the brilliantly leaping gazelle

One of the main problems which exists in our democracy is a recent one. Not even two years old, it  was all too clearly revealed to be the problem that it is by the result of the Gorton and Denton by-election (G&D) last week. It was also also present in the Caerphilly by-election last year and it’ll  no doubt be present in Mays local council elections. 

One of my most frequent gripes following any parliamentary election is the turnout; the total amount of eligible voters who actually did so. I’m aware of the logical inconsistency of this argument, because if it means anything all, democracy means being able to choose not to take part in it. Be that as it may, it nonetheless annoys me no end that so many people choose to exercise this anti-democratic version of democracy so often, so blithely and so self-destructively. 

The prevailing narrative about the G&D result is that the Greens delivered a stunning victory. That notion the of there being such a thing as ‘a safe seat’ has gone. And along with it, so to has the old political duopoly; the one that saw either a Labour or Conservative government’s in Westminster, for most of my lifetime.

Or that by focusing too much on one threat – from Reform – Labour exposed themselves to another one – from the Greens – and that they quickly need to find ways to overcome both. That the Greens offered hope, unity and inclusiveness. From the way the the press told it, the Greens were nothing short of the political equivalent of Heineken. One might even believe that the Greens getting 40.7% of the votes was evidence of this.

Until, that is, one realises only 47.5% of the electorate actually bothered to vote. Meaning that less than half of all voters actually voted and of those, less than half of them voted Green. And even that becomes even less impressive when one glances at the results data from which one can only conclude that the increase in the Greens share of the vote from the 2024 general election – together with that of Reforms – corresponds almost entirely with the collapse of the Labour, Conservative and Lib-Dem vote. 

So probably it is less of a sudden enthusiasm for what the Greens were offering and more to do with tactical voting. A belief, endlessly reinforced by the media, was that only the Greens that had the only realistic chance of defeating Reform. It is almost awe-inspiring then, that only 47.4% bothered to vote. The electorate can hardly claim ignorance of it happening. The media reported on it until I suspect that even they were bored of it by the end, and didn’t much care who won, just as long as it was over.

If this all seems worryingly familiar – the seemingly impressive victory, the not so impressive turnout in spite of blanket media coverage and tactical voting leading to a political implosion for the three ‘main’ parties – thats because it is. Pretty much the exact same thing happened in Caerphilly, except it was Plaid Cymru and not the Greens who benefitted    

In Caerphilly only 50.4% of the electorate voted. The winning candidate, the Plaid Cymru one, got an a similarly impressive sounding 47.45 of the vote until one realises that once again, thats essentially less than half of a half. And much like in G&D, the political see-saw effect was clearly visible; for something to go up – Plaid Cymru’s and Reforms share of the vote from the 2024 general election – something had to come down – the Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib-Dems share of the vote.

This bothers me. Not just because it is so blatantly obvious from the data which means that the media aren’t picking up on it, or more likely that they are, but it doesn’t fit into the narrative. Not just because it means that some of the people who always vote are not voting because of traditional ideological reasons, but more because of newer ideological reasons. Which boil down to thwarting the other people who always vote, but feel that they can no longer vote who they previously did, and will vote for someone new. 

And its not just that if this scenario is played out across the country in May at the local elections or whenever the next general election is, we’ll get candidates winning because of negative votes. Because of more people wanting someone to lose than wanted someone else to win.

But is the fact that its just taken as a given that more than a quarter of the population who could vote don’t. More than a quarter of them didn’t vote in the 2016 referendum. This isn’t healthy. If a significant minority of people can be reliably assumed not to vote, it effectively grants greater power to those who do and who might be persuaded to switch allegiances.  Which will only encourage political parties to make their offerings more attractive to the potential switchers. Which will only causes that significant minority to remain a significant minority, which in turn will keep the status quo broadly the status quo.