electoral systems Flashcards
define first past the post
First past the post is a name commonly used to describe the Uk’s electoral system for general elections, although its more formal title is ‘plurality in single-member constituencies’
define plurality
plurality refers to the result of an election where the winner only has to obtain more votes than any of their opponents. It does not mean that the winner has won an absolute majority
define absolute majority
absolute majority refers to the result of a vote where the winner receives more votes than all the other candidates put together. In other words, the winner receives at least 50% of the total votes.
define constituency
a constituency refers to a geographical area used to determine which people each elected representative represents. UK parliamentary constituencies’ are roughly 75,000 voters in size. Constituencies in devolved systems and local government are much smaller but also roughly equal in size. Elected representatives are expected to look after the interests of their constituency
Explain the working of the FPTP
The main system used for UK general elections in the UK is commonly known as FPTP, which is to some extent an misleading title.
- Its true description should be ‘plurality in single-member constituencies’
- the country is divided into 650 constituencies of roughly equal size. The average adult population of constituencies is 75,000, though there may be some variation.
- Geographical size of constituencies varies greatly. This can be seen in tightly populated London constituencies are clearly much smaller than sparsely populated constituencies in the highlands of Scotland.
- to win a seat in a constituency it is only necessary to win more votes than any of one’s rivals.
- This is known as a ‘plurality’. A plurality should be seen in constant to an absolute majority, An absolute majority is when a candidate wins at least 50% of the votes available.
state an example that illustrates the character of the FPTP system
This was evident in 2015 general election which showed the characteristics of the FPTP where only 319 out of the 650 MPs won an absolute majority. 50 MP’s in that election secured their seat with less than 40% of the popular vote. Therefore, most elected MP’s in 2015 had to admit than more people voted against them rather than for them
state examples that illustrates the importance of concentrated support
The FPTP electoral system has the effect of favouring parties with concentrated support as seen in 2017 General Election results.
This was evident in the 2017 general election where the conservatives won 42.4% of the popular vote, won 48.9% percentage of the seats and gained 318 seats. This was primarily due to the fact that conservative support is concentrated in south and central England.
Additionally, labour in the 2017 general election won 40.0% of the popular vote, won 40.3% percentage of the seats and gained 262 seats. This is mainly due to the fact that labour support is concentrated in northern England and wales.
In contrast, parties such as the liberal democrats won 7.4% of the popular vote, won 1.8% percentage of the seats and gained 12 seats. This was because the party support is widely dispersed across the country which has meant that FPTP actively discriminates against small parties like the liberal democrats as they fail
to convert their proportion into seats.
This was can also been seen with the green party in the 2017 general election which won 1.6% of the popular vote, won 0.2% percentage of the seats and gained 1 seat which reinforces the idea that FPTP discriminates against smaller parties
explain the importance of concentrated support
The FPTP emphasises the importance of having concentrated support as it enables parties with concentrated support to dominate the system. However, this can be a problem for parties who have dispersed support such as UKIP, the Green Party and the Liberal Democrats win few individual constituency contests and hence gain few seats in parliament.
This can be seen in the result of the Lanark and Hamilton East election shown previously labour and the conservatives, whose support in Scotland is widely dispersed (unlike, England) came a strong second and third, both just behind the winning SNP candidate.
This kind of result was replicated all over the country, through few were as close as this constituency.
In England, conservative support is heavily concentrated so that results like that for Arundel and the South Downs are quite common. The winning candidate achieved an overall majority of the votes in the constituency.
In Scotland, the SNP does well because its support is concentrated in specific areas of the country. It was other parties - conservatives, labour and liberal democrats who suffer from dispersed support in Scotland
State examples which illustrate the impact of FPTP is relation to looking at how many votes per average and successful candidate it took for each party to secure the election of a candidate
Another way of considering the impact of FPTP is to look at how many votes, on average it took for each party to secure the election of a candidate. This can be calculated by dividing the total number of votes won by each party nationally by the number of seats the party won.
2017 GENERAL ELECTION EXAMPLES:
For example, the green party wins nationally a total number of votes of 525,371
and nationally won 1 seat.
In comparison, labour won nationally the total number of votes of 12,874,985 and nationally won 262 seats. However, this is divided into an average which is 49,141 votes
Additionally, the conservatives won nationally 13,667,213 votes and won nationally 318 seats. This average was divided which meant that average votes per winning candidate was 42,978 votes
The liberal democrats won nationally 2,371,772 votes and nationally won 12 seats. This average was divided which meant that average votes per winning candidate was 197,583 votes.
Another prominent example would be the SNP which nationally won 997,569 votes and won 35 seats nationally. This average was divided which meant that the average votes per winning candidate was 28,501 votes
explain votes per successful candidate
Votes per successful candidates in the 2017 general election show the great disparities between how efficiently the parties turned votes cast for them into seats won by them. The Northern Ireland parties (DUP, Sinn Fein) have low averages largely because they are evenly matched and because of low turnouts.
This is significant as it highlights how big the disparity is between the Greens and Liberal Democrats which very high averages and the SNP with its very low average.
Additionally, during the 2017 general election the conservatives have had an advantage over labour, but not necessarily a decisive one.
This means that clearly and predictably the ‘losers’ in the electoral system FPTP e.g smaller parties such as the green parties and liberal democrats complain the loudest while the main ‘winners’ (conservatives and labour) have the least interest in reforming the system to remove such discrepancies
state a summary of FPTP as a system (the main features)
The main features of FPTP are that:
- each constituency returns a single MP who can represent the whole constituency
- it is a simple system and voters can understand exactly what they are voting for.
- It gives an advantage to parties that have concentrated support in certain regions.
- it is disadvantageous to parties whose support is widely dispersed.
- it favours the large parties and prevents serious challenges from small parties
- there is a ‘winners bonus’ where the biggest party tends to win more than its proportionate share of the vote. In 2017, the conservatives won 42.4% of the votes but won 48.9% of the seats
- Because it favours the large parties it tends to produce an outright winner that is a party that has an overall majority in the House of Commons. However, in recent general elections (2010, 2015, 2017) the system has failed to produce a decisive government majority, suggesting this characteristic may be changing.
FPTP is therefore associated with single party or majority government even though in 2017, there was a minority single party government. It is not clear yet whether the Uk is ready to accept the more common experience of a coalition and minority governments that is found in most of the rest of Europe, in the future.
define majority government
Majority governments refers to a government whose members and supporters do constitute a majority of the members of the legislature (e.g. the house of commons or Scottish parliament). This means they find it relatively easy to pass legislation and tends to make them stable and long lasting
define minority governments
Minority governments refer to a government whose members and supporters do not constitute a majority of members. In other words, there are more opposition supporting members than government supporting members. Such a minority government finds it difficult to pass legislation and is likely to be unstable and short lived
define safe seats
safe seats refer to a constituency where it is highly unlikely that the seat will change hands from one party to another at an election
define marginal seat
marginal seats refer to a constituency where the results of past elections suggest that the result of an election will be close.
BBC definition: where the winner of the seat at the previous election won by less than 10% from their nearest rival
Explain safe and marginal seats in relation to FPTP
The FPTP system produces two phenomena that are virtually unique to this system. There are ‘safe’ and ‘marginal’ seats.
Safe seats are constituencies where is it almost certain that the same party will win the seat at every general election. The electoral reform society estimates that 368 seats out of the 650 seats were safe seats in 2015.
The society calculates that as many as 25.7 million voters live in safe seats but there are many implications if they are so many safe seats
explain safe seats
Safe seat are essential seats that parties will pay little attention to as safe seats in are considered to be won by the party without any competition which means during election campaigns the voters will receive less information.
MPs sitting for such safe seats are less accountable for their actions because they have virtually no chance of losing their seat at the next election. This may lead to voters in safe seats feeling that their votes are ‘wasted’ because they have no realistic chance of influencing the outcome. This may be the case whether they support the winning party or one of the losing parties.
It means that votes are, effectively not of equal value. Votes in safe seats are worth less than votes in seats that are closely contested where the voters may have an impact.
The electoral reform society estimated that in the 2015 general election, there quarters of the voters, numbering 22 million were effectively casting ‘wasted’ votes because they had no chance of influencing the outcome in their constituencies as the seats were safe
explain marginal seats
There are no precise definition of a marginal seat but in general they are those seats where the outcome of the election is in great doubt. Such seats a re very likely to change hands from one party to another at each election.
It is said that elections are won and lost in the marginal constituencies. In the 2015 general election the BBC estimated that there were 194 marginal seats in the Uk. They defined a marginal seat as one where the last winning candidate led by 10% or less from the nearest challenger
state and explain the implications of the existence of marginal seats
The implications of the existence of marginal seats include:
- parties concentrating their efforts on marginal seats, so voters there receive more attention and information.
- votes in marginal seats are clearly more valuable than votes in safe seats as the voters in marginal seats will feel they may influence the result.
- the character and policies of the candidates become more important in marginal seats. In safe seats, the qualities of the individual candidates matter little, but in marginals they may be crucial.
- marginal seats may result in ‘tactical voting’. A tactical vote is when a voter who supports a party that is unlikely to win in a constituency switches allegiance to one of the other parties in the hope of influencing the outcome. A typical example is when liberal democrat supporters in marginal seats vote either labour or conservative, in other words their second choice.
Explain what a tactical voter is
A tactical vote is when a voter who supports a party that is unlikely to win in a constituency switches allegiance to one of the other parties in the hope of influencing the outcome. A typical example is when liberal democrat supporters in marginal seats vote either labour or conservative, in other words their second choice.
explain by-elections
By-elections take place when a sitting MP (or member of any other representative assembly, including local councils) dies or resigns their seat. This creates a vacancy, which was used to fill it, a by-election takes place only in that constituency. The same electoral system is used as for regular elections.
By-elections can produce strange results and no such seats are ‘safe’. The voters may use a by-election to ‘punish’ the party in government and so defeat a representative from the governing party unexpectedly.
The policies and personality of the candidates are also placed under greater focus, so unpredictable results can happen. Nevertheless, by-elections do provide an additional means by which voters can call government to account by punishing them with a defeat or rewarding them with a victory.
Why is FPTP controversial
FPTP is highly controversial. It has its supporters who are among the established members of the two main parties. This is not surprising, as the conservative and labour parties are the main beneficiaries of the system. although the labour party has considered changing its policy position towards reform of the system.
FPTP also has its detractors who are among the smaller parties that support a change to the system. Even the SNP which now benefits strongly from FPTP. supports reform. Pressure groups such as the Electoral Reform Society and Unlock Democracy are also prominent campaigners for change.
state arguments for retaining FPTP
- it is easy to understand and produces a clear result in each constituency. The result is known very quickly.
- it produces one single representative for each constituency and so creates a close constituency - MP bond.
- Accountability of the individual MP is clear to the electors
- The system tends to produce a clear winner in the general election, i.e. a single party with a parliamentary majority. This helps to promote a strong, stable and decisive government
- It helps to prevent small parties breaking into the system. This is useful if the small parties are undesirable extremists
- Arguably. FPTP has stood the test of time. Abandoning the system would be a dangerous step into the unknown.
- A switch to a different system might have all starts of unintended consequences
- In 2011, a referendum decisively rejected a proposal for change
- In elections with complex concerns - as occurred in 2017 when the Brexit issue was combined with other social and economic matters
- FPTP gave voters the opportunity to choose a candidate based on their individual attitude to such issues, rather than merely according to their party allegiance
State arguments against FPTP
- The overall outcome is not proportional or fair. Some parties win more seats than their support warrants, while others win less than they deserve
- It means that many votes are effectively wasted because they can have no impact on the outcome in safe seats. Many seats become part of party ‘heartlands’ where there is no possibility of a realistic challenge from other parties. It also produces ‘electoral desserts’ where there is effectively no party competition
- votes are of unequal value in the votes in safe seats are less valuable than votes in marginal seat. In 2017, UKIP votes were of hugely less value than conservative votes in 2015.
- it encourages some voters to vote tactically and so abandon the party they really want to support.
- it prevents new parties breaking into the system and so produces political inertia.
- it has since 1945, always resulted in the winning party securing much less than half the popular vote. In 2015, the winning conservative party was elected with 36.9% of the vote. 63.1% of voters voted against the governing party. In 2005, labour won the election with a majority of 66 from only 35.2% of the popular vote. This calls into question the legitimacy of the government
- FPTP always used to deliver governments with a majority of the seats in the house of commons. However, in 2015 and 2017 the system failed to do this, returning governments without such an overall majority. If it is failing to achieve its main objective in modern times, this suggests that it should be replace by a fairer and more proportional system.
state an example of a plurality system
FPTP
State examples of alternative systems which are used in different parts of the UK and around the world
- proportional systems
- majority systems
- hybrid system
define proportional systems
proportional system refer to systems that produce an outcome whereby the competing parties are awarded seats in the legislature in proportion to the votes cast for them, either exactly or approximately. so a directly proportional system would award 40% of the seats to a party that won 40% of the popular vote.
define majority systems
Majority systems are systems which are used to elect a single candidate, for example a president or major. They are designed to ensure that the winner can claim the support of an overall majority of voters
define hybrid system
Hybrid systems which are mixture of two systems. The main example is the additional member system, which is mixture of FPTP and a proportional system
define proportional representation (PR)
Proportional representation (PR) refers to any electoral system that tends to produce a proportional outcome. In other words, the seats in the representative body are awarded in an election broadly in the same proportion. as the votes cast for each party.
An example would be that if a party wins 40% of the votes it will be awarded 40% of the seats available. The regional list system and the single transferable vote system are examples of PR
What is the Additional Member system (AMS)
The additional member system is a hybrid system that combines FPTP with a PR system. It is used in Scotland, wales and for the greater London assembly.
A version is also used in Germany.
A proportion (which varies from country to country) of the seats is awarded through FPTP. The rest are awarded on a regional list system. This means that every voter has two votes. One is for a constituency candidate in the FPTP way, the other is from a choice of party lists.
Explain the additional member system
The additional member system is a hybrid system that combines FPTP with a PR system. It is used in Scotland, wales and for the greater London assembly.
A proportion (which varies from country to country) of the seats is awarded through FPTP. The rest are awarded on a regional list system. This means that every voter has two votes. One is for a constituency candidate in the FPTP way, the other is from a choice of party lists.
some of the elected representatives have a constituency to look after, while others do not. The latter have been elected from the lists and are free of constituency responsibilities.
No real distinction is made between the two through the senior party members tend to be elected from lists rather than constituencies with an MP to represent them
it helps smaller parties, but also favours the larger ones
it achieves two objectives at the same time, preserving the idea of constituencies and a constituencies representative, but producing a much more proportional result than FPTP.
explain how AMS works in scotland and Wales
- two thirds of the seats are elected using FPTP as for a UK general election
- the other third of seats are elected on a PR system based on several regions of the country. This is known as the regional list part of the system
- this is an important variation in the regional list part of the vote. The variable top-up system adjusts the proportions of votes cast on the list system. This is a complex calculation, but in essence, what happens is that the seats awarded from the system are adjusted to give a more proportional result. It is known as the D’Hondt method
- Parties that do less well in the constituencies (typically conservatives and greens) have their proportion of list votes adjusted upwards. Those that do proportionally well under FPTP (usually labour) have their list of votes adjusted downwards
- The overall effect of a variable top up is to make the total result in seats close to proportional to the total votes cast in both systems
state advantages of the additional member system
- it produces a broadly proportional outcome and so is fair to all parties
- it gives voters two votes and so more choice
- it combines preserving constituency representation with a proportional outcome
- it helps small parties which cannot win constituency contests
state disadvantages of the additional member system
- it produces two classes of representative - those with a constituency and those elected through the lists which the latter tends to be more senior
- it is more complex than FPTP. having two votes may confuse voters
- it can result in the election of extremist candidates
evaluate AMS using the results of the election in scottish parliament in 2016
Results of elections under AMS show that a party can win some of its seats through constituency contests and the rest from regional list elections in which voters choose a party rather than an individual
The 2016 results highlight how well each party performed in both the constituency elections and the list elections. (* seats on the regional list system are manipulated to produce a more proportional result*)
For example, the scottish national party who dominates scotland elections won 59 constituency seats, won 4 regional list seats giving them a total of 63 seats, with 48.8% seats won and 31.7% of votes won in the regional lists.
This can be contrasted with the conservative party who won 7 constituency seats, won 24 regional list seats, giving them a total of 31 seats won, which meant they won 24% of the seats won and 22.9% of votes won in the regional lists
Another prominent example is the green party who won 0 constituency seats, won 6 regional list seats, giving them a total of 6 seats, meaning they won 4.7% seats won and 6.6% votes won in the regional lists
Assess the 2016 election in the scottish parliament
The scottish parliament elections in 2016 shows the proportion of seats won by each party is quite close to the proportion of votes each of them won in the party list contest, so the result is roughly proportional.
- The election also shows how smaller parties won very few constituency seats but it is more compared to FPTP.
- Conversely, the SNP won 59 out of the 73 constituency seats available as had this election been conducted under FPTP the snp would have dominated by winning 104 (81%) out of 129 seats
- Under AMS, the SNP won 48.8% of the seats on 41.7% of the popular vote, a much more proportional outcome
What is Single transferable vote (STV)
STV is the system used in Northern Ireland for all of its elections. It is also used for local government elections in Scotland and for general elections in the republic of Ireland.
- it is commonly described as a proportional system
- it’s a complex system, especially when it comes to the counting and the establishment of the result. T
Explain how the single transferable vote (STV) works
- There are six seats available in each constituency.
Each party is permitted to put up as a many candidates as there are seats. i.e up to six. In practice, parties do not adopt six candidates as they have no chance of winning all six seats available. Four is the normal maximum amount for each party.
Voters place the candidates in their order of preference by placing a number 1,2,3 etc beside each name.
Voters can vote for candidates from different parties or even all parties, though few do
At the council an electoral quota is calculated. This is established by taking the total number of votes cast and dividing it by the number of seats available plus 1. So if 50,000 votes are cast and six seats are available the quota is 50,000 divided by 6+1 and works out at 7,143. One is then added to give the final figure of 7,144.
At first all the first preferences are counted for each candidate. Any candidate who achieves the quota are elected automatically.
After this stage, the counting is complex. Essentially, the second and subsequent preferences from the ballot papers of the elected candidates are added to other candidates. If this results in an individual achieving the quota he or she is elected.
This process continues until six candidates have achieved the quota and are elected
What is STV designed to do?
explain the results of Fermanagh and south Tyrone constituency
STV is complex counting system designed to ensure that voters preferences are aggregated up to make sure that the six most popular candidates overall will be elected
The overall outcome tends to be highly proportional, with each party achieving its fair share of the votes and seats.
This was demonstrate in the single constituency contest from the Northern Ireland assembly election in 2016 illustrating how this system works
Results of Fermanagh and South Tyrone Constituency 2016:
- DUP offered 2 candidates and 2 candidates were elected
- Sinn Fein offered 4 candidates and 2 candidates were elected
- Ulster Unionists offered 2 candidates and 1 candidate was electd
- SDLP offered 1 candidate and 1 candidate was elected
The quota was 6,740. Only one candidate, Arlene Foster of the DUP achieved the quota on first preference of votes.
Explain the results of the northern Ireland assembly 2016
The Northern Ireland Assembly 2016 overall results demonstrates how the proportional the outcome is as every party won approximately the same proportion of seats as the proportion of first preference votes gained. It is also interesting to see how many parties won some representation
For example, the DUP won 38 seats with 35.2% won and 29.3 % of first preference votes won
Sinn fein won 28 seats with 25.9% seats won and 24.0% first preference votes won
Ultster unionists won 16 seats with 14.8% won and 12.6% first preferences votes won
Alliance won 8 seats with 7.4% won and 7.0 % first preference votes won
This clearly shows how proportional the outcome is with the single transferable vote system as every party won approximately the same proportion of seats as the proportion of first preference votes gained. It is also interesting to see how many parties won some representation
State the advantages of STV
- it produces a broadly proportional outcome
- it gives voters a very wide choice of candidates to choose from. The second and subsequent choices of the voters are taken into consideration in the counting.
- voters can vote for candidates from different parties and show a preference between candidates of the same party
- as there are six representatives per constituency, each voter has a choice of those to represent them and usually they can be represented by someone from the party they support
- it helps small parties and independent candidates to be elected
state the disadvantages of STV
- It is a complex system that some voters do not understand
- the vote counting is complicated and can take a long time
- it can help candidates with extremist views to be elected
- with six representatives per constituency the lines of accountability of are not very clear
Define the supplementary vote (SV)
Supplementary vote is a system used where a single candidate is to be elected. It is designed to produce a winner who can claim to be supported overall by a majority of voters.
In the Uk, its main use is to elect city mayors. it could be used to elect MPs but there is no appetite for this kind of reform
Most reformers prefer the idea of PR rather than the SV
Explain what the supplementary vote
In the supplementary vote system voters have two choices, a first and second choice.
If any candidate achieves an overall majority i.e 50%+ of the first choice or round, he or she is automatically elected
If this does not happen, the top two candidates go into a second round of counting. All the others drop out.
The second choice votes are added to the first choices to give two final totals
As there are only two candidates left, one of them must achieve an absolute majority. So the winner has an overall majority of a combination of first and second round votes.
The following tables shows how this worked in the election of Sadiq Khan. He achieved 44.2% of the vote in the first round, but 161,427 voter put him as their second choice and this was enough to give him an overall majority
Assess the supplementary vote with the elections for London mayor 2016.
Most commentators believe that the supplementary vote system have few serious rivals when it comes to electing a single official and it is used in the vast majority of democracies for this kind of election.
For example, Sadiq Khan who was the candidate for the labour party in the first round of votes won 1,148,716 which was 44.2% and in the second round of votes he gained 1,310,143 which meant he was elected mayor of London.
OTHER CANDIDATES:
Zac Goldsmith was a conservative candidate that in the first round of the votes won 909,755 which was 35% and in the second round of vote he gained 994,614 votes
Sian Berry who was green party candidate in the first round of the vote won 150,673 which meant she won 5.8% which disqualified her from the second round of votes
