‘STV is a (small) step in the direction of a move to a more representative democracy’

• MARTIN Plaut asked me an impossible question – what difference would a single transferable vote, STV, process have made to the outcome of the 2019 election? (Letters, July 7).

My basic answer is that I believe the STV is a (small) step in the direction of a move to a more representative democracy.

In addition, because of the anomalies and distortions of the current situation, it is very likely that it would be a useful, general, improvement on what we have today, and that step would be in a positive direction.

Of course, it isn’t perfect, but if you are looking for perfect answers before you do anything, there will be no change and hence no chance of progress. (But, of course, not all change is progress, but doing nothing is rarely the answer.)

If Martin Plaut wanted a more detailed answer to his question, I would suggest/guess (other views are welcome!) that where Labour or Liberal Democrats came second to the Tories – and where they had less than 50 per cent of the voters supporting them – it is likely there would be roughly a 75 per cent split to either of those two other parties.

Where the leading candidate is either Labour or Lib Dem, a STV is likely to increase their majorities. Hence the overall effect would probably have resulted in a lower Tory majority.

The second votes of other parties such as the Greens, UKIP, etc might be significant in particular constituencies.

The only way to refine this answer is for someone to do a detailed analysis on a constituency by constituency basis.

The split of these figures would be different in the current political environment compared with 2019.

But that is not the point. The underlying argument is that STV would be a useful, small, step in the direction of a more meaningful democracy for general elections in the United Kingdom.

DR BRUCE LLOYD
Emeritus Professor of Strategic Management