WI: UK Adopts STV in 1918

I was reading 'Prime Minister Boris and other things that never happened' a few months back, and one of the earlier chapters was devoted to what would have happened if the UK parliament had followed the recommendations of the 1917 Speakers Conference that advocated introducing the Single Transferable Vote for elections to the Commons. The author essentially puts up one of the biggest butterfly nets I have ever seen, arguing very little would have changed, taking the rather absurd position that vote percentages 50 years later would be similar to what they were in OTL, without taking into account factors such as the new parties that would be produced, or the impact of second preferences, or even the divergences in political careers (Clement Attlee, for instance, would probably have never been PM had more Labour figures survived the wipeout of 1931).

So, I thought I'd see if I could get the thoughts of people here on what might have happened. Lets say the House votes for STV, and the first election it is used in is held in 1918. Some thoughts to consider would be: What would be the impact on British politics in the long run? How would it shape the party system? Which of the smaller parties around in this period might have survived in the medium to long term? And in the short term, what effect would it have? Would the Tories be so willing to dump Lloyd George and call an election if a coalition with Asquith and Labour was a viable alternative for him? Would the liberals still reunite as in OTL, or would Lloyd George pursue a more formally independent party?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
I think if Liberal is still divided, Labour would still displace them, but Liberal's position would be definitely stronger than IOTL.

On the contrary, Lloyd George might opt to go back to Liberal first. Asquith had made it clear that he would not jump into Tory bandwagon.
 
On the contrary, Lloyd George might opt to go back to Liberal first. Asquith had made it clear that he would not jump into Tory bandwagon.
True, but might personal difficulties with Asquith, plus the fact that would involve governing with Labour support when they were in favour of Irish independence, make that a little difficult?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
True, but might personal difficulties with Asquith, plus the fact that would involve governing with Labour support when they were in favour of Irish independence, make that a little difficult?
Asquith would have lost his seat in 1918. So, DLG would be PM in this government. Under PR, Liberal and Labour would win enough seats to form a coalition.

Also, a Tory-Labour coalition was basically ASB
 
Last edited:
Asquith would have lost his seat in 1918. So, DLG would be PM in this government. Under PR, Liberal and Labour would win enough seats to form a coalition.
Would he though? This is STV we are talking about, and the Liberals would have won more seats in this scenario. In any case, I would assume Asquith would factor into the decisions to form a new coalition whether he was an MP or not.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
In Fife East the Conservative candidate polled 54.2%, Asquith 42.2% and an Independent Progressive 3.6%.
Source: British Parliamentary Election Results 1918-1949 compiled and edited by F.W.S. Craig, Glasgow: Political Reference Publications, 1969; and the overall results from British Parliamentary Election Statistics 1918-1970, compiled and edited by F.W.S. Craig, Chichester: Political Reference Publications, 1971.

Asquith would be lambasted for nearly losing the war. There is no way for him to keep his seat. He would be put into the backbench as he lost his seat.

Btw, how would a Lib-Lab coalition's policies differ from the OTL Coalition?

If Lloyd George remained in War Coalition, there would be no Lib-Lab Coalition, because as IOTL, he would have gone too far in Labour bashing.
 
In Fife East the Conservative candidate polled 54.2%, Asquith 42.2% and an Independent Progressive 3.6%.
Source: British Parliamentary Election Results 1918-1949 compiled and edited by F.W.S. Craig, Glasgow: Political Reference Publications, 1969; and the overall results from British Parliamentary Election Statistics 1918-1970, compiled and edited by F.W.S. Craig, Chichester: Political Reference Publications, 1971.

Asquith would be lambasted for nearly losing the war. There is no way for him to keep his seat. He would be put into the backbench as he lost his seat.
His FPTP constituency result is only of limited value in determining whether he would have been elected in a multi member constituency under the single transferable vote. If he pulled in half the number of first preferences under STV as votes he got in OTL, there was every chance he would be elected.
Btw, how would a Lib-Lab coalition's policies differ from the OTL Coalition?
I am relatively new to this period of history, but it seems to me that the first MacDonald government might provide a reasonably good guide. It would depend on what point we are talking, and who gets to be PM. Labour would be larger than the both Liberal groupings on their own in this scenario.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
I am relatively new to this period of history, but it seems to me that the first MacDonald government might provide a reasonably good guide. It would depend on what point we are talking, and who gets to be PM. Labour would be larger than the both Liberal groupings on their own in this scenario.
In 1918, no.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/uk-adopts-pr-in-1917.348955/
This thread showed the calculation in this scenario, but calculated under party-list PR.
Meanwhile, a united Liberal would have won more seats than two factions combined.

However, according to wiki, STV provides approximately proportional representation, enables votes to be cast for individual candidates rather than for parties. So, it would be really hard to assess. Asquith would be chosen as second preference by many Liberal voters after DLG, and vice versa. The problem was that whether Asquith's destroyed credibility after the war would have greater or less negative impact.
 
In 1918, no.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/uk-adopts-pr-in-1917.348955/
This thread showed the calculation in this scenario, but calculated under party-list PR.
Meanwhile, a united Liberal would have won more seats than two factions combined.

However, according to wiki, STV provides approximately proportional representation, enables votes to be cast for individual candidates rather than for parties. So, it would be really hard to assess. Asquith would be chosen as second preference by many Liberal voters after DLG, and vice versa. The problem was that whether Asquith's destroyed credibility after the war would have greater or less negative impact.
If the two liberal parties remain separate, they would each be smaller than Labour in 1918. If they united and were able to get behind either Asquith or Lloyd George as leader, then they would be larger, but that's a big if.

The Irish system might serve as a decent model for how STV might work, where the larger parties often end up with a slightly larger share of seats than they do of votes, and the more polarising parties (eg modern day Sinn Fein) end up with lower.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
If the two liberal parties remain separate, they would each be smaller than Labour in 1918. If they united and were able to get behind either Asquith or Lloyd George as leader, then they would be larger, but that's a big if.

The Irish system might serve as a decent model for how STV might work, where the larger parties often end up with a slightly larger share of seats than they do of votes, and the more polarising parties (eg modern day Sinn Fein) end up with lower.
I think there would be more of 1923 elections. Liberal would be a major party for longer.

But this kind of system might make DLG confident enough to break away with the Wartime Coalition rather than distributing coupons, as it focuses more on individuals. No Coalition would be a huge positive butterfly for DLG himself, especially when DLG become the sole leader in 1929.
 
Top