Electoral Systems

Question 1

Electoral Systems Structure

Answer 1

Introduction
Mandate to govern
Direct Link
Bad
Conclusion

Question 2

Electoral Systems Introduction

Answer 2

• The purpose of elections is to give consent from voters to the winning candidate and to give legitimacy to the winning party and to create stable governments.
• Traditionally create majority governments, with all general elections from 1979-2005 were majority governments.
• There are concerns over turnout and the system being unfair, not representing peoples’ opinions
• Eg in 2015, the Conservatives were able to gain a majority of 51% of the seats with only 37% of the votes

Question 3

Strong mandate to govern

Answer 3

K- Gives the government a strong mandate to govern.
- Can deliver on election promises unlike coalition
governments which have to water down policies to
agree.
- For example, Conservatives held 2016 EU referendum
after promising to do this in 2015 election and securing
majority.

An- Impact is that it makes the governments highly
accountable.
- There is no passing blame for mistakes or taking
credit for successful policies, unlike in coalition
governments.
- For example, the British public and are judging
Theresa May and her government right now on their
delivering of Brexit. They know she is responsible.

K- Furthermore, the opposition party acts as a
government in waiting, with a shadow cabinet and
constantly holding the government to account.
- For example, Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the
opposition tabled a motion of no confidence in
Theresa May in January 2019 after she delayed her
Brexit vote to put pressure on the PM.

An- The impact of this is that voters are allowed a chance
to judge the opposition party and decide whether or
not they will make a better government in 2022.
- Voters are currently judging whether Jeremy Corbyn
makes a better leader than Theresa May.

Ev - Therefore, FPTP is fit for purpose as it allows the government the ability to efficiently deliver policies and allows the public to effectively judge who to vote for.

Question 4

Not always stable

Answer 4

K- However, FPTP may not be delivering stable
governments anymore.
- For example, 2 out of the 3 past general elections have
produced minority governments.

An- The impact of this is that it makes governments very
inefficient.
- For example, the current Conservative minority
government have found it extremely difficult to
secure a deal for Brexit in the past 2 years and as a
result, Brexit has had to be further delayed to 31
October.

Ev - Therefore, FPTP may not be fit for purpose anymore as the behaviour of voters is becoming much more volatile and less predictable.

Question 5

Strong link

Answer 5

K- FPTP simplifies the system as it only produces one
representative from each constituency.
- This creates a strong link between the representatives
and constituents.
- This is unlike PR systems such as Additional Member
System for SP elections which can elect up to 8
representatives for an area.

An- The impact is that constituents know exactly who to
contact if they have a problem.
- For example, Airdrie and Shotts constituents know
clearly that their MP is Neil Gray.
- Furthermore, the quality of representation will also be
higher as in FPTP, each party can only put forward
one candidate per constituency, so will put their most
qualified candidate.

Ev- Therefore, FPTP is fit for purpose as it makes the system much simpler, which would encourage more people to vote and make UK more democratic.

Question 6

Unfair

Answer 6

K- However, FPTP is very unfair on voters as it favours
larger parties, exaggerating their popularity.
- For example, in 2005, Labour secured majority
government with 55% of the seats but only 35% of the
votes.

An- This results in majority governments that more people
voted against, not representing their opinion.
- Because winning candidates only need one more
vote than second place, even if no majority.
- For example, in Airdrie and Shotts, Neil Gray only won
by 200 votes with no majority. He gained 100%
representation even though most voted for others.

K- Also under represents smaller parties
- Because it favours parties with concentrated support
- For example, UKIP had widespread support across the
country gaining 4 million votes in 2017 but only 1 seat.
- In comparison, on average Conservatives only needed
32000 to gain 1 seat, less than 1% of what UKIP did.

An- Causing voters to vote tactically as they don’t want to
waste vote.
- Smaller parties are also not standing candidates in
certain constituencies because safe seats, leaving
less choice for voters.

Ev- Therefore FPTP is neither democratic, nor represents voters

Question 7

Electoral systems Conclusion

Answer 7

• Depends on whats expected
• If to simplify system, then yes
• May be the opinion of those who voted no in electoral reform referendum.
• No longer gives consent, gives legitimacy or maintains public stability
• Not fit, undemocratic