3.2 Electoral systems Flashcards
✅ Yes, FPTP should be replaced
FPTP produces unrepresentative outcomes
E: 2024 General Election — Labour won 63% of seats with just 33.7% of the vote
EX: Gallagher Index rated it the least proportional UK election in history
L: FPTP distorts public preferences, weakening democracy
Voter choice is too limited under FPTP
E: Voters get one vote for one candidate — no ability to rank or split vote
EX: 2024 — 1/5 voted tactically; 58% didn’t get an MP they voted for
L: FPTP suppresses real voter preferences, fuels disillusionment
FPTP rewards parties with concentrated support
E: Reform UK got 14.3% of vote but only 5 seats; SNP got 95% of Scottish seats in 2015 with 50% vote
EX: Minor national parties penalised, regional ones rewarded
L: System unfairly advantages some parties, skews representation
🧾 Mini Conclusion (Yes side): FPTP is outdated — it delivers disproportional outcomes, wastes votes, and limits voter expression.
❌ No, FPTP should be kept
FPTP creates stable single-party governments
E: 2024 — Labour gained 174-seat majority, smooth transition
EX: Tony Blair in 1997, Thatcher in 1980s — enabled strong, decisive leadership
L: Stability and clarity in governance are critical, especially in crises
Strong MP-constituency link boosts accountability
E: Each MP directly elected by local area (e.g. Jeremy Corbyn 2024)
EX: Local surgeries, rebel votes (e.g. Infected Blood Scandal MPs)
L: Enhances democratic connection between voters and parliament
Simplicity and speed benefit voters and democracy
E: 2024 — first results in hours; PM in office next day
EX: 2011 AV Referendum — 68% voted to keep FPTP
L: Clear process builds trust; complexity can confuse and deter turnout
🧾 Mini Conclusion (No side): FPTP is simple, effective, and preserves local accountability — it supports clear outcomes and efficient government.
✅ AMS and STV are better
AMS improves proportionality while preserving local link
E: Combines FPTP + regional list (e.g. Scottish Parliament)
EX: 1999 — Tories got 0 constituency seats but 14% of seats overall
L: Balance between fairness and accountability
STV gives voters more choice and value
E: Used in Northern Ireland + Scottish councils — voters rank candidates
EX: Multimember seats = more representative, fewer wasted votes
L: More democratic and empowering for voters
AMS/STV produce more cooperative politics
E: Power-sharing in NI, coalitions in Scotland/Wales
EX: 2021 Scottish Govt had to compromise with opposition on budget
L: Encourages negotiation, not domination
🧾 Mini Conclusion (Yes side): AMS and STV fix FPTP’s flaws — making representation fairer and choice richer.
❌ No, AMS and STV have serious drawbacks
Weaker MP-constituent link
E: AMS: some reps don’t represent areas; STV: huge multimember constituencies
EX: Voters don’t know who to contact; accountability weakened
L: Direct local connection is diluted
Coalition governments can be unstable
E: Scottish Govt collapsed in 2024 — Greens/SNP conflict
EX: Stormont suspended for 40% of its existence
L: Power-sharing often fragile and gridlocked
More complex voting and counting
E: STV takes days to count; AMS uses D’Hondt formula
EX: 146,000 spoiled ballots in 2007 Scottish election
L: Can confuse voters and reduce trust in results
🧾 Mini Conclusion (No side): Proportional systems can weaken accountability, confuse voters, and destabilise governments.
✅ SV improved legitimacy of elected mayors
Ensures broad support
E: Sadiq Khan won largest personal mandate under SV
EX: Independent PCCs won in 2012 thanks to second preference votes
L: Encourages moderate, consensus candidates
More voter choice than FPTP
E: Voters get a 1st and 2nd choice
EX: Reduces tactical voting — vote true 1st, then compromise 2nd
L: Greater expression of voter will
Simple and accessible system
E: Easier than STV; just two choices
EX: Clear top two go to run-off — avoids backroom deals
L: Balances fairness and simplicity
🧾 Mini Conclusion (Yes side): SV gives voters more voice while keeping elections efficient and legitimate.
❌ SV isn’t a real solution
Doesn’t guarantee majority support
E: Bedford 2023 — Tory won with 33% after SV scrapped for FPTP
EX: Still possible for winners to lack majority of total votes cast
L: Only slightly better than FPTP
Relies on voter knowledge of frontrunners
E: If you misjudge top 2, your second preference is wasted
EX: Outside London, hard to predict who makes final round
L: System works better in theory than in practice
Still creates wasted votes
E: Votes for eliminated candidates don’t influence final decision
EX: Doesn’t solve proportionality — only applies in mayoral races
L: Limited impact beyond mayoral/local elections
🧾 Mini Conclusion (No side): SV is a halfway fix — better than FPTP, but far from proportional or transformational.
✅ Yes, elections are shaped by wider trends and long-term factors
Class and partisanship have declined
E: Class dealignment + partisan dealignment since 1970s
EX: 2024 — working-class Reform voters, middle-class Labour voters
L: Social identities no longer predict voting behaviour reliably
Valence and competence now dominate
E: 2024 — Sunak’s net approval -51%, Labour seen as “safe and competent”
EX: Labour’s lead based on Tory failures (Partygate, Truss, economic chaos)
L: Elections are lost by incompetence, not won by policies
Rational choice voting has risen
E: 2024 — renters, mortgage holders leaned Labour due to housing crisis
EX: 2019 — Leave voters (74%) backed Tories, despite social class
L: Voters assess “what’s in it for me” based on key issues
🧾 Mini Conclusion (Yes side): Long-term factors like social class have declined — valence, leadership and competence are now more decisive.
❌ No, short-term factors and social identity still matter
Campaigns still shape outcomes
E: 2017 – Labour surge during campaign (“dementia tax” backlash)
EX: 2024 – Lib Dems’ campaign won 72 seats, Farage boosted Reform to 14%
L: Strategic targeting, momentum shifts and gaffes can change results
Age, education and region still influence voting
E: 2024 — 18–24s: 41% Labour, 18% Green / 60+: 40% Tory, 16% Reform
EX: Educated = more Labour/Lib Dem; lower education = Reform/Tory
L: Socio-demographics still shape electoral outcomes
Media shapes public perception
E: 2019 — Corbyn attacked heavily in right-wing press
EX: 2024 — Labour backed by The Sun, FT, Sunday Times
L: Traditional + social media frame leaders, shape valence and image
🧾 Mini Conclusion (No side): While class may decline, social groups, media and campaigns still play a key role — voting is complex.
✅ Yes, leaders and competence decide elections
Voters judge leadership valence
E: 2024 — Starmer not loved, but trusted vs Sunak (-51% approval)
EX: 1997 — Blair seen as competent, Major weak and divided
L: Trust in leadership = electoral credibility
Leadership image drives swing votes
E: 2010 — “I agree with Nick” gave Clegg a debate bounce
EX: 2019 — Johnson framed as strong on Brexit, Corbyn unpopular
L: Personality can overshadow policies
Competence wrecks or builds party image
E: Truss mini-budget destroyed economic trust; Partygate ruined Tories
EX: 1992-97 — Tories never recovered from Black Wednesday
L: Governing competence defines party fortunes
🧾 Mini Conclusion (Yes side): Leaders aren’t everything, but public perception of them — and their competence — can make or break elections.
❌ No, policies, media, and social identities are also crucial
Campaigns + manifestos shape voter decisions
E: 2017 — Labour surged on anti-austerity, tuition fees, NHS funding
EX: 1997 — “Tough on crime…” + class size pledges won middle class
L: Clear, appealing policies matter — especially when leaders aren’t loved
Voters don’t always buy the leader image
E: Brown mocked in 2010, but some polls rated him as most capable
EX: Corbyn 2017: popular among youth despite media attacks
L: Policies + authenticity sometimes outweigh personality
Social factors interact with policy perception
E: 2024 — Muslim voters defected over Gaza ceasefire delay
EX: Reform’s appeal strongest among older, less educated C2/DE men
L: Social identity still filters how policies and leaders are judged
🧾 Mini Conclusion (No side): Leadership matters — but so do the issues, identities, and campaign events that shape how leaders are perceived.
✅ Yes, some elections are more about rejection than choice
Governments lose elections when trust collapses
E: 2024 — Tories collapsed due to scandals, Partygate, Truss chaos
EX: 1997 — Black Wednesday doomed Tory competence image
L: Opposition wins by default when trust is gone
Policy similarities = voters vote against, not for
E: 2024 — Little tax policy difference, but mass anti-Tory sentiment
EX: 2010 — All promised cuts; anger at Labour led to coalition
L: When parties converge, elections become referendums on incumbents
Tactical voting hurts unpopular parties
E: 2024 — Lib Dems + Labour coordinated via targeting and tactical votes
EX: Tories won just 30/91 SE seats, down from 74 in 2019
L: Desire to remove incumbents boosts rivals — even without mass appeal
🧾 Mini Conclusion (Yes side): Voters often reject the past more than they embrace the future — especially when scandals erode trust.
