On Thursday, May 7^th, Scottish voters are being asked to elect their parliament, using a system that is both baffling and inappropriate for representative democracy—the Additional Member System (AMS).

As if to confuse voters, Scotland has used a confusing four different electoral systems for elections to the Scottish Parliament, the UK Parliament and to local councils. To make matters worse, a different system was also in use between 1999 and 2019 for elections to the European Parliament. As a result, Scottish parliamentary constituencies correspond, neither to Westminster constituencies, nor to local authority boundaries.

Under AMS, 73 constituencies each elect a single MSP by First Past the Post (FPtP). Then a further 7 MSPs from each of eight regions covering ~3/4m people are elected from party lists to complete the 129 seats at Holyrood. The lists are intended to balance out any overwhelming dominance in the constituencies in a given region, and to promote cross-party co-operation and avoid one-party domination.

Although the 1999 and 2003 elections did result in a Labour/Lib-Dem coalition, the latter goal was made a mockery of in 2016, when the SNP won an outright majority.

AMS does offer minor parties a better chance on the list, where a vote share of barely 6% gains representation. In 2003, the Greens and Socialists both formed MSP groups a half-dozen strong, and individuals like the Pensioner Party and Margo Macdonald also won seats. AMS offers flawed democracy because:

• AMS creates two-tiered representation, with list MSPs covering much larger areas—giving two classes of MSP
• Regions are based on the long-defunct European constituencies
• Highlands & Islands region is vast, stretching from the Mull of Kintyre (Argyll) to Muckle Flugga (Shetland)
• Lothian region does not include East Lothian, which is in South Scotland, despite lying further North than Glasgow, West Scotland, or any other constituency in its region
• Voting requires two distinct ballot papers, one of which is inordinately complex to show up to 12 names on each party list

Recently, AMS has worked less well for broader representation. Independents, pensioner party and the SSP have all disappeared, and the Lib-Dems reduced to a rump four MSPs from their former strength.

Although avoiding massive swings of FPtP, AMS is an unsatisfactory attempt at proportional representation. Far better is the system already in use in electing councils in Scotland: the Single Transferrable Vote (STV system).  Used by the Irish Republic since 1922 to elect the Dail, STV has given stable governments and given seats to minor parties.

The STV used in Scottish council elections limited  the number of seats available to three or four, which excludes the flexible representation of the Irish approach, which has up to seven seats available in each constituency.

A similar responsiveness could be achieved at Holyrood by the simple expedient of joining pairs of existing Westminster constituencies to form “double-sized” Holyrood ones. Each of the 28, thus formed, would elect four (20 off) or five (8 off) MSPs by STV, giving 120 seats.

As at present, exception should be made for the Outer Isles. Orkney, Shetland and Na h-Eileanan an Iar(Western Isles) would each elect three MSPs by STV, having a total of 129 MSPs, as now. Edinburgh would elect 12-15 MSPs from its three; Glasgow 16-20 MSPs from its four; Aberdeen and Dundee 4-5 MSPs each from their single constituencies.

Elections would be easier and cheaper to administer, and duplicate boundary reviews avoided. Voters have embraced STV for council elections; this would eliminate the present confusion of AMS and connect cross-party groups of 4-5 MSP to manageable area they represent. Although it’s too late for this election, tartar tar five years until May 2031.