elections and referendums Flashcards
what are the features of FPTP
two party systems winners bonus bias to majority party discrimination against third and smaller parties single party government
two party systems
favours major parties that have strong nationwide support
what happening to two and half party system
failing in health
social democratic party was formed by a disaffected labour mp in 1981
25% of vote but only 23 seats
winners bonus
exaggerate performance of mot popular party
strong government as it means winner party gets a majority in parliament
bias to one major party
system favoured labour from 1990s to 2010 reasons for bias; tactical voting different constituency size differential turnout
votes per seat at 2015 general election
conservative; 34,243 labour; 40,290 lib dems; 301,986 UKIP; 3,881,129 SNP; 25,972
how does FPTP discriminate against smaller parties
need support to be broad and concentrated
mechanics
makes it more difficult for smaller parties to win seats
psychology
smaller parties have a credibility problem because voters believe that a vote for them is ‘wasted’
single party government
produces single party majority governments with working parliamentary majorities
does FPTP always produce single party governments
four of the seven general elections held between 1910 and 1929 did not produce a majority government
advanatges of FPTP
strong government easier to hold it accountable
easy to understand for the electorate, familiar
winner bonus creates strong government
extremist parties cant get into power
electorate view it as legitimate
produces clear winner
doctrine of mandate
obliges winning party to put proposals into affect
FPTP gives them a stronger mandate
disadvantages of FPTP
discriminates against third parties
win on simple plurality, dont need majority, less legit
wasted votes
disproportional
more safe seats
not proper choice because of two party
safe+ marginal seats hides signifcant levels of support
for FPTP (what is effective representation)
single member constituencies clear link between voters and elected representatives
example of how disproportional outcome
tend to win more seats than vote merit
majority governments have only one 35% of vote
since 1945 2nd parties
UKIP seat to vote share ratio
1 seat but 12.6% of vote
who benefited from tactical voting
labour, from anti-conservative tactical voting between 1997 and 2005
constituency size impact in 2015
electorate in constituencies won by labour were on average 3,850 lower than those won by conservative
mostly because of population movement from urban to rural
differential turnout
lower in labour held seats
62% in 2015, compared to 69% in seats won by cons
labour need to win fewer votes to win seats between 1997 and 2010
divisive politics
small shifts in voting produced frequent changes of government- led to instability because parties could overturn policies introduced by their rvials
FPTP is no longer fit for purpose
less effective in persuading electors not to vote for small parties= lib dems 23% 2010
other parties winning seats in commons 2015 SNP 56 seats
Winston Churchill on FPTP
not secure majority representation, nor do they secure an intelligent representation of minorities 1909
british election turnout figures using other systems
has never got 55%