electoral system

Question 1

shElectoral systems

Answer 1

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.’

Question 2

Elections in the UK

Answer 2

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

Question 3

elections in the uk -Choosing an elected representative and government

Answer 3

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.

Question 4

elections in the uk - Holding the current elected representatives to account

Answer 4

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.

Question 5

elections in the uk - Legitimising political power

Answer 5

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.

Question 6

elections in the uk - Limiting the power of elected representatives and the government

Answer 6

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.

Question 7

elections in the uk - Development of political policy

Answer 7

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.

Question 8

elections in the uk - Selection of a political elite

Answer 8

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.

Question 9

Different electoral systems

Answer 9

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.

Question 10

Plurality systems - First-past-the-post

Answer 10

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

Question 11

The Fixed-term Parliaments Act and elections

Answer 11

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.

Question 12

FPTP - At constituency level

Answer 12

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.

Question 13

FPTP - at national level

Answer 13

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.

Question 14

types of goverment under FPTP

Answer 14

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.

Question 15

The effects of using FPTP

Answer 15

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.

Question 16

FPTP - A two-party system

Answer 16

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.

Question 17

FPTP - ‘Winner’s bonus’

Answer 17

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.

Question 18

FPTP - Strong, single-party government

Answer 18

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.

Question 19

differences between a coalition and a confidence-and-supply
agreement.

Answer 19

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

Question 20

FPTP - Safe seats and swing seats

Answer 20

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.

Question 21

Marginality in the House of Commons

Answer 21

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.

Question 22

The advantages and disadvantages of FPTP

Answer 22

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

Question 23

Advantages of FPTP

Answer 23

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.

Question 24

Disadvantages of FPTP

Answer 24

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.

Question 25

FPTP and the possibility of reform

Answer 25

While FPTP has been used for centuries for general elections, other systems have been used in
the UK since 1997. Understanding the reasons for this is important:
l Conservative rule 1979–1997: the Labour Party had been out of power for nearly two
decades, leading to it favouring electoral reform. This was especially true in Scotland, which
was more traditionally a Labour-voting region and yet had been governed by Conservatives
for this period. Reform to the electoral system could prevent this in the future.
l Modernisation: New Labour fought on a manifesto of modernisation and democratisation,
and introducing devolved assemblies and more proportional electoral systems was a part
of fulfilling this pledge
l Lib-Lab Pact: Labour’s 1997 victory was not certain. According to the Liberal Democrat
leader at the time, he and Blair were in discussions about a pact, or coalition, right up to
results day. The Liberal Democrats have long fought for electoral reform.
With Blair winning a huge majority in the 1997 election, support for electoral reform faded
away. He did appoint Lord Jenkins to explore electoral reform, with four clear principles to be
upheld. The resulting Jenkins Commission recommended alternative vote plus (AV+); however,
the recommendations were largely ignored.
The issue of electoral reform seemed to fade entirely following the 2011 referendum on
replacing FPTP with alternative vote. This referendum came about as part of the coalition
agreement between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. The Liberal Democrats had
advocated for something more proportional than AV, however they were forced to compromise.
The Conservatives campaigned to retain FPTP throughout the referendum, and indeed beyond
given the success they have achieved under this system. The turnout for the referendum was
low, but the population ultimately agreed to retain FPTP. In September 2022, the Labour Party
annual conference backed a motion for the party to adopt electoral reform with proportional
representation as a manifesto policy.

Question 26

Developments in the twenty-first century - FPTP has seen some new challenges in the twenty-first century:

Answer 26

l More safe seats — Figure 3.5 shows a significant jump in the number of safe seats
in recent elections. In 2015, 21 seats were won by more than 50% and in 2017, 35
seats. While there was also a jump in the number of marginal seats, this simply
reinforces the increased inequality in the value of a vote across the UK.

l FPTP can create disproportionate results — With more votes being cast for third
parties, the result has been more disproportionate. In 2015, UKIP gained nearly
4 million votes (12.6%) but gained only 1 seat, while the SNP gained 1.5 million
votes (4.7%) but gained 56 seats. In the 2015 general election, and again in 2017,
a different party won the election in each of the countries within the UK. This
was in addition to the disproportionate results gained for the two main parties
that has always existed.

l Failure to deliver a strong, single-party government — A number of elections in
the twenty-first century have cast a doubt on whether FPTP produces a strong
and stable government. There have been small majorities, a minority government
and a coalition. The 2017 election saw the Conservatives and Labour together
gaining over 82% of the national vote; in fact, the Conservatives gained an extra
5.5% of the vote compared with their vote gained in 2015. Regardless, FPTP did
not return a party with a clear majority.

Question 27

Debate
Should FPTP be replaced for UK general elections

Answer 27

Yes
The government that it does deliver can be argued to lack legitimacy due to not having a majority of the vote and yet possess huge power: what Lord Hailsham referred to as ‘an elective dictatorship’. Even governments with small majorities have been able to push through policy with little regard for the
opposition view.

for example, the 2017 goverment was a minority party that had to rely on a confidence and supply agreement with the DUP in order to survive. however, it managed to pass 68 bills to teh royal assent stage despite, being caught up in the busy circumstances of brexit.

• It is possible for smaller parties to do well, as the SNP
  demonstrated in 2015, while at the same time it can
  keep parties with more extreme political views out of
  office. While UKIP gained nearly 4 million votes but only
  1 seat in 2015, its impact was still seen through the
  adoption of its major policy by the Conservative Party.
  This allows for the best of both worlds

• FPTP produces a poor result regardless of the voter
  choice — its lack of proportionality is increasingly
  evident and this does not fit with the principles of
  representative democracy, and it does not deliver either
  MPs or a government with a majority of the votes cast. for example in the 2017 general electin, the conservative party had the most seats with 42.4% of the votes wich is not over 50 and therfore not the majority.

no

despites this, * The governments it has produced have largely been
‘strong and stable’. The 2010 coalition lasted for the
full term of a Parliament and did not appear as weak.

• Many votes are wasted, meaning they have little or
  no impact on the electoral outcome. This undermines
  legitimacy, encourages tactical voting and may discourage
  turnout, all of which undermine democratic principles
• The two-party system represents a lack of true
  competition in UK elections, which undermines liberal and
  pluralist democratic principles. Often, the only way voters
  can hold the government accountable is to vote for the
  other major party, which is not a great deal of choice.

vs

It gives rise to a coherent opposition in the legislature. In theory, the flip side of a strong single-party government is that the opposition is also given enough seats to perform a critical checking role and present itself as a realistic alternative to the government of the day.

for exmaple in 2019, the conservatives had a high 80 seat majority, yet In January 2022, speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle granted Angela Rayner an urgent
question to the prime minister on whether he had knowingly broken lockdown
restrictions by attending Downing Street parties during the Covid-19 pandemic. showing how a two party system allows the opposition to scrutinise well.

Question 28

Should FPTP be replaced?

Answer 28

Given the successful use of other systems across the UK, and the drawbacks of
FPTP in the twenty-first century, there have been growing questions over whether
the FPTP system should now be replaced for UK general elections. Although a
referendum was held on this issue in 2011, it only gave the public the option of
FPTP or AV. While the public voted against this proposal, this did not mean they
rejected electoral reform outright, but rather that they rejected AV. After two more
contentious elections in 2015 and 2017, the questions over the use of FPTP have not
gone away.

Question 29

Proportional electoral systems

Answer 29

Following the election of Labour in 1997, a number of key constitutional reforms
were passed to try to democratise and modernise the UK political landscape. These
included the creation of a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly, along with
the re-establishment of a devolved body in Northern Ireland. Each of these bodies
would use a proportional electoral system to elect members.
These elections have nothing at all to do with the UK general election — they
happen at different times and elect different representatives to different bodies.
These countries elect these representatives in addition to their MPs for the UK
Parliament.

Question 30

The additional member system

Answer 30

The additional member system (AMS) is the only system in the UK that gives
voters two independent votes to cast — one for the voter’s local representative and
one for their regional representatives. It is used for elections to the Scottish Parliament
at Holyrood and the Welsh Parliament at the Senedd.
How it works
When a voter goes to the polls in AMS, they are presented with two different
ballots. On each one they must cast their vote with a simple ‘X’ in a box. In the
constituency vote they are electing a person, whereas in the regional vote they are
casting their vote for a party. There is no need for them to vote for the same party
on both ballots.
Figure 3.6 shows the choices a voter in the Scottish
Parliamentary elections has to make. On the right,
they elect their constituency Member of the Scottish
Parliament (MSP) and on the left they cast a vote for a
party in order to elect their regional MSPs.

Question 31

The additional member system - The constituency vote

Answer 31

This first part of the election works in exactly the
same way that FPTP works in UK general elections.
l Scotland is divided into 73 small single-member
constituencies and Wales is divided into 40
small single-member constituencies — these
constituencies are different from those used in a
general election.
l The ballots cast for a constituency representative
are counted.
l Each constituency elects a single representative on
a plurality, ‘winner-takes-all’ basis.
l Those elected are given a seat in either the Scottish
Parliament or the Welsh Parliament, and the first
ballots are then effectively thrown away.

Question 32

The additional member system - the regional vote

Answer 32

This second part of the election works more
proportionally and is designed to correct some of the
problems created by FPTP.
l Scotland and Wales are divided into large multi-
member constituencies — eight regions in Scotland,
each with seven elected members, and five regions
in Wales, each with four elected members.
l Each party running for election draws up a list of
candidates for each region, ranking them in the order they will be elected.
l The second ballots are counted within each region.
l To decide who gets the first seat, this system uses the d’Hondt formula. The
inclusion of ‘+ 1’ is simply the maths necessary to make the formula work; it is
not an extra seat.
Number of regional votes gained for a given party
Number of seats a party has gained at constituency level + 1
l Once this formula is completed for every party, the first seat is allocated to the
party with the highest number resulting from this equation.
l This process is repeated until all seats in a region are allocated to a party. The
party gives the seats it has won to the corresponding number of candidates from
the top of its list downwards.
Each person in Scotland is therefore represented by a local MSP in their constituency,
seven further MSPs in their region (Figure 3.7) and the MP they elect to send to the
UK Parliament.

Question 33

Scottish election results, 2021

Answer 33

The 2021 Scottish election results (Table 3.6) demonstrate that the parties which
do not do well in the first part of the AMS process have a chance to do well in
the second part. The Conservatives traditionally have a low level of support spread
throughout Scotland. Therefore they often do not gain enough votes to win in a
constituency, but AMS allows them to do better in the proportional element of the
system.

SNP - constituency vote 47.7%- seats gained 62 regonail vote - 40.3% - 2 seats

conservatives constituency vote - 21.9% - seats gain5 regional vote - 23.6% seats gained - 26

Question 34

The effects of using AMS

Answer 34

AMS is likely to result in a multiparty system as its proportional nature allows
for smaller parties to have some, if limited, success. This in turn is likely to result
in a coalition government as it can be difficult for one party to gain an outright
majority. In Scotland, the SNP did manage to achieve an outright majority in 2011,
although all of the other governments formed in Wales and Scotland have either
been coalition or minority governments. Safe seats and marginal seats are still a
feature of the constituency vote of AMS, but this is less evident in the regional vote
because this element is proportional.

Question 35

Advantages and disadvantages of AMS

Answer 35

advantages

Proportional result
The second stage of AMS tries to correct the flaws of
FPTP. The more seats a party gains in the constituency
vote, the more difficult it is for it to gain regional seats as
its votes will be divided by a higher number. This reduces
the wasted votes and ensures more parties have a chance
of being represented
Split-ticket voting
Voters have more choice with two votes to cast, and they
can choose to cast their two votes for different parties,
known as split-ticket voting. This also encourages more
parties to run, especially in the regional part of the
election
A government with broad popularity
In order to form a single-party government, a party must
have broad popularity across a whole country, not just in
concentrated pockets. If coalitions are formed, a greater
number of parties can have an input into policy. This
supports greater legitimacy of the government
Greater representation
With all areas being represented by a constituency and
regional representatives, there is more chance for the
voters that someone who shares their ideology represents
them, potentially increasing turnout
MP–constituency link
Each constituency is a relatively small geographic area.
Each MP is attached to a constituency and is responsible for
listening to their constituents. This gives voters a direct link
to national politics and encourages their engagement

disadvantages

More complicated
Although the process of voting is simple, what happens
next is not. This can put voters off, as they may feel that
their vote will be mathematically manipulated. This may
reduce turnout
An unlikely single-party government
The more proportional nature of AMS means single-party
governments are harder to achieve and coalitions are
more likely. This means governments may be weaker and
find it more difficult to pass the policies on which they
campaigned
FPTP used for first round
The constituency vote of AMS is conducted using FPTP.
Therefore this carries with it the same disadvantages of
FPTP
Different types of representatives
AMS creates two tiers of representatives, a constituency
and a regional MSP. This can cause tension and confusion
for the voters and blur accountability
Party control
In the regional vote, the party controls the order of its list
of candidates — voters only have the choice to support
its list or not. It could be argued that this gives excessive
influence to the party leadership

Question 36

The single transferable vote

Answer 36

Used for elections to the Northern Irish Assembly, the single transferable vote
(STV) is the only system in the UK that allows for ordinal voting. This allows a
voter to rank candidates in order of preference, beginning at ‘1’ and going through
as many of the candidates as they wish to rank.

How it works
l Northern Ireland is divided into 18 large, multi-member regions, each electing
six representatives to send to the Northern Irish Assembly.
l The voter is given a ballot paper showing all of the candidates running in their
region. This may include multiple candidates running from the same party. They
cast their ballot by numbering candidates 1, 2, 3 and so on, ranking as many or
as few candidates as they wish.
l Once the election is over, the total number of ballots cast in each region is counted.
l In order to win, a candidate needs to achieve the ‘Droop quota’:
( total number of votes cast in a region + 1 / number of seats available in a region + 1 ) + 1

l Candidates who have achieved the Droop quota
are automatically given a seat.
l Any votes that they achieved over this number are
redistributed according to any second preferences.
If any more candidates now have the Droop quota,
they too are given a seat.
l If there are seats remaining and no one else has reached
the Droop quota, the candidate with the fewest votes
is eliminated and their votes are redistributed.
l This process continues until all available seats in a
region are filled.

The Northern Irish Assembly results in 2022 (Table 3.9) demonstrate a closer
correlation than most other electoral systems in the UK between the percentage of
votes cast for each party and the percentage of the seats it gained. This means votes
are of more equal value and there is less incentive for voters to vote tactically.

northern irish assembly

sinn fienn - first preference votes - 29% number of seats gained - 27
percantage of vote - 30%

DUP - first preference vpte 21% number of seats gained - 25 percantage of gains - 28%

Question 37

Vote transfers in 2016

Answer 37

Under the Droop quota, votes are redistributed according to the preferences expressed by the
voters. In 2017, 179,287 votes were transferred. Table 3.10 is an excerpt of just some of those
transferred votes.

Vote transfers within the same party occur when one of its candidates wins but has more votes
than the Droop quota. If these excess votes have as their next preference a candidate from the
same party, then these votes are effectively transferred within that party. Table 3.10 also highlights
the preferential voting exercised for parties of a similar ideology. The Democratic Unionists and
Ulster Unionists want to remain in the UK, while Sinn Féin is republican, meaning it wishes to leave
the UK and join with the rest of Ireland. It is not surprising, therefore, that nearly 5,000 votes were
transferred from the UUP to the DUP, while only just over 200 votes were transferred from the UUP
to Sinn Féin. This demonstrates the greater choice voters can have in this system.

Question 38

The effects of using STV

Answer 38

The effects of using STV
Using STV is likely to result in a multiparty system and produce a coalition
government. Being highly proportional, it is unlikely that it will lead to any one
party gaining an outright majority. This means that parties will need to work
together after the election to form an agreement on which they can govern. With
only multi-member constituencies in this electoral process, the likelihood of safe
seats is significantly reduced and the value of each vote is more uniform.

Question 39

Advantages and disadvantages of STV

Answer 39

Advantages

Proportional result
STV is the most proportional system used within the UK,
delivering a result that has a close correlation between
the percentage of the vote cast and the percentage of
seats gained, increasing the legitimacy of the result
Voter choice

Voter choice
Voters have a great degree of choice, not only between
parties but also within parties. They may support one
particular party but if it puts forward a candidate the voters
do not like, they have the choice to vote for someone else
from that party

Greater representation
Like AMS, the multi-member constituencies mean a voter is
likely to have someone elected who shares their ideology or
beliefs

Disadvantages

More complicated
Although the process of voting is simple, what happens
next is not, which could reduce turnout

An unlikely single-party government
In Northern Ireland, the Good Friday Agreement means
there has to be a coalition in government. However, even
if this was not the case, the proportional nature of STV
means a coalition is a likely result, which could be weaker
than a single-party government

Constituency link
With no local elected representatives as in FPTP or AMS,
and large multi-member constituencies, the link between
elected representatives and their local area is weaker

Question 40

Majoritarian systems

Answer 40

Following a referendum in 1998, Londoners
voted to change the way that London was
governed, and this included having an
elected mayor. To elect this position, the
supplementary vote (SV) system is used,
requiring the office holder to have a majority
of the vote. In 2000, the first election took
place and was won by the then independent
candidate Ken Livingstone. Since then,
elections have taken place every 4 years, with
three different people holding the office of
Mayor of London.

Question 41

Supplementary vote

Answer 41

How it works
l London is treated as one large single-member constituency for the
election of the London mayor.
l Candidates are given a ballot paper with all of the candidates listed
and two columns — one for the voter’s first choice and one for their
second choice. The voter puts one ‘X’ in each column to vote.
l All of the first-choice ballots are counted. If anyone has a simple
majority, they win the election and second preferences are
ignored.
l If no one has a majority, all but the top two candidates are eliminated
in one go. The second preferences for all of the eliminated candidates
are taken into account and the votes redistributed. If both a voter’s
first- and second-choice candidates have been eliminated, then their
vote is ignored.
l With only two candidates left and all votes redistributed, one of
them must now have a majority — this person is the winner.
Figure 3.9 shows how the ballot for the mayor of London allows voters
to express a first and second preference.

Question 42

The London mayoral election, 2021

Answer 42

In 2021 the mayoral election saw a turnout of just 41%, or around 2.5
million Londoners (Table 3.13). If voters choose to express no second
preference, or if their second preference is for an eliminated candidate,
their influence is reduced. Around 225,000 voters in 2021 cast both
of their first and second preferences for the same person, either Shaun
Bailey (Conservative) or Sadiq Khan (Labour).

sadiq khan , first preference vote - 40% second preference vote - 70% - overall vote - 55%

shaun bailey , first preference vote - 35%, second preference vote - 30% - pverall - 45%

Question 43

The effects of using SV

Answer 43

Using SV is likely to result in a two-party system and produce a strong, single-party
government. London is not a good example of this as there is only 1 seat available.
However, these results can be used to infer what would happen if SV was used across
the UK — the elimination of all but the top two candidates for the second round
is likely to result in a similar two-party dominance to that produced by FPTP, or
make this dominance even more likely.

Question 44

Advantages and disadvantages of SV

Answer 44

Advantages

Majority result
SV ensures that the winning candidate has
a clear majority of the votes, increasing
their legitimacy. This should lead to a
strong and stable single-party government

Voter choice
Voters have more choice than in FPTP,
knowing that they can vote for a smaller
party with their first preference if they wish,
but still using their second preference to try
to ensure that their vote is not wasted

Simple system
Unlike the proportional systems, SV is
relatively easy to understand both in how
votes are cast and how they are counted
afterwards

Extremist parties
Requiring the winner to gain a simple
majority means it is unlikely that small or
extremist parties will be successful

disadvantages

Two-party dominance
The elimination of all but two candidates in
one go means that third parties are unlikely
to do well, and the result is not proportional

A false majority
A candidate needs only to gain a majority
of the ‘valid vote’, meaning the votes that
count. In the second round, the vote of
anyone with no second preference or whose
second preference has been eliminated
is not counted, meaning the winning
candidate might not have a true majority

Wasted votes
As with FPTP, there are a large number of
wasted votes that have little or no impact
on the outcome of the election

Tactical voting
Using SV might encourage a tactical use of
the second preference rather than providing
better choice for voters, or might discourage
some from turning out to vote at all

Answer 45

system - FPTP - type of system - plurity - type of constituency - single member - number of votes - 1 - type of vote - single choice - voting for - a single person - likely resulting system - two party system - likley goverment formed - single party - used in uk general elctions

system - AMS - type of system - proportioanl - type of constituency - single and multi member - number of votes -2 type of vote - single choice - voting for - vote 1 a person, vote 2 , a party - likely resulting party system - multiparty - likley goverment formed - coaltion - used in scottish and welsh parliment elections.

system - STV - type of system - proportional - type of constituency - multi member - number of votes - 1 - type of vote - ordinal voting - voting for - a single person - likely resulting party system - multi-party - likely goverment formed - co-lation - used in - northern irish assembly election.

system - SV - type of system - majorition - type of constituency - single member - number of votes - 1 - type of vote - first and second choice - voting for - a single person - likely resulting party system - two party - likley goverement formed - single party - used in london mayoral election

Question 46

results under different systems in different parts of the UK

Answer 46

2019 - FPTP - conservative majority goverment 365 seats with 44% of the national vote.

2021 - SV - sadiq khan won 40% of the first round and 55% after the second round.

2022 - STV - Sinn Féin won 27 seats
and the DUP won 25,
but issues surrounding
the Northern Ireland
protocol prevented
a power-sharing
government from being
formed

AMS - 2021 - SNP minority
government — 64
seats with 48% of
the constituency
vote and 40% of the
regional vote

AMS - 2021 - Labour minority
government — 30
seats with 40% of the
constituency vote and
36% of the regional
vote

Question 47

The impact of UK electoral systems - Impact on governments and the type of government

Answer 47

Proportional systems have led to a greater number of coalition or minority
governments being formed where they are used. However, as Northern Ireland
has to have a coalition government as part of the Good Friday Agreement, the data
collected from its elections must be viewed through this lens. While Scotland and
Wales have experienced coalition governments, they have also achieved majority
governments using a proportional system. Given that AMS has created a strong and
stable, single-party government, this has fuelled discussions over whether systems
like AMS could be used to replace FPTP.
l Wales and Scotland have both been able to legislate successfully over their own
regions. As a result, both countries have pressed for further power to be devolved
to them, as seen in subsequent Scotland and Wales Acts.
l For Wales this meant gaining primary legislative powers and changing from a
‘conferred matters’ model, meaning it could make law only on policy areas it
had been given, to a ‘reserved matters’ model. The ‘reserved matters’ model of
government had been used in Scotland and allowed it to make laws on anything
not ‘reserved’ for Parliament at Westminster.
l For Scotland, this meant pressure for independence and an independence
referendum. The outcome of the referendum initially quelled this pressure.
However, given the result of the Brexit referendum — in which the UK voted
to leave the EU but Scotland as a nation voted to remain — the issue of Scottish
independence was reignited.
Aside from Northern Ireland, the governments that have been created have proven to
be stable. In Northern Ireland, the problems that have occurred have been less as a
result of the electoral system and more to do with the historical tensions that exist there.

Question 48

The impact of UK electoral systems - Impact on parties and party systems

Answer 48

The number of parties successfully competing in elections and forming governments
has increased as a result of proportional systems. In Wales, Scotland and Northern
Ireland, nationalist or unionist parties (SNP, Plaid Cymru, DUP and Sinn Féin)
have gained influence and been able to be part of governments in their respective
countries or provinces. These systems have also allowed notable success for other
parties. The Conservatives have performed poorly in Scotland since the prime
ministership of Margaret Thatcher. Under AMS, they have been able to pick up
seats, even becoming the second-largest party in the Scottish Parliament due to this
proportional system. AMS has allowed the Conservatives’ widely spread support to
be translated into seats at regional level; they do, however, still perform less well at
constituency level in Scotland.
In some of the devolved bodies, it could be argued that small parties have been
over-represented. In 2007, with the SNP winning 47 seats and Labour winning
46, an SNP agreement with the Green Party, which had just two seats, allowed the
SNP to form a minority government. In this situation, small parties have become
‘king-makers’, similar to the role of the Liberal Democrats in the 2010 UK general
election — this means they exercise power far beyond that which their electoral
success suggests they should have.
Figure 3.10 illustrates the changing fortunes of third parties in Scottish, Welsh and
Northern Irish elections since 1998/9 and the multiparty systems that exist in the
devolved assemblies, in which there are a number of parties that have a realistic
chance of forming a government.

These successes have had a wider impact — they have led to the recognition and
success of more minor parties in the UK general election. For example, the SNP
was able to capture 56 seats in the general election of 2015, replacing Labour as
the dominant force representing Scotland in Westminster. UKIP demonstrated a
significant, if short-lived, ability to attract a large volume of voters. Perhaps the most
visible impact of this widening of party politics has been at the televised leaders’
debates prior to an election. Used for the first time in 2010 with just three party
leaders, one of the debates in 2015 featured seven different party leaders. The 2017
and 2019 elections do suggest that the electoral success of these parties still has
limitations, with the Conservatives and Labour gaining 82% of the vote between
them in both elections. In general elections, third parties can exert pressure on
the major parties and influence even without holding many seats. For example,
the threat of UKIP in 2015 led to the Conservative Party adopting a policy of a
referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU.

Question 49

The impact of UK electoral systems - Impact on voters and voter choice

Answer 49

The use of differing electoral systems can theoretically help to improve voter turnout
by eliminating some of the problems associated with FPTP that may depress turnout,
such as wasted votes and safe seats. However, it can be difficult to demonstrate this
as turnout for a regional election does not necessarily represent the likely turnout for
a general election. In many of the devolved bodies, turnout has been lower than in
the UK general election. This could be due to the complexity of the systems or to
a reduced importance placed on them given the limited powers of devolved bodies.
Extrapolating answers from this data is tricky because these systems have not been
used in a nationwide election.
It is clear, however, that voters have had greater choice in all of the newly introduced
electoral systems. This includes SV which, while majoritarian, allows voters two
preferences, meaning they can vote however they wish with their first vote and still
use the second for one of the two major UK parties. The proportional systems have
gone further than this, not only offering greater choice, with AMS having two votes
and STV offering ordinal voting, but also reducing wasted votes or the likelihood of
safe seats. They have also improved voter choice in representation. In multi-member
constituencies, voters have a choice of representative they can lobby in order to get
their voices heard.

Question 50

Referendums

Answer 50

Referendums have gained huge prominence and significance in UK political life
through the twenty-first century. Once a relatively rare occurrence, they have been
used since 2000 to:
l give more power to the Welsh Assembly, 2011
l consider replacing FPTP, 2011
l give Scotland a vote on independence, 2014
l give the UK public a vote on leaving the European
Union, 2016.

The understanding and acceptance of referendums as part of
UK political life is now so widespread that there have been
several public campaigns for referendums. This includes
calls for a second referendum on Scottish independence and
further referendums on rejoining the European Union.

The UK-wide referendum on whether the UK should
remain in the European Union was particularly controversial.
The public were given only two choices, ‘Remain a member
of the European Union’ or ‘Leave the European Union’, which did not capture the
complexity of the issue. A good proportion of the electorate were only educated
on these choices by the two sides that campaigned in this referendum. Later, one
of the campaigns was fined for breaking electoral law. A Supreme Court case was
ultimately needed to ensure the decision would be enforced by Parliament and not
by the government alone.

Question 51

Why call a referendum?

Answer 51

The role of referendums in UK politics has changed very little even as they have
become more accepted.
l A government might call a referendum in response to public pressure. In 2014,
under pressure from the majority SNP government in Scotland, the government
allowed a referendum on Scottish independence to take place. In 2015, part of
the general election campaign became the issue of the UK in the EU. With
UKIP arguing for leaving the EU and promising a referendum, the Conservative
Party eventually offered one too, fearing the loss of its voters to UKIP.
l Referendums can help to resolve controversial issues dividing a party. By
handing over responsibility for a decision to the people, a party can absolve
itself of the decision making and avoid arguments between factions of the party.
The Conservative Party was divided between ‘Remainers’ and ‘Brexiteers’ and a
referendum should have helped to solve this issue. This was unsuccessful for the
Conservative Party as after the referendum, the party
became further divided over the type of Brexit that
should take place.

l A referendum might also be called as part of an
agreement between parties. The AV referendum of
2011 was part of the coalition agreement between the
Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.

l Finally, referendums can lend legitimacy to large,
constitutional changes in the UK. The referendums
that have been held have all been on substantial issues
that might affect the location of power and sovereignty.
Changing the electoral system, giving more power to
devolved bodies and other similar issues all influence
where power lies in the UK. However, some issues
involving the movement of power, such as the creation
of the UK Supreme Court, were not subject to a
referendum.

Question 52

Referendums in the UK and examples

Answer 52

There have been only three nationwide referendums in the UK, although there
have been substantial calls for more referendums, including a second referendum on
both Brexit and Scottish independence. In addition, there have been a number of
regional referendums. Table 3.17 gives details of all the referendums held since 1975.

Date
Location Issue
2011 UK
Replacing FPTP with
AV
2014 Scotland Scottish
independence
2016 UK
Leave or remain in
the EU
Yes (%) No (%)
32.1
67.9
44.7
Leave:
51.9
55.3
Remain:
48.1
Turnout
(%)
Commentary
42.2 Held due to the coalition agreement between
the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats
84.6 Held due to pressure from the Scottish
government. 16- and 17-year-olds were
allowed to vote
72.2 Held due to a promise made by the
Conservatives in the 2015 general election.

date 2011, uk replacing FPTP with AV. yes 32.1% no 67.0%. turnout 42.2% of the population.

Held due to the coalition agreement between
the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats

Question 53

The consequences of referendums in the UK

Answer 53

Many of the referendums held across the UK have resulted in
notable political change. However, Parliament always remains
sovereign, so governments are not bound to follow the decision
of the voters. This became a significant issue following the
Brexit referendum. MPs such as Dominic Grieve claimed
‘the [EU] referendum was an advisory referendum’, whereas
John Redwood claimed ‘this was not an advisory referendum’.
Parliamentary sovereignty means no referendum can truly be
legally binding. Even if Parliament passed a law saying that a
referendum was legally binding, it could simply pass another
law to repeal this at a later date because sovereignty rests with
Parliament. However, the government is under considerable
political pressure to follow the result of a referendum. Giving
the public a choice and then ignoring the outcome casts
questions of legitimacy and accountability of the government.
Nonetheless, this remains an issue with Brexit: while some
have claimed the referendum showed the will of the people,
others have argued that both Remain and Leave were not
truthful in their campaigning.

Question 54

Debate
Are referendums good for the UK?

Answer 54

yes

• They can encourage participation and education, as shown in the Scottish independence and Brexit referendums, which enhances legitimacy and consent
  in the political system. 55.3% voted no to indpendance and 52% voted to leave brexit. in both cases the govermeent complied with the publics wishes.no
• Turnout for some referendums, such as the AV
  referendum, has been low, which undermines the
  legitimacy of the decision and the effectiveness of direct
  democracy. tunrout was = 42%.

• They have provided a clear answer to political issues
  and the results have been successfully implemented,
  such as the creation of devolved bodies. for example in 1997, there was a referendum, for devolved powers to be given to scotland. 74.29 voted in favour of devolved powers.

Close results can be more divisive rather than settling an issue, as seen in Brexit and the Scottish independence referendum. for exmaple many people argued that a high majoirty of the public did not vote for leave as it barely scraped more than 50% with the vote for leave, being only 52%.

• As referendums are advisory, Parliament remains sovereign and can implement the decision in an effective manner. Although the public voted to leave the EU, Parliament decides on the manner of the withdrawal.
  for example, theresa mays goverment proposed a ‘soft brexit’ , wheras boris johnson was opposed to this and claimed ‘ there should be no monkeying around when it comes to brexit, setting a manifesto on ‘getting brexit done’ , and succesfully won the elction, he committed to tweaking mays brexit proposal and adding clauses about nrotehrn ireland and custom arrangemnts.

no

• Parliamentary sovereignty is undermined in reality
  as, having offered a referendum, there is a lot of
  political pressure for the government to honour the
  will of the people.

there has never been a referendum wich has been undermined and the will of the poeple has always prevailed.