won by the

party in the constituency elections. The candidate or party with the

highest electoral region figure wins the first seat. The second and

subsequent seats are awarded on the same basis in each case after a

recalculation to take account of seats already won. Thus the fewer

the seats won by a party in the constituency elections the better the

chances of winning a seat in the top-up election.

Elections to the EU Parliament in Britain are on the basis of a

closed party list (European Parliament Act 1999). There are 87 seats

divided into electoral regions (nine for England, one each for

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland with 71, eight, five and three,

members, respectively). Each party lists its candidates in order of

preference and votes can be cast either for a party or for an indi-