electoral system Flashcards
shElectoral systems
First-past-the-post (FPTP) has been used for UK elections, in some form, for
centuries. Over this time there has been extensive reform to address complaints
of corruption in the system and to reflect changing political attitudes — these
reforms have included constituency boundaries, the extent of the franchise and
the ballot.
Nineteenth-century Acts reformed the franchise, with prime minister Gladstone
insisting that:
‘… whatever might be the effect on the House from some points of view, it was
past doubt that the two Reform Acts had made the House far more adequate to
express the wants and wishes of the nation as a whole.’
Gladstone was referring to the Reform Acts of 1832 and 1867, which had granted
the vote to an increased number of men. These reforms continued into the twentieth
century with the extension of the franchise to women and to 18-year-olds. In recent
decades FPTP itself has come under criticism, especially since the introduction and
successful use of other electoral systems in the UK:
l The additional member system (AMS) in Wales and Scotland and for the Greater
London Assembly
l The single transferable vote (STV) in Northern Ireland
l Between 2000 and 2022, supplementary vote (SV) was used for elections of the
London mayor. Following the Elections Act 2022, the London mayor will now
be elected using FPTP.
There are numerous supporters of FPTP, which does have clear benefits. During
the alternative vote (AV) referendum campaign of 2011, prime minister Cameron
commented: ‘Britain is in real danger of exchanging an electoral system that works
for one we would come to regret profoundly.’
Elections in the UK
A feature of liberal democracy is the holding of free and fair elections, which
allow true competition between parties and give a real choice to its citizens. Elections
give citizens an opportunity to elect a government, using their vote to try to shape
the policies of the nation going forward. It also allows citizens to hold their elected
representatives accountable for their actions over their previous term in office.
A vast array of elections takes place across the UK at different intervals using
different electoral systems (Figure 3.1). Each election is an opportunity for eligible
citizens to participate in a democracy. The regional assemblies in Scotland, Wales
and Northern Ireland are elected only by citizens in those regions. All of these
elections share the same features in the UK:
l Secret ballot
l Universal suffrage
l Regular elections, regulated independently
l Clear voter choice on the ballot
To hold an election, an electoral system must be chosen and used. In the simplest
terms, an electoral system takes votes cast by citizens and turns these into seats or
offices won. There are many electoral systems, each with its own processes which
lead to different outcomes. Table 3.1 differentiates between elections, electoral
systems and party systems.
Elections (in the UK)
- An opportunity for citizens to
cast a vote for their elected
representatives - A feature of liberal and
representative democracy - A way in which governments are
chosen and held accountable
Electoral system
- A process by which the votes cast
can be translated into elected
officials or seats - A variety of systems is available,
broadly falling into three types:
proportional, plurality and
majoritarian
Party system
- The number of parties that have
a realistic chance of forming
government - A result of the electoral process
that is chosen, not a choice in itself
elections in the uk -Choosing an elected representative and government
In all the elections on the map (Figure 3.1), voters are choosing politicians to represent
their views. Candidates campaign either on their personal beliefs and policies or, if they
are a member of a party, on the policies in their party’s manifesto. By winning an
election, this person gains a mandate to act on behalf of their constituency. In most
UK elections, the election of individuals in each constituency leads to the formation of
a government, usually by the party that won a majority of seats in that election.
Failing this, a number of parties form a coalition, working together in order to govern.
elections in the uk - Holding the current elected representatives to account
An election allows for the current office holders to be judged on their performance over
the time they have been in office. For most UK elected offices, this is either a 4- or
5-year term. This ensures there are consequences for the actions that an elected official
takes while in office and that they can be voted out if their constituents are unhappy.
Knowing that their actions could lead to them being removed should encourage officials
to better communicate with voters, to make sure they feel represented and happy.
elections in the uk - Legitimising political power
The government formed as a result of a free and fair election is called a ‘legitimate’
government. This means that it has the right to exercise power and authority
(Table 3.2) over an area and the people within it. When this government introduces a
new policy or changes an old one, it has the right to do so because it won an election.
Authority
* The rightful exercising of power, granted
to a government in an election
* For example, Boris Johnson campaigned
to ‘Get Brexit Done’ in 2019, gaining the
authority to do so in winning the election
with a clear majority
power
* The ability to actually carry out
government action
* For example, when the Commons voted
for the Letwin amendment to the EU
(Withdrawal) Bill, it forced Johnson to
seek an extension to Brexit negotiations
For a government to gain legitimacy, the participation of voters is needed. If the
turnout is too low, the election result does not effectively represent the views of the
public. This undermines the legitimacy of the elected government. For legitimacy,
there must be competing parties or individuals for voters to choose between in an
election.
Most governments in UK general elections gain a majority of the seats but not
a majority of the votes cast (Table 3.3). These governments are still regarded
as legitimate, having won a majority of seats under the rules of FPTP. The
Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition of 2010–15 is useful when considering
legitimacy. On the one hand, neither party won the election outright, undermining
their legitimacy. On the other hand, the two parties together gained 59% of the
vote. This clear majority is unusual in UK politics and arguably increased their
legitimacy.
elections in the uk - Limiting the power of elected representatives and the government
Elections give power to a government, but they also serve
to limit it. Each elected government knows that it will face
election again in a number of years. In order to retain power in
future elections, the government should carefully consider the
actions it takes. This effectively limits its power. Elections also
result in the election of other representatives who do not form
government. These are still legitimately elected officials and
they therefore form the opposition. They can use this position
to scrutinise and challenge government policy, which also limits
the power of government.
elections in the uk - Development of political policy
As part of an election, most parties or candidates publish a
manifesto: a document outlining the policies the party plans
to implement if it is elected. Public opinion can shape these
policies, as a government must be popular to win an election.
The winner of an election is usually chosen on these policies
During the 2019 general election, the Conservative Party had to change its proposed
policy on corporation tax. Initially, Prime Minister Johnson had pledged to cut
corporation tax further. However, under public pressure Johnson was forced to
abandon this proposal, pledging instead the money made by keeping corporation
tax at 19% to the NHS.
elections in the uk - Selection of a political elite
In the UK, parties can decide who runs in an election under their party name.
They choose those they think are mostly likely to win elections and be successful
as elected officials. Once elected representatives are chosen for each constituency,
some of them will be included in the formation of a government. This political elite
is then responsible for the smooth running of a country; the election provides an
opportunity to ensure they are capable and competent at doing so.
Different electoral systems
Majoritarian
A majority is 50% +1 to win
This usually refers to the minimum
number of votes needed to win a
seat
Alternatively, it may refer to the
number of seats a party needs to
win to form a government
Likely to produce a two-party
system
Supplementary vote (SV)
Plurality
A plurality of votes is having more
votes than anyone else
In a plurality system, no outright
majority is required to win a seat
Likely to produce a two-party
system
First-past-the-post (FPTP)
Proportional
A proportional system allocates
seats roughly in line with the
percentage of votes gained by a
party
No purely proportional systems
are used in the UK, but a number
of systems used are more
proportional than FPTP
Likely to produce a multiparty
system
Additional member system (AMS)
Single transferable vote (STV)
Sometimes these distinctions become blurred. For example, to win a constituency
seat in FPTP, a candidate needs to gain a plurality of the vote. To form a government
under FPTP, a party is usually expected to win a majority of the seats available in
the House of Commons.
Plurality systems - First-past-the-post
First-past-the-post (FPTP) is used for UK general elections. These should occur
at a fixed point every 5 years in accordance with the Fixed-term Parliaments Act
2011. However, this Act does have a provision to allow for an election to occur
should two-thirds of MPs vote for one. This happened in 2017 when the issue of
Brexit became particularly divisive, explaining why three general elections occurred
within 4 years.
How it works
Key features:
l Single-member constituencies
l Plurality system
l Vote cast for a person, not a party
The Fixed-term Parliaments Act and elections
Passed in 2011, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act laid out in legislation that UK elections should
occur every 5 years on a fixed date. Previously, the prime minister decided when elections were
called. The Act did allow for a snap general election to be called if two-thirds of MPs voted for
it — as happened in 2017.
This Act was criticised by the Conservative Party, which pledged to overturn it in its 2019
manifesto. The party also showed how weak this Act was in 2019 when, instead of seeking a
two-thirds majority, it simply passed the Early Parliamentary General Election Bill instead.
Winning a majority in the 2019 election, the Conservatives introduced the Dissolution and
Calling of Parliament Bill, which would put the power to call elections back in the hands of the
prime minister. This bill suffered a number of defeats in the House of Lords, who argued that
this decision should remain with MPs and not with the prime minister alone. The bill became
law in 2022, effectively overturning the Fixed-term Parliaments Act.
FPTP - At constituency level
At constituency level
l The UK is divided into 650 geographical areas called
constituencies. Each constituency contains an electorate of
approximately 70,000 people, although this does vary widely across
the UK.
l Each constituency is represented by 1 seat in the House of Commons
held by a single MP. These are known as single-member
constituencies.
l Each party will select a candidate to run for election within a
constituency.
l The voters of a constituency cast a single ballot, choosing between
the candidates put forward. To do this, they put an ‘X’ in a box next
to their chosen candidate on the ballot paper.
l The candidate with the most votes wins that constituency seat and
becomes its elected representative.
The ballot paper for FPTP is simple (Figure 3.2). Candidates are listed alphabetically by
their surname. If they are standing on behalf of a party, the party logo appears on the
right. In each constituency, voters are electing a local MP. While many of them may
choose to vote based on their party preference, they are actually voting for a person.
FPTP - at national level
l The winning candidate in each constituency is sent to Parliament to be an MP
and represent their constituency.
l The party with a majority of MPs — currently at least 326 out of 650 — can then
form the government.
l If no party has a majority, two or more parties may form a coalition and work
together, or the leading party might form a minority government.
types of goverment under FPTP
FPTP usually returns a government that has won a majority of the seats available in the House
of Commons — this means gaining more than 326 seats. However, the last four elections at the
time of writing have returned unusual results:
l 2010 — a coalition between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrat Party.
l 2015 — a very small Conservative majority of only 331 of the 650 available seats.
l 2017 — a confidence-and-supply agreement between the Conservative Party and the DUP,
in which the DUP pledged its ten elected MPs to support prime minister May’s Conservative
Party in any votes of money (supply) or no confidence. This was necessary as May gained
only 317 seats.
l 2019 — a more expected result of FPTP, with Prime Minister Johnson gaining 365 of the
available seats, a sizeable majority.
The return of a strong and stable government is a key feature of FPTP. These results led many
to question whether FPTP still fulfilled its purpose.
The effects of using FPTP
While the results of each election vary according to the votes cast, FPTP has a
number of common outcomes. These outcomes can be assessed as positive or
negative, or in some cases a little of both. These are simply the likely consequences
of choosing to use FPTP, rather than advantages and disadvantages.
FPTP - A two-party system
FPTP is a plurality system based in constituencies and this generally results in
a two-party system. All that is needed to win a seat within a constituency is to
gain more votes than the person who came second, meaning the winner can
gain a whole seat with a relatively small proportion of the vote. Those who come
second, third or below gain nothing at all. This is known as a ‘winner-takes-all’
system. In 2015, Alasdair McDonnell of the SDLP in Northern Ireland achieved
just 24.5% of the vote in his constituency of Belfast South and yet won the seat.
In 2019, 12 seats were won with margins of less than 1%, with 1 seat being won
by just 57 votes.
As a result of its ‘winner-takes-all’ nature, FPTP is beneficial to parties that have a
reasonable concentration of support in a geographical area. In the UK, this means
that Labour and the Conservatives benefit from the use of FPTP, with
Labour voters more concentrated in urban areas and Conservative
voters more concentrated in rural areas. Smaller parties find it difficult
to compete — their support is often thinly spread across the UK,
election campaigns are expensive, and the two main parties have broad
ideologies. Even if a third party is successful, it often has only a few
seats and so has little influence in Parliament.
FPTP - ‘Winner’s bonus’
The ‘winner’s bonus’ is not a literal bonus. Instead it is the effect of
FPTP, which tends to over-reward the winning party in an election.
For example, in 1997 Labour gained 43% of the national vote but 63%
of the seats, and in 2019 the Conservatives gained 44% of the vote
but 56% of the seats. The reason for this is that these are the national
totals. The reality of an election is that 650 small constituency-based
elections are taking place. While a party may win a seat with a plurality
of the vote, it wins the whole seat, effectively being over-rewarded.
On a national scale, this often results in a higher percentage of seats
being gained by the winning party than the percentage of the vote
won by the party.
FPTP - Strong, single-party government
The two-party nature of FPTP and the ‘winner’s bonus’
usually mean that one party gains a clear, outright
majority and is therefore able to form a strong and stable
government, meaning it can pass laws with relative ease
and appear unlikely to face an unexpected election. The
three general elections of 2010, 2015 and 2017 have been
notable for their unpredictability and for the relative lack
of single-party dominance. In 2015, the Conservatives
gained a majority, even though it was a small one. In 2010
and 2017, the Conservatives narrowly missed a majority
and yet managed to create a working government. In
2019, FPTP returned a more expected result, perhaps
suggesting these other elections were outliers.
differences between a coalition and a confidence-and-supply
agreement.
Coalition
- A formal agreement between two or more parties, with
both forming the government - Results in the creation of joint party policies and goals
for the duration of the coalition and an expectation
of support for these policies from the elected
representatives of both parties - The government, including the cabinet, is formed from
members of all parties in the coalition
Confidence and supply
- A more informal agreement between the governing party
and one other - Results in an agreement to support the government on
issues of ‘confidence’ and ‘supply’ in return for government
support on specific issues important to the other party.
Beyond this, there is no expectation of support - The government, including the cabinet, is formed of
members from one party
FPTP - Safe seats and swing seats
As a result of the ‘winner-takes-all’ nature of FPTP, a number of the constituencies
become safe seats. This means that a particular party can almost guarantee victory
in a particular seat. Usually, this is a result of a concentration of voters with loyalty
to one party being grouped together in one constituency.
In contrast, some seats are marginal seats. These are seats where the voter loyalty
within a constituency is more evenly split between parties, meaning that the likely
winner of the seat is more difficult to predict.
Figure 3.4 shows the margins by which seats were won in recent general elections —
this is the percentage difference between the candidates who came first and second.
The seats won with a lower percentage margin are the marginal seats and those won
with a higher percentage margin are safe seats. The number of safe and marginal
seats changes with each election and this may be due to population change, party
policy change or other factors that affect voting behaviour. In the 2017 and 2019
general elections, there was an increase in the number of very marginal and very
safe seats.
Marginality in the House of Commons
The number of safe and marginal seats varies in any election. Often a substantial number of
seats are won by a margin of just 1% or 2%. In 2019:
l 12 seats were won by less than 1% of the vote (this was 31 seats in 2017)
l 14 seats were won by between 1% and 2% of the vote (this was 11 seats in 2017)
l 141 seats were won by less than 10% of the vote
l 18 seats were won with a majority of 60% or more of the vote
l 1 seat was won by less than 100 votes (this was 11 seats in 2017).
Safe and marginal seats are spread across the UK — the safest seats and the closest marginal
seats are both in North West England. The Conservative Party took Bury North from Labour by
a majority of 0.22% while Labour took Knowsley with 73% of the nearly 40,000 votes cast.
The advantages and disadvantages of FPTP
Many effects of FPTP can be evaluated positively and negatively. It is important
to note that some effects may be positive for one group and negative for another
(Table 3.5). For example, safe seats are positive for the major UK parties but negative
for third and minority parties.
Traditional advantages
Simplicity
It is a simple system, rather than a mathematical formula,
and produces a quick result. Voters know how the system
works and how their vote will be counted, which should
increase turnout and reduce spoiled ballots
117,919 out of 47,587,254 votes cast were invalid in 2019
Strong government
It should produce a strong, single-party government able
to effectively lead the country, rather than needing a
compromise of parties
The Conservative Party gained an 80-seat majority in 2019
MP–constituency link
It gives a clear link between each area and a
representative, providing effective local representation and
clear accountability to constituents
When Johnson was faced with criticism over parties held in
No. 10 during Covid-19 lockdowns, MP Andrew Bridgen said,
‘I’ve had lots of emails from people demanding that Boris
goes’
Centrist policies
With third parties struggling to gain success under FPTP, it
keeps extremist parties out of office. The two main parties
hold broadly centrist views, and voters are given a clear
choice between them and therefore the direction in which
they believe the country should move
In 2019, the Conservative and Labour Parties took 567 of the
available 650 seats
Traditional disadvantages
Lack of voter choice
The resulting two-party system gives voters a lack of real
choice, leading to reduced turnout or tactical voting
70 parties ran in 2019, but only 10 parties gained seats
Unequal vote value
With uneven constituency sizes and with safe and marginal
seats, the vote of one person can be far more valuable
than that of another, depending on where they live,
undermining key principles of democracy
Dan Carden gained nearly 85% of the vote in his constituency
of Liverpool Walton in 2019
No majority needed
To win in a constituency, only a plurality is needed, meaning
more people in total can vote against the winning candidate
than for them, undermining legitimacy and wasting the
votes of those who vote for a losing candidate
In 2019, 229 of the 650 seats were won with less than 50%
of the vote
Disproportionate result
Compared to the percentage of the vote they receive, the
two main parties are over-represented, usually through the
winner’s bonus, while other parties are under-represented
The Conservatives took 43.6% of the vote in 2019 but 56.2%
of the seats
Advantages of FPTP
Simplicity
FPTP is a simple system for the voter and for electoral administration. This allows
for a cost-effective election that delivers a quick and legitimate result. The simplicity
of the system should encourage people to turn out and vote as they can easily
understand how the system works and why their vote matters. A bigger turnout
underpins the legitimacy of the election result. Even if a voter casts their ballot for
a losing candidate, by taking part they are consenting to the use of FPTP to elect a
legitimate government.
Strong government
Traditionally, FPTP provides the country with a winner with a clear majority. This
gives the victorious party a mandate to fulfil its manifesto commitments. As coalitions
are unlikely, the winning party does not have to compromise its manifesto promises
without the consent of the voters. Having a majority also means the government can
pass legislation with relative ease, enabling it to make the changes that the public
voted for.
MP–constituency link
The UK is divided into 650 constituencies, meaning that each area has a local MP
to represent it directly in Parliament. This means that the voters in a constituency
can have a direct effect on the result in their area, and the elected MP is accountable
to their constituents. Usually, MPs have an office in their constituency and hold
surgeries to keep in touch with their constituents. As well as being loyal to their
party, an MP is more likely to be interested in remedying local issues in order to
ensure their re-election. This supports the principles of a representative democracy.
Centrist policies
As FPTP encourages a two-party system, the manifestos of the main parties include
policies that cover the political centre in UK politics. The policies that are likely to
be included in their manifestos are those they believe will be popular and therefore
will win them a high number of votes. This ensures that the majority of the UK
population is represented, excluding the policies and electoral success of minor,
more extremist parties on the right or left wing of the political spectrum.
Disadvantages of FPTP
Lack of voter choice
The simplicity of FPTP is achieved through the ‘winner-takes-all’ aspect of the
system. This means that for many voters, the only real choice is between Labour
and the Conservatives, as these are the only two parties with a realistic chance of
winning the seat. If a voter knows this, it might actually decrease turnout in an
election or lead to voters choosing to vote tactically, both of which undermine
the legitimacy of the result. Voting tactically means that voters are not expressing
their own desire at the ballot box. Rather, they are considering the most likely
outcome in their constituency and working out how to achieve the least bad outcome
for themselves. For example, a Liberal Democrat supporter may choose to vote
for Labour if they feel the Liberal Democrat candidate does not stand a chance of
winning in their constituency.
In recent elections, new technology was used to create websites like Swap My Vote.
Voters could pledge to swap their votes with others in the country depending on
how safe their own constituency was and dependent on the outcome they were
trying to achieve. This relied on trust, as the UK has a secret ballot, and could be
seen as a way of manipulating the result.
Unequal vote value
If a person lives in a safe seat, their vote is effectively worth less than that of someone
in a marginal seat. A voter might wish to vote for the party that is most likely to
win the seat in their constituency. In this case, their vote is largely ineffective as
so many other people in their constituency are voting for that party. Or, they may
wish to vote for a different party. In this case, the party is so unlikely to win that
their vote is also worth less. In a marginal seat, if just a few voters switch who they
vote for, it can dramatically affect the outcome in that seat, thereby giving each
voter more power. The unequal power attached to votes across the UK undermines
the principles of both representative and liberal democracy, thus undermining the
democratic principle of ‘one person, one vote’.
A lack of a majority
For a candidate to win a constituency, they merely need a plurality of votes, not a
majority. Most MPs will not have won a majority in their constituency election. If
the winning candidate has less than 50% of the overall vote cast in their constituency,
then more people in total actually voted against them than voted for them. This
undermines the legitimacy of the winning candidate. It means that a significant
number of voters in each constituency will be represented by someone from a party
or ideology for which they did not vote. These voters may therefore feel under-
represented in Parliament.
Disproportionate result
FPTP gives a disproportionate result that over-represents
the main parties and under-represents the other parties. The
exclusion of any party is not in keeping with the principles
of free and fair elections or effective representation of the
voters. This reduces voter choice in an election, and also
creates artificial majorities for the main parties, which does
not necessarily reflect the political beliefs of the nation. This
means that the winning party often has a majority of seats
despite not winning a majority of the vote. By reducing the competition in elections, the legitimacy of the result could be undermined. It also
means that many votes have no impact on the electoral outcome, meaning they are
effectively wasted.
