Alternative Electoral Systems Flashcards
what are alternative electoral systems?
across the UK, alternative electoral systems such as Single Transferable Vote (STV), Additional Member System (AMS) and Supplementary Vote (SV) are used in various elections, including for devolved assemblies, councils and mayors
however, the extent to which such alternative electoral systems have improved democracy in the UK is widely debated
arguments to suggest that alternative electoral systems improve democracy in the UK
strengths of STV, AMS and SV, including the proportionality and wider choice they offer, seem to have strengthened democracy
arguments to suggest that alternative electoral systems do not improve democracy in the UK
these systems have limitations that mean they do not necessarily improve democracy, such as weaker links between representatives and their constituents as well as the fact that they are not entirely proportional
conclusion
despite their weaknesses, these systems offer far more advantages than disadvantages and seem to be significantly more beneficial to democracy than the First Past The Post (FPTP) system used in Westminster
therefore, it is clear that alternative electoral systems have improved democracy where they have been used in the UK
strengths of STV: highly proportional
STV is used in Northern Ireland for Assembly elections, local government elections and European Parliament elections, it is also used in Scotland for council elections
highly proportional
in other words, there is a very close correlation between the votes won and the seats awarded
strengths of STV: example of high proportionality
in the 2016 Northern Ireland Assembly elections, Sinn Fein won 24% of the vote and 23% of the seats, demonstrating that the results under STV are fairer and better represent the views of the electorate rather than distorting them as FPTP does, which improves democracy
in the same year, the Green Party won 2.7% of the vote and 1.9% of the seats
if STV was used in 2015, the Liberal Democrats would’ve received 26 seats but under FPTP they only got 8, which did not reflect the number of votes that they had won across the country
these examples illustrate that the proportionality achieved under STV also helps smaller parties that are underrepresented under FPTP achieve a fairer number of seats that reflect the support they actually have, thus improving democracy by fostering a more pluralist system rather than letting the larger parties dominate
strengths of STV: ended conflict
the nature of this system has undeniably played a huge role in ending 30 years of violent disturbance in Northern Ireland and fostering a stronger and more peaceful democracy by creating a power-sharing government that enables representatives from both sides of the divide to work together and be fairly represented
strengths of STV: wider range of choice
it also offers a wider range of choice, not only between parties but also between candidates representing different wings and factions of the same party as multiple candidates from the same party are up for election
this means that there will always be someone that will appeal to people and someone that people want to be represented by, thus improving democracy
due to these strengths, it is the preferred system of the Electoral Reform Society
weaknesses of STV: not totally proportional
it is not totally proportional so does not give a truly representative outcome and still distorts voters’ wishes to some degree
weaknesses of STV: weaker link between MPs and constituents
the link between constituencies and MPs may be weaker than under FPTP, especially in large constituencies which are often too large for representatives to know well
weaknesses of STV: complicated and hard to understand
moreover, it is quite a complicated system and harder to understand than other electoral systems
as a result of the complicated nature of STV, the outcome could be skewed as people may vote for their preferred candidate but randomly rank the others or just write numbers down as they appear on the ballot
this is known as donkey voting and can weaken democracy as the results may be ill-informed or completely random and not true to how the electorate genuinely feel
weaknesses of STV: has no completely ended conflict or settled disputes
the system has also not completely ended conflict in Northern Ireland, thus not providing the peaceful and stable democracy that many claim it does
for example, the Northern Ireland executive was suspended several times including for almost 5 years between 2002 and 2007 due to a breakdown of trust
cooperation between parties also broke down again in early 2017, triggering further elections
strengths of AMS: proportional
a hybrid electoral system, combining elements of FPTP and proportional representation
used in the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Greater London Assembly
the top-up element introduces an element of proportionality which, like STV, tends to lead to more representative outcomes that more accurately reflect the views of the electorate
for instance, in Scotland, the Conservative Party won no seats in 1997 under FPTP but AMS enabled it to win 18 seats in the Scottish Parliament election of 1999
strengths of AMS: strong link between MPs and constituents
the FPTP element of the system also means that it maintains a strong link between the representative and their constituency and a strong link between the government and the people is vital in any democracy
strengths of AMS: wide range of choice
AMS, like STV, provides a wider choice as everyone is entitled to two votes
voters can choose a representative of one party and use the second vote for a different party, which is known as a split ticket
this means that people can vote tactically for one of the main parties in the first vote to ensure that their vote is not wasted and then use their second vote to support a smaller party that they may be passionate about
weaknesses of AMS: closed list
one of these limitations is the use of closed lists for the second vote
essentially, in the second vote, the electorate will choose a party and that party will have a private list where they will rank candidates in order
they can use this to prevent certain candidates being elected by putting them at the bottom of the list or encouraging other candidates to be elected by placing them at the top
the way in which these lists are organised are not known to the public, which might mean that they cast a vote for a party but the candidate that is selected from the list is not a candidate that they would have otherwise voted for, making the outcome unrepresentative of voters’ wishes
weaknesses of AMS: not fully representative or proportional
it is also not fully representative, other proportional systems provide much more accurate representation
for example, in Germany between 1969 and 1998 the Free Democrats never gained more than 10% of the popular vote but were able to hold the balance of power between the two largest parties
thus demonstrating that AMS boosts the significance of smaller parties, giving them undue influence, which does not improve democracy
strengths of SV: absolute majority
the use of SV in mayoral elections and Police and Crime Commissioner elections in England and Wales has improved democracy
a reason for this is that it usually results in an absolute majority, which ensures broader support for the winner and is therefore more representative than FPTP because the winner needs at least 50% of votes
strengths of SV: example of a politician achieving a large personal mandate under SV
for example, Sadiq Khan (the Mayor of London) has the largest personal mandate of any elected politician in British history
in 2016, he won 44% of first preference votes and 65% of second preference votes, which meant that he had 56% of the vote
this goes to show that under SV, candidates with little positive support are less likely to win as only the top two candidates (after the first preference votes have been counted) would make it to the final round
the winner therefore tends to have a very clear mandate and democratic legitimacy
strengths of SV: wider choice
there is also more choice, especially since voters get two chances to vote, possibly one tactical vote and the second for a candidate that they genuinely align with
as discussed above, a wide range of choice is an essential feature of democracy, supporting the argument that SV has improved democracy where it has been used
weaknesses of SV: non-proportional
non-proportional
only one individual is being elected to a single office and the votes do not equal the number of seats won
weaknesses of SV: the second vote
there are also many problems with the second vote because after casting their first vote, voters may simply cast their second vote for a random candidate without thinking, leading to a skewed result
