Electoral System Analysis Flashcards
New Labour’s manifesto committments to electoral reform…
> After 18 years in opposition, it wanted to prevent another long tenure of Conservative domination
> The party had pledged to modernise British democracy and bring it more in line with other European countries
> Before the election, there was a concern that the party might not gain an absolute majority and would need to form a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, who were committed to electoral reform
What is the Jenkins Commission…
The Jenkins Commission is an independent investigation into the best form of alternative voting, commissioned in September 1997 and run by Roy Jenkins. It reported in September 1998, proposing the use of AV+ instead of FPTP. Its proposals were not adopted.
STV in Northern Ireland…
STV was adopted in Northern Ireland to reflect the fact that it is a highly divided community and that all the different communities should be represented via a multi-party system, As a result, five different parties achieved significant representation in the Northern Ireland Assembly in 1998.
AMS in Scotland…
After devolution in 1997, Scotland feared that the then-dominant Labour Party would dominate the country in elections if FPTP were retained. Despite Conservative opposition to electoral reform, the AMS system allowed the Scottish Conservatives to begin rebuilding support. The SNP, rather than Labour, was able to become the dominant party, even securing a majority in 2011.
The shift to AMS also helped to fulfil the Labour manifesto pledge of electoral reform by experimenting in the devolved bodies.
AMS in Wales…
In Wales, AMS has worked to a degree, preventing absolute Labour dominance, though it is usually the dominant party.
Why has FPTP remained?…
This is largely because the political establishment (in both main parties) takes a broadly conservative view of the issue. Most senior politicians prefer the status quo and fear the unknown, as represented by proportional representation, as well as the fact that the two main parties are the ones that usually benefit from FPTP.
Do elections enhance democracy? - Positive arguments…
> Elections allow the electorate to hold the outgoing govt to account. There is a clear choice between the govt and other parties.
> Elections create representative assemblies in an organised way and at regular intervals.
> There is widespread public confidence that elections in the UK are well regulated and that the outcomes are genuine expressions of the will of voters.
> Under FPTP, elections usually produce strong and stable govts, with majorities in the HoC.
> UK elections provide strong constituency representation so that voters are confident that there will be representation of their interests.
Do elections enhance democracy? - Negative arguments…
> Voters may feel that a vote for a smaller party is wasted, so the choice is not as wide as may appear to be the case.
> Elections can cause social rifts. Partisan tensions during heated elections can lead to personal and vitriolic attack, as outlined in the 2017 and 2019 GEs.
> There is a danger that too many elections will lead to voter apathy and a decline in turnout, particularly with excessive numbers of second-order elections, like to devolved bodies and local councils.
> Under FPTP, elections produce majority govts that are, nevertheless, supported by a minority of the electorate.
> While elections to devolved assemblies are generally proportional, elections to the Westminster Parliament are not proportional, exaggerating the popularity of large parties and discriminating against small parties.
Has FPTP been effective in the UK?…
Elections under FPTP in the UK have proved to be effective in producing single-party govts with clear mandates and accountability. This may be beginning to change as three consecutive elections (2010, 2015, 2017) have failed to produce a govt with a decisive majority, and twice with no single-party majority at all.
If the UK were to adopt proportional representation…
If the UK were to adopt proportional representation, multi-party (and potentially unstable) govts would become more common.
The coalition govt in 2010-2015 was mixed - it was stable and experienced few parliamentary defeats. However, the Liberal Democrats lacked sufficient influence. Some voters were unhappy with the coalition, especially regarding the Lib Dems sharing power with the Conservatives. This helps explain why the Liberal Democrats voter share dropped so drastically in the 2015 GE.
If FPTP were to be replaced with a proportional electoral system, it is likely to make it harder for any party to win an overall majority in Parliament. This can be seen as desirable as it would prevent govts from being excessively powerful. To govern as a minority govt or coalition would require a consensus on every issue, resulting in a better democracy.
However, this could produce much instability with govts frequently falling and having to be re-formed. Without a parliamentary majority, govts would lose decisiveness and lose their electoral mandate.
What alternative electoral system would result in single-party govts?…
SV is more likely to result in single-party govt, though the enormous majorities that can be achieved under FPTP may become less common.
In 2020, Copeland and Middlesborough both elected independent mayors using SV, so it is possible for independent candidates or small parties to win seats.
Why did voters reject AV in the 2011 referendum?…
> The proposal was promoted by the Liberal Democrats (in coalition govt with the Conservatives) and the party was very unpopular at that time. It is therefore estimated that many voters used the referendum to show dissatisfaction with the Liberal Democrats rather than to reject AV.
> AV is a complex system, so many voters rejected it because they did not understand it.
> The pro-reform campaign was poorly run while the anti-reform campaign was well organised and funded.
