Electoral systems

Question 1

The functions of elections

Answer 1

1. Elections allow a geographical area to have a representative in a collective assembly to speak on behalf of those living in the area.
2. Elections offer representation for political parties which reflects the political choices made by the voters. i.e. the representatives are elected in proportion to the support given to each party
3. Elections provide a means whereby the population selects a government. In the UK, the government is not directly elected but is obtained indirectly though elections to Parliament. In Parliament the party (or parties) which can secure enough seats form the government.
4. Elections are a mechanism of legitimacy. They confer the authority to act on others’ behalf. At a constituency level, this is conferring the right of an MP to act on behalf of the area; at a national level, a government claims legitimacy to act and manage the country
5. An election gives a mandate to the government of a locality, a region or the whole country. This means it gives legitimacy to the government’s manifesto, or list of intended policies
6. Elections are mechanisms of accountability. They hold individual MPs in constituencies to account for their role as an area representative and they hold the government to account for its management of the country.
7. Elections should facilitate participation. Low levels of voter turnout will diminish legitimacy and may indicate a loss of faith in democracy.

Question 2

What are the different types of electoral systems

Answer 2

1. Plurality - Commonly known as a ‘winner takes all’ system, a plurality system is one in which the requirement to win is to get the greatest number of votes. It is usually referred to as First Past the Post.
2. Majoritarian – A majoritarian system in which the winner requires a majority of valid votes cast. This can be done either through multiple ballots or through a single ballot paper using a process known as instant-runoff voting.
3. Proportional - A proportional voting system emphasises linking the number of seats awarded to a party to the number of votes cast for that party.
4. Hybrid - A hybrid voting system combines elements of other voting systems to find a balance between them. The mixed-member proportional voting system is an example of this.

Question 3

Define First Past The Post

Answer 3

The main electoral system in the UK, known as first-past-the post, is a plurality system. It is used for elections to the UK Parliament, and to English and Welsh local government. It is also used in the USA and India. The UK remains the only democracy in Europe to use First Past the Post (FPTP) to elect its MPs

Question 4

How the FPTP works

Answer 4

A simple plurality system means that the winner is the candidate who gains the most votes. The winning margin need only be one vote; quite often it is less than 50% of the votes cast. Voters simply put an ‘X’ in the box, indicating their choice. There is no order of preference. The UK is divided up into 650 constituencies. These are single-member constituencies, that is, only one MP is returned per constituency

The ‘winning post’ in a constituency is determined after all the votes have been counted; whoever gets the highest number of votes wins the seat. The winning margin could be as small as one and or as huge as over 20 thousand. The winning post required to form a government from the results of these constituency elections is, however, fixed. With a total of 650 seats, if one party gains 326 MPs this gives it a majority of two over all others. In May 2010, no party reached this total.

Question 5

Advantages of FPTP

Answer 5

1. Speed and simplicity- FPTP is easy to use, with voters making a single cross and choosing one candidate. The result is usually known early in the morning after polling day and a new government is rapidly formed, allowing a swift and orderly transfer of power. The May 2010 general election was an exception, when negotiations between the prospective parties of government did not produce a result for 5 days. This would be the norm under a proportional system. The outcome of a general election would be determined by horse-trading between the party leaders, which can take time. After the 2010 general election in Belgium, which uses a proportional system, it took almost 18 months to form a government. Admittedly this is an extreme example, but the fact remains that proportional systems are far less decisive than FPTP. The ease and familiarity of FPTP help to explain continuing public support for its retention. When voters were given the opportunity to replace it with the Alternative Vote (AV) in a referendum held in May 2011, almost 68 per cent of those who voted chose to retain FPTP. Another example of the delay in forming a government is the federal elections in Germany which were held i 26 September 2021 to elect the members of the 20th Bundestag On 23 November, following complex coalition talks, the SPD, FDP and Greens formalised an agreement to form a traffic light coalition, which was approved by all three parties. Olaf Scholz and his cabinet were elected by the Bundestag on 8 December
2. Strong and stable government - FPTP tends to promote a two-party system, which gives voters a clear choice. At general elections it usually gives a clear majority to one party, which then has a mandate to carry out its programme. The government can be removed at the next general election if the voters disapprove of its record. For example, it enabled Margaret Thatcher to carry out her plans for the reduction of trade union power and privatisation in the 1980s, and allowed Tony Blair to undertake extensive constitutional reforms after his 1997 victory. Supporters of FPTP argue that, by boosting the significance of smaller parties, proportional systems give them undue influence. In Germany between 1969 and 1998, the Free Democrats never gained more than 10 per cent of the popular vote but were able to hold the balance of power between the two largest parties. They sustained the Social Democrats in office until 1982, when they switched their support to the Christian Democrats or German conservatives. Proportional representation is far more likely than FPTP to produce a coalition government. This means that the government’s programme will be worked out behind closed doors in negotiations between the party leaders, without the voters having the opportunity to give their verdict on it. In addition coalitions are sometimes unstable and can break up if one of the coalition parties has a fundamental disagreement with its partner
3. Exclusion of extremists - Although critics of FPTP point to the way it under-represents smaller parties, the advantage of this is that extreme parties — which may feed on racism, xenophobia and other extremist views — are much less likely to gain a foothold.
4. A strong link between MPs and their constituencies- The relatively small size of most FPTP constituencies, and the fact that a single MP is responsible for representing those who live within the constituency, are often seen as strengths. MPs handle correspondence from their constituents and hold surgeries at which they make themselves available to those seeking help and advice.

Question 6

Disadvantages of FPTP

Answer 6

1. MPs and governments can be elected on less than 50 per cent of the vote More than half of MPs typically do not command majority support within their constituency. This is because they do not need an overall majority of the votes cast, but can win by gaining just one more vote than the second placed candidate. It is quite possible for more votes to be cast against rather than for the winning candidate
2. At national level, FPTP regularly produces governments elected on a minority of the popular vote. The lowest percentage was recorded in 2005, when Tony Blair was re-elected on 35.2 percent of the vote. This weakens the mandate enjoyed by the winning party, especially as general elections since 2001 have been characterised by low voter turnout. This feature means that significant numbers of voters feel that the system lacks legitimacy.
3. Lack of proportionality- FPTP does not translate the number of votes into seats for each party with any real accuracy. The system favours parties whose vote is concentrated, rather than those whose support is spread across a large geographical area. A party may come second in a large number of seats, but FPTP does not reward this because only one candidate can win in each constituency. For example, UKIP won almost 3.9 million votes in 2015, but only one seat. By contrast the Scottish National Party replaced Labour as the largest party in Scotland, taking 56 out of 59 seats with 50 per cent of the vote, because it campaigned only in one part of the UK. FPTP does not reflect the fact that the number of people voting for the two largest parties has been in decline for some time. Between 1945 and 1970, on average ten MPs from smaller parties were elected in each Parliament. By 2015 that figure had risen to 87 MPs.
4. The winner’s bonus- The winning party under FPTP enjoys a share of the seats in excess of the share of the vote it receives. This occurs if a large number of seats are marginal between the two main parties. For example, in the elections of 1983 and 1987 Margaret Thatcher won majorities of 144 and 102 respectively, on 42 per cent of the vote. In the 2015 election the winner’s bonus was much less marked, with David Cameron winning only a 12 seat majority, but there was still a mismatch between votes and seats. The Conservatives won 50.9 percent of the seats with 36.9 percent of the vote.
5. Limited voter choice - FPTP limits the choice for voters in several ways. Each party puts forward a single candidate, so there is no choice between individuals representing different shades of opinion within the party. The prevalence of safe seats means that many voters have little hope of seeing their favoured candidate win. This can depress voter turnout, as people feel that there is no point in voting for a candidate who cannot hope to be elected. Alternatively, people may resort to tactical voting — voting not for their favourite but for the candidate most likely to prevent the party they dislike from winning. In 2015 a number of vote-swapping websites were set up. These enabled people living in constituencies where their vote would be wasted to swap with someone in an area where it would make a difference. This is not illegal (unless inducement or pressure is applied) but it does shed a light on the way that the UK’s system of representative democracy works

Question 7

What distortion does FPTP cause

Answer 7

FPTP produces another kind of distortion known as ‘electoral deserts’: areas of the country where one party cannot win seats. South-east England is an electoral desert for Labour.

An area that is an electoral desert for one party may be described as a ‘heartland’ for its opponent. For example, north-east England, Merseyside and South Wales are Labour heartlands.

Another symptom of Westminster’s electoral system are candidates winning with huge majorities – piling up votes far beyond the amount needed to claim victory. Though indicative of a party’s support in specific areas, such large winning majorities mean that thousands of votes have no effect on the overall outcome.

Question 8

Case study of 2019 IN FPTP

Answer 8

The 2019 United Kingdom general election was held on Thursday, 12 December 2019. The Conservative Party, having failed to obtain a majority in the 2017 general election, had faced prolonged parliamentary deadlock over Brexit while it governed in minority with the support of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), a situation which had forced the resignation of the previous Prime Minister, Theresa May. Boris Johnson took a huge gamble by calling a December general election for the first time in almost a century. But he was celebrating on Friday morning after the Conservatives scored one of their biggest general election victories in recent years

Results
Sinn Féin: 7 seats
Green Party of England and Wales: 1 seat
Plaid Cymru: 4 seats
Social Democratic and Labour Party: 2 seats
Scottish National Party: 48 seats
Labour Party (UK): 202 seats
Liberal Democrats (UK): 11 seats
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland: 1 seat
Conservative and Unionist Party (UK): 365 seats Democratic Unionist Party: 8 seats Speaker: 1 seat

Class dealignment means that no party can rely on heartland support. In particular the Labour party will increasingly find it hard to appeal to middle class and southern voters who are pro EU, internationalist in outlook relaxed about immigration and globalization as well as northern, working class voters who have seen their manufacturing jobs exported, seen immigration change their communities around them and feel powerless and ignored by the forces of globalization.

Question 9

Define Additional Member System

Answer 9

The additional member system (AMS) is used for electing the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Greater London Assembly.

Question 10

What is the Process of the AMS system

Answer 10

There are two types of representative — those elected in constituencies and those elected by the list system,
The system increases voter choice, as voters have two votes. It enables smaller parties, such as the Greens, to win some seats. The overall outcome tends to be approximately proportional to support for all parties. Before 2011, the system produced either minority or coalition governments because no party won an overall majority. However, in 2011 the Scottish National Party did win an overall majority in the Scottish Parliament, and Labour won exactly half the seats in Wales. We can now say that its impact on the main parties is unpredictable.

Voters have two votes: the first is for a constituency representative, who is elected using FPTP; the second is for a party list and uses multi-member regional constituencies, introducing an element of proportional representation.

Question 11

Where is the AMS Voting system used?

Answer 11

Most (about two-thirds) of the seats are elected by first-past-the-post. The rest of the seats are awarded by the regional list system. Voters have two votes, one for first-past-the-post and the other on the regional list system. The list system operates where each party offers a list of candidates for that region. Voters chose a party rather than an individual. Seats are awarded in proportion to the votes cast for each party in each region.

The Additional Member System (AMS) is used in the UK for elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Greater London Assembly. It is intended to mix aspects of FPTP and proportional representation – it is neither wholly proportional nor wholly majoritarian. Its proponents claim it forms a hybrid of the two types of system that combines their advantages and avoids their disadvantages. The seats awarded on the list system are not in proportion to votes cast, but are distorted in favour of those parties that have been most disadvantaged in the constituency, first-past-the-post system. This is called the differential top-up system.

Question 12

Advantages of AMS

Answer 12

1. AMS has produced stable coalitions in Scotland and Wales which have been able to agree and make significant policy decisions- so this suggests that AMS is just as good as FPTP at producing ‘strong and stable’ governments
2. Voters have two votes: the first is for a constituency representative, who is elected using FPTP; the second is for a party list and uses multi-member regional constituencies, introducing an element of proportional representation. There are fewer list members than constituency representatives, and so they are known as ‘additional’ or ‘top up’ members. In the Scottish Parliament, 73 of the 129 members are elected in single-member constituencies, with the remaining 56 seats being filled by list members. In the Welsh Assembly 40 of the 60 members represent single-member constituencies, with 20 list members. In the GLA 14 of the 25 members are elected in single-member constituencies and 11 are top-up members.
3. These bodies have four-year fixed terms. The top up component introduces a proportional element, acting as a corrective to the FPTP part of the system. A calculation is made using the D’Hondt formula to determine how many members a party should be allocated from the lists. For example in Scotland the Conservative Party won no seats in the 1997 Westminster election under FPTP, but the list enabled it to win a total of 18 seats in the first Scottish Parliament elections in 1999.
4. The FPTP element maintains a strong link between the member and the constituency. Electors have wider choice than under straight FPTP; they can vote for a ‘split ticket’ if they wish, using their constituency vote to choose a representative from one party, and their top-up vote to support another party. AMS has produced stable coalitions in Scotland and Wales which have been able to agree and make significant policy decisions- so this suggests that AMS is just as good as FPTP at producing ‘strong and stable’ governments

Question 13

Disadvantages of the AMS system

Answer 13

1. Creates two different types of members: some with constituency responsibilities and some without. However, there is little evidence that the second category is seen as having less legitimacy. A closed list system is used, which means that the party leadership ranks candidates in order on the list. It can use this power to limit the chances of dissident members of the party being elected.
2. Smaller parties achieve less representation than under a fully proportional system. This is especially true in Wales where the small number of top-up seats has advantaged Labour -(However, In London in 2016, there were twelve parties on the party list, ranging from the Animal Welfare Party to the Women’s Equality Party. Alphabetically in Scotland in 2007, two regions had 23 parties to choose from.)
3. The SNP has been the dominant party in Scotland since 2007, running a majority government in 2011-16. However the SNP are now 2022- in coalition with the Green Party. AMS may have contributed to the rise of Nationalism in Scotland. Coalitions are more likely- and you could argue that coalitions formed after an election have no mandate- since no-one voted for a coalition.

Question 14

Outline Reforms for the AMS electoral system

Answer 14

In 2023, the Welsh Parliament reform bill committee recommended reforms including taking the 32 new constituencies that will be used in the next general election and pairing them to create 16 Senedd constituencies – with each returning six members in multi-member districts. Opposition to the proposed closed-list voting system was expressed by some Labour and Plaid Cymru representatives, while opposition to the overall expansion of the Senedd was expressed by some Labour representatives and the Conservatives increasing the size of the Senedd to 96 Members. Changing the electoral system to one fully based on the principle of proportional representation.

From the 2026 Senedd election, the D’Hondt formula will be used (this formula has been used to determine the Senedd’s regional list Members . Making 16 new Senedd constituencies, which will be created by pairing the 32 new UK Parliamentary constituencies for the 2026 Senedd election. Six Members will be elected, from closed lists, in each of the 16 constituencies.

Question 15

Define Single Transferrable Vote

Answer 15

The Single Transferable Vote (STV) is a proportional electoral system used primarily in the UK in Northern Ireland. STV is often said to be more complicated than some other voting systems. However, it produces a high degree of proportionality whilst also maintaining a strong connection between representatives and their local area.

Question 16

Outline the process of STV as an electoral system

Answer 16

Under STV, multiple representatives are elected to each constituency (unlike FPTP). So, one area may be choosing four members, for example. Voters rank candidates in order of preference. A quota of votes that a candidate has to reach in order to be elected is determined by dividing the total number of votes by the number of seats available. If a candidate receives more votes than the quota they are elected, and their additional votes are redistributed to the other candidates on the basis of who was put as the next preference. If this process doesn’t fill all the available seats, then the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and their votes are redistributed to whoever their voters put as their second preference. This process is repeated until all the seats in the constituency have been filled.

It uses multi-member constituencies; in the case of the Northern Ireland Assembly, there are 17, each returning 6 members. Voters number their choices preferentially: 1, 2, 3 etc. In order to be elected, a candidate needs to achieve a quota, arrived at using the Droop formula, which divides the number of votes cast by the number of seats contested plus one. The results are calculated using a complex counting process that takes into account voters’ second preferences. If a candidate reaches the quota on the first round of counting, they are elected and their second preferences are redistributed. If no one attains the quota, the least popular candidate is eliminated and the second preferences of those who voted for this candidate are transferred. This process is continued until all the seats are filled.

Question 17

Outline the Impact of Single Transferrable vote

Answer 17

STV gives voters a large choice and allows them to show a preference between candidates of the same party. Voters have a choice of six representatives when deciding whom they wish to pursue their grievances. It helps small parties win seats. The overall outcome is a multi-party system. In Northern Ireland, five different parties win a significant number of seats.It favours a ‘power-sharing system’ where all parties have a place in the Assembly and in government. This is essential in a deeply divided society such as Northern Ireland

Question 18

Advantages of STV

Answer 18

1. Under STV fewer votes are ‘wasted’ In other words, fewer votes are cast for losing candidates or unnecessarily cast for a run-away winner. This means that most voters can identify a representative that they personally helped to elect. It is argued that this, in turn, increases a representative’s accountability.
2. With STV and multi-member constituencies, parties have a powerful electoral incentive to present a balanced team of candidates in order to maximise the number of higher preferences that would go to their candidates. This goes some way to helping promote the advancement of women and ethnic-minority candidates, who are often overlooked in favour of a ‘safer’ looking candidate under ‘first past the post’.
3. STV offers voters a choice of representatives to approach with their concerns once the election is over, rather than just a single elected representative, who may not be at all sympathetic to a voter’s views. Competition to provide a good service to constituents has to be a good thing.

Question 19

Disadvantage of STV

Answer 19

1. In sparsely populated areas, like the Scottish Highlands, STV could lead to enormous constituencies. This was one of the reasons cited by the Arbuthnott Commission for not recommending STV for non-local Scottish elections.
2. The process of counting the results takes longer under STV, meaning that results cannot usually be declared on the same night as the vote takes place.
3. A voting system that allows voters to rank candidates can be prone to what has been termed ‘donkey voting’, where voters vote for candidates in the order they appear on the ballot

Question 20

Define Supplementary Vote

Answer 20

The Supplementary Vote is a preferential voting system that lets voters express two choices for candidates in a run-off election.

Question 21

Outline Supplementary Vote as an electoral system

Answer 21

It is what is referred to as a preferential voting system: voters give a first preference and a second preference. In this sense, it is similar to the Alternative Vote (AV) system, which was the subject of the 2011 referendum. However, under the AV system, voters can rank as many candidates as they like. If once all the votes are counted a candidate has secured an overall majority, then they are elected. However, if no candidate secures over 50 per cent, then under SV all the candidates other than the top two are eliminated. The second preferences of those who voted for an eliminated candidate are then distributed between the top two. Whoever has the most votes in total after this process is elected.

SV is not a proportional electoral system. However, it is said to be an improvement on FPTP in that candidates cannot win outright with low levels of support. It is a system which is designed to produce overall majorities for a candidate, something which is not required under FPTP. Critics say that SV continues to maintain two-party dominance, as only two candidates can get through the first round – usually the two biggest, most well-known parties. Votes for smaller parties are only relevant in relation to whether their second preference is for one of the two larger parties that has made it through to the second round. Ballots where both the first and second preference are for small parties will usually be wasted and not count towards the final result.

Question 22

Impacts of SV

Answer 22

The system ensures that the winner has an overall majority. It ensures fairness because all voters have two choices and so can potentially affect the outcome/ SV has been used for London Mayoral elections since 2000. The two main parties – Conservative and Labour – still dominate these elections. However, it is argued that SV means that candidates for these parties have to try and develop a broad level of support, as they are also competing for second preference votes and so have to appeal to a broad range of voters. It is said that this gives smaller parties more sway around elections, as the big parties will be keen to be picked second by their voters.

Question 23

Advantages of Supplementary Vote

Answer 23

Broad support- whoever is elected will have the broad support of the electorate, with either a majority of 1st preference votes or a large number of 1st and 2nd preference votes - encourages politicians to BROADLY campaign and seek consensus and compromise to win as many 1sf and 2nd preferences as possible - enhances representation of minority interest

Greater number represented in final result- if you’re 1st choice is not chosen, you still have the opportunity to influence the final result through your 2nd choice
2nd choice often DECISIVE (eg Sadiq Kahn 2016 - first round 44.2 percent. after 161,427 transferred 2nd preference votes, second round 56.8 percent - broadens representation - reduces need for tactical voting

simplicity + controls extremism- 2nd preferences of voters who support minor parties (who obviously owing to their lack of success do not represent the interests of most of the electorate) are not counted (as these parties will never realistically get through to 2nd round) = controls radical parties - helps uphold LIBERAL DEMOCRACY this also solves problems of donkey voting and compromise candidates seen in AV also simple system to understand compared with AV

Question 24

Disadvantages Of Supplementary Voting

Answer 24

doesn’t ensure true pluralism + tactical voting
favours larger parties with regional support bases (when applied to a national GE) + promotes voting for those who are likely to get through into second round (as opposed to gradual elimination in AV). This can encourage tactical voting - little point in putting a small party as your second choice as they will likely be eliminated in second round (restricts smaller parties breaking through)

compromise candidates and wasted votes- often voters encouraged to put a compromise candidate as 1st choice. If they see that this candidate will likely get through to a second round (compromise candidate for different reason that AV). can encourage candidates to not take a clear ideological view in the hope of being a popular ‘compromise’ candidate + wasted 2nd preference votes for smaller parties which do not get included in final count

Potential lack of majority support- SV does not ensure that the winning candidate has at least 50 percent of the vote (although this is normally the case) - in contrast 50 percent of the vote in highly likely in AV due to gradual redistribution of votes

Question 25

Outline the electoral reform in the UK

Answer 25

Voter ID for the UK- Britain’s FPTP system is an inherently two-party one. Barring the two wartime governments and the Liberal Democrats’ recent five-year stint in a coalition with the Conservatives, only the Conservatives and the Labour Party have won an election since 1910. Voters are given a clear choice between these mostly opposed parties. Therefore, the FPTP winner takes all approaches and pays dividends, delivering a clear winner from these two.

As part of the coalition agreement, it was decided that a referendum would be held on changing the voting system for elections to the Westminster Parliament to the alternative vote (AV). On Thursday 5 May 2011 the referendum produced a clear result against this change: 67.9% (13 million) were against change, 32.1% (6 million) were in favour. This now in effect halts any possible electoral reform- for a considerable period. However, we can still ascertain competing views about the suitability of first-­past-the-post (FPTP) as used in the Westminster elections.

Question 26

Evaluate whether the UK should abandon FPTP for Westminster Elections. [30 Marks]

Answer 26

The first past the post electoral system is that in which the winner of the seat representing each constituency simply has to get one more vote than their nearest rival to represent that constituency; it is majoritarian at the national level, as a party must get over half of the available seats in parliament to form a government, and pluralistic at the local level. Westminster elections refer to general elections to the House of Commons. Despite the 2011 AV Referendum supposedly giving public consent to FPTP, the system has not produced overall majorities in two of the last three elections, and people generally do not feel represented by their MPs, with disenfranchisement common among voters. This essay will examine FPTP in relation to disproportionality, coalitions, safe seats, and tactical voting, and will argue that FPTP should absolutely be abandoned in favour of any one of a number of possibilities.

Arguably one of the most significant shortcomings of FPTP is the extreme disproportionality of votes against seats. Since each seat only needs to be won by one more vote than the nearest rival, a majority is not required to win a seat, so there’s a very high possibility for a large discrepancy between simple vote share and number of seats in parliament. This is apparent when examining elections like the 2015 election, in which UKIP and the Green Party received almost 5 million votes between them, while gaining only two seats. A party like UKIP is extremely under-represented in the system, causing millions of wasted votes, thus a clear disadvantage of FPTP, strongly suggesting it should be abandoned. However, extreme disproportionality does increase the likelihood of an overall majority in parliament, leading to the formation of an efficient, stable government. This is clear in the 1997 election, in which Blair’s New Labour received only 42% of the vote share but 65% of the seats in parliament. Blair only lost 4 votes in parliament during his premiership, showing how disproportionality can give the government direction and implement policies efficiently. However, a staggering lack of proportionality can not be justified by the formation of majority governments, and coalitions are not without worth, hence, on this issue, it’s suggested that FPTP should be abandoned.

Although FPTP forms majority governments in theory, in practice, it’s produced two hung parliaments in the past decade, so it’s necessary to discuss coalitions. Coalitions can be an extremely positive thing for a healthy democracy as they force different parties to implement policies together, necessarily creating compromise and consensus, and ultimately enabling most people to ‘get something of what they want’ - to see at least some of the government actions they’re in favour of being carried out. The obvious example is the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition formed in 2010, with David Cameron taking the role of Prime Minister and Nick Clegg the role of Deputy Prime Minister. Although the government is largely derided for its increasing of tuition fees, it did allow for fairly stable rule for five years, with the support of just over 50% of the electorate in vote share, suggesting that the recent tendency of FPTP to not produce overall majorities may actually be a development for the better. As we’ve already mentioned, FPTP tends to create feelings of disenfranchisement among the electorate, which, in turn, causes a decline in support for the two main parties, with people not feeling represented by what they deem the establishment.

This was likely at least partly the cause of the relatively lower support for the Conservatives and Labour at the 2010 election, suggesting that the lack of representation provided by FPTP may be causing coalitions anyway, further devaluing the argument that FPTP creates overall majorities, along with the idea that overall majorities may not even inherently be a good thing. A drawback of hung parliaments, is that a party that may have come third or fourth in seats gained, may have the power to decide which party ultimately forms a government. For example, if both major parties are below the threshold to form a majority but could both make it over with the support of a minority party, that minority party has an extremely disproportionate amount of power in deciding which government will be formed. This was not quite the case in 2010 as Labour could not have won with the support of the Liberal Democrats, but it seems increasingly likely as the SNP and the Lib Dems see increases in support coming up to the December 2019 election, if the Conservatives don’t win an overall majority. This ‘Kingmaker Effect’ is a significant drawback of coalition governments and, thus, potentially FPTP, although it is more apparent in countries that use a more proportional system. In this case, the Kingmaker Effect is clearly a disadvantage of both FPTP and any alternative with the potential to create coalition governments. However, it’s also countered by the need for compromise and consensus instead of adversarial politics, suggesting coalitions are largely good for a functioning democracy. Since the aim of FPTP is to avoid coalitions, this is a drawback of the system, and suggests that FPTP should be abandoned.

One extremely significant failure of FPTP is the emergence of safe seats. It’s estimated that only about 100 to 150 out of the 650 parliamentary seats in the country are actually contested with a realistic chance of swinging in any upcoming election. Maidenhead, for example, is a Conservative safe seat, with the Conservatives getting over 50% of the vote share in the seat in all recent elections. The argument is that this can cause lazy representatives who really don’t have to compete for re-election, as is obvious from the relative lack of campaigning in safe seats. Representatives therefore have no incentive to actually represent the views of their constituents, because, even if the minority, or sometimes majority of non-winning party voters voice concerns, they won’t be able to vote them out in the next election, simply because the majority of people vote for their party anyway. This is an enormous drawback of FPTP, even weakening the strongest argument in favour of keeping the system, namely the creation of local ties. Local ties refer to the way that constituents have a named MP, who they can hold directly accountable, and who they theoretically often communicate with to ensure their views and interests are actually represented. This is a clear advantage over a system like closed list proportional representation, where a voter votes only for a party. Although the local ties argument tends to be strong, the fact that in some cases the majority of constituents vote against their representative in elections and they still win the seat shows that the poltical views of the majority of the constituents don’t always line up with their representative, making it difficult to see how they can be properly represented by their MP. In Windsor, a Conservative safe seat, for example, the constituents voted to remain in the EU, but the MP for Windsor has consistently voted for Conservative Brexit deals, showing a prioritisation of party loyalty over local loyalty. Because of this, this essay maintains that the existence of safe seats and representative apathy undermines the claim that MPs represent their constituents simply because a plurality voted for them.

Finally, FPTP is unique in the extent to which it creates tactical voting. This is the act of voting not for one’s preferred candidate, but for the only candidate one thinks can stop their least preferred candidate. This is a well-documented occurrence, as shown by the Liberal Democrats’ infamy for questionable bar charts used in election campaigns. The Liberal Democrats are forced to play the system, so to speak, and encourage voting for them as a means to stop the incumbent main party representative. This clearly shows how the voter’s freedom of political choice is undermined as they’re being encouraged to vote for a centrist party to stop the party they dislike instead of to support their centrist ideals being given a voice in parliament, a striking disadvantage of FPTP. The counter to this argument may be that the system is easy to understand, which is true. Voters vote for a candidate and whichever candidate gets the most votes represents their area. However, it is necessary to examine simplicity against other electoral systems, as a system can’t be universally simple, it must be simple compared to others. STV, assuming voters don’t need to know the mathematical basis of the system, is also simple - voters only need to rank candidates in order of how much they like them. AMS is also simple - it’s merely FPTP with an indication of the voter’s preferred party. Closed list PR is simple - voters vote for a party instead of a candidate. The argument that FPTP is unique in its simplicity on the voter’s end is simply not true. Hence, with the combination of tactical voting, and the lack of increased simplicity, it is here clearly suggested that the UK should abandon FPTP.

In conclusion, FPTP is disproportionate, stable governments are not inherently better than coalitions, safe seats undermine intra-party competition and local ties, and tactical voting distorts the elecorate’s freedom of political choice. The UK should absolutely abandon FPTP in favour of a more proportional and representative system.

Question 27

Why has FPTP survived for Westminster elections?

Answer 27

First past the post has survived largely because the outcomes it produces usually suit the interests of the two largest parties, who have largely monopolised government since 1945. The Labour Party offered a referendum on FPTP before the 1997 general election, but had no incentive to deliver this after winning a large independent majority under the existing system. The coalition offered a referendum on AV after taking office in 2010 because this was a key demand of the Liberal Democrats when they agreed to participate in the government. Voters accept FPTP because it is familiar and easy to use, and there is little desire to change it for an untried system that may bring problems of its own. The outcome of the May 2011 referendum demonstrated the lack of popular support for change. The other systems discussed in this chapter were chosen by the Blair government when it established new institutions in the different parts of the UK. In each case different reasons applied.

Question 28

Why was AMS adopted for Scottish and Welsh devolved elections and for the Greater London Assembly?

Answer 28

AMS was the price that Labour paid for winning acceptance of its devolution plans from the other political parties. The Liberal Democrats and SNP would have preferred STV for the Scottish. Parliament as they expected that Labour would sweep the board under a less proportional system. AMS was chosen as a compromise that would result in a broadly representative Parliament, but without involving such a radical change as STV. It pacified the other parties by providing an element of proportionality but was also acceptable to Labour because it retained local representation (a feature of FPTP). Labour expected that AMS would enable it to play a part in government in Scotland and in this, at least until the SNP victory in 2007, it proved to be correct. After AMS had been agreed on for Scotland it was decided to use the same system for Wales, where support for devolution was much weaker. AMS was adopted for the Greater London Assembly because it had already been selected for Scotland and Wales. It would broadly reflect the views of the population of the capital while retaining an element of geographical representation.

Question 29

Why was STV adopted for the Northern Ireland Assembly?

Answer 29

STV was chosen for Northern Ireland after the 1998 Good Friday Agreement because it is a highly proportional system, likely to ensure the broadest possible representation of different parties. In view of the background of conflict between unionist and nationalist communities in Northern Ireland, it was important to avoid single-party domination, which could have derailed the fragile peace process. The use of STV ensures that governments are power-sharing bodies drawn from both sides of the divide. Another reason is that STV was already used in the Republic of Ireland. It had also been used for short periods when a previous Northern Ireland parliament had been in existence, between the 1920s and 1970s, and so had roots in the province.

Question 30

Why was SV used to choose elected mayors?

Answer 30

Both SV and AV were considered as possibilities when the Labour government was deciding which method to use for choosing the London Mayor — and thus the mayor for other cities. SV was chosen partly because it was simpler to use. It was also preferred because only the top two candidates, after first preferences had been counted, would make it through to the final round. This meant that candidates with little positive support would be less likely to win merely because they were a ‘lowest common denominator’ second or third choice. In this way the winner would have a clear mandate

Question 31

Define referendums

Answer 31

A referendum is a popular vote on a single issue.

Question 32

Outline Referendums being in the Used in the UK and their impact on UK political life

Answer 32

They are used to decide on a particular policy proposal, often of constitutional significance. They differ from elections- an election fills an office (so does not directly affect policy), whereas referendums do directly affect policy. Referendums are an example of direct democracy, whereas elections are a form of representative democracy. Referendums can be advisory (where the government does not have to implement the result), or binding (where the government is compelled to enact the result).

Before 1997, referendums were rarely used in the UK, due to concerns over the conflict with the principle of parliamentary democracy. Since __1973 __there have been eleven referendums held in the UK, the majority of them have been related to the issue of devolution. The first UK-wide referendum was held in __1975 __on the United Kingdom’s continued membership of the European Community (European Union).

Question 33

Outline the key referendums since 1997

Answer 33

1. 11 September 1997: Scotland – Scottish devolution referendums on whether there should be a Scottish Parliament and whether the Scottish Parliament should have tax varying powers (both referendums received a yes vote of 74% and 64% respectively. Turnout 60%)
2. 18 September 1997: Wales – Welsh devolution referendum on whether there should be a National Assembly for Wales (yes- 50%. Turnout 50%)
3. 7 May 1998: London – Greater London Authority referendum on whether there should be a Mayor of London and Greater London Authority (yes- 72%. Turnout 34%
4. 22 May 1998: Northern Ireland – Northern Ireland Belfast Agreement referendum on the Good Friday Agreement, and establishing a Northern Ireland Assembly (yes- 72%. Turnout 80%)
5. 3 March 2011: Wales - Welsh devolution referendum on whether the National Assembly for Wales should gain the power to legislate on a wider range of matters (yes- 63%. Turnout 35%)
6. 5 May 2011: UK – referendum on whether to change the voting system for electing MPs to the House of Commons from first past the post to the alternative vote (no- 68%. Turnout 42%)
7. 18 September 2014: Scotland – referendum on whether Scotland should become an independent country (no- 55%. Turnout 85%).
8. 23 June 2016: UK – referendum on whether the UK should remain a member of the European Union, or leave the European Union (leave- 52%. Turnout 72%)

Question 34

Impact of Referendums

Answer 34

The increasing use of referendums in the UK has created a convention that they should be used for major constitutional change or a change to the way in which the UK is governed. Their increasing use (or at least proposal) was also partly due to the participation of the Liberal Democrats in the coalition government, the Lib Dems being the party most committed not only to constitutional reform but also the use of referendums in general.

The results of referendums have had major consequences. This is unsurprising, as they tend to be on significant issues. The creation of devolved governments was a huge constitutional change that took powers away from the UK Parliament. Although it was thought that this would stem the rising tide of nationalism, in fact, it strengthened the support and influence of the Scottish National Party, whose 2011 election win paved the way for the 2014 independence referendum. Despite the result, the SNP has become even stronger electorally, culminating in the winning of 56 seats in the 2015 election. The EU referendum result led to the resignation of the Prime Minister David Cameron, the election of Theresa May as Conservative leader, and the instillation of, in effect, a new government. The parties’ stances on Brexit have also had electoral consequences, not least the weakening of Labour’s traditional working class support in some areas.

Question 35

Arguments for Referendums

Answer 35

Referendums involve the people directly in decision-making on important issues which can be seen as coming close to the ideal of democracy- i.e. government ‘by the people.’ Referendums give the people the opportunity to exercise choice without having it modified or frustrated by politicians who think they know best. This is a popular idea when trust in politicians is low or when the legitimacy of institutions is in doubt.

They also proved the opportunity for a focussed decision. In a general election the people are expressing a view on a great many policy matters. The virtue of a referendum is that it enables a single issue to be isolated, so that an unambiguous popular verdict can be given. In any case some issues, such as the UK’s membership of the EU, cut across party lines, with pro- and anti-EU politicians to be found in both major political parties, so a real choice cannot be given in a general election.

Referendums are a check on what the Conservative politician, Lord Hailsham, famously called the UK’s ‘elective dictatorship’: the idea that executive dominance of the House of Commons gives it undue power, over which the electorate has control only once every five years. The holding of referendums between general elections gives the people an opportunity to have their say more frequently, and prevents the government from becoming remote and unaccountable.

A referendum can ‘settle and issue by demonstrating clear public support for something that was causing division.. The demonstration of support for the Scottish Parliament, and for the Northern Ireland peace process, has helped bring stability to the new institutions created in these parts of the UK.

In the absence of an entrenched constitution, referendums can entrench reforms and protect them from being easily changed by a new government without another referendum. Transfers of power to the Welsh Assembly were approved by a referendum which also ensured their permanence.

Referendums raise voters’ political awareness. The Scottish referendum in September 2014, for example, has been praised for giving an opportunity to air a wide range of issues related to independence. These included the likely impact of independence on the economy, the future of the nuclear deterrent based on the River Clyde, and Scotland’s relationship with the EU. All of these topics were thoroughly debated during the campaign.

The conduct of referendums has been subject to independent supervision by the Electoral Commission since 2000. This reduces the chances that the result will be skewed as a result of unfair influence, since the expenditure of the competing sides is limited, and the wording of the referendum question is subject to review by an independent body.

Question 36

Arguments against referendums

Answer 36

Referendums undermine parliamentary sovereignty. Voters elect representatives to take difficult decisions on their behalf and more importantly to resist popular pressure for decision which they consider harmful. A majority of MPs including the PM and leaders of all the parties in Parliament, plus a majority of lading academics, economist and business leaders as well as union leaders believed that Britain should stay in the UK. Ordinary people lack the expertise to make decisions on complex questions.

If the arguments are not explained clearly to the public, popular participation may be low. This was a factor in the low turnout in the 2011 referendum on electoral reform. After the 2016 EU vote, the Electoral Commission reported that the arguments used by the leaders of both campaigns included a degree of distortion, and that there should be greater regulation of referendum campaigns to ensure that people receive a fair presentation of the arguments

Governments use referendums when it suits them and when they think they will win. Blair and Brown denied the electorate a say on the Lisbon Treaty of 2007, which extended the process of European integration, because previous governments had not held popular votes on treaties. This caused outrage among the opposition, who maintained that voters had been denied a chance to vote on an agreement that transferred significant authority to the EU. In addition, governments sometimes hold referendums for their political purposes - to defuse opposition, 1975 Referendum UK to overcome their differences. There is an argument for greater regulation of the circumstances in which a referendum can be triggered.

Referendums tend to have low turnouts, the Scottish independence referendum in 2014. was an exception. Low turnouts limit the legitimacy of the decision. Turnout in the 1997 Welsh devolution vote, for example, was barely above 50 percent, which cast a shadow over the new Assembly for some time.

Voters in referendums can be influenced by factors such as the popularity of the current government or fears of immigration. They can be a way of registering a protest against the government of the day. For example, the defeat of the Alternative Vote proposal in the 2011 referendum was affected by the unpopularity of the Liberal Democrats

Question 37

Give some examples that can be used in electoral systems

Answer 37

In 2019, only 30% of votes cast had an effect because of votes for parties in constituencies where that party didn’t win or because of surplus votes in a constituency for a party that won. (Can double as a question on democracy!)

In 2019, the Conservatives needed under 40k votes per seat while the Greens needed over 800k per seat.

There have only been 3 hung parliaments since WW2.

Question 38

Give a recent example of FPTP

Answer 38

FPTP keeping out extremist parties: In 2010, the BNP won 1.9% of the vote, which would translate to 12 seats if a proportional system was used. Under FPTP, they got no seats in Westminster.

Sadiq Khan won the mayoral election for a third consecutive term in 2024, with 43.8% of the vote - the highest majority so far

Question 39

Give an recent example of AMS

Answer 39

AMS: In the 2011 Scottish Parliament elections, Labour won almost half of the constituency seats with just 32% of the vote. This was then corrected by the closed party list and they ended up with 29% of the seats.

Question 40

Give an recent example of SV

Answer 40

SV: Only in 2016 has a London mayor won more than 50% of the total ballots (Sadiq Khan).

As of May 2024, the Conservatives are at 344 seats (11 by-election defeats, the suspension of the whip from three MPs accused of sexual misconduct, suspension of the whip from Matt Hancock