Electoral Systems Flashcards
Evaluate the view that AMS has improved democracy in the UK 1
It addresses one of the major issues of First Past the Post as it increases representative proportionality, with the percentage of votes for a party roughly equal to the percentage of seats gained.
E.g. For example, in the 2016 Scottish Parliament election which used AMS, the SNP got 47% of the vote and gained 49% of the seats, which is rather proportional. In contrast, in the 2017 Westminster election, which uses FPTP, there was less proportionality with the Conservatives polling 42% of the vote, but gaining a staggering 49% of seats.
Evaluate the view that AMS has improved democracy in the UK 2
Under AMS, smaller parties have a greater chance of gaining seats in Parliament, therefore more voices are heard, subsequently representing more views.
E.g. In 2016, 5 Lib-Dem MSPs and 6 Green MSPs were elected into the Scottish Parliament.
Scottish Socialist MSPs have also gained representation in the past.
Under FPTP, these parties would stand a much less chance of being heard in Scotland.
Evaluate the view that AMS has improved democracy in the UK 1 (Evaluation)
It creates less voter choice due to the smaller choice of candidates. In the Scottish elections, the second vote is for a party rather than a candidate. So the eventual MSPs are chosen by the parties, not by the voter.
This allows parties to punish their own potential candidates if they step out of line with the party which is arguably unfair.
E.g. Margo MacDonald was an SNP MSP, but after falling out with the party, she was placed 6th on the SNP list for the Lothian region meaning that there was little prospect of her becoming an MSP for the SNP again.
Evaluate the view that AMS has improved democracy in the UK 2 (Evaluation)
A major criticism of AMS is that it heightens the chances of extremist parties such as the BNP gaining representation in Parliament.
E.g. In 2011, the BNP gained 2,500 votes in the Glasgow region. Although this was not enough to gain an MSP, they have a much better chance of gaining an MSP this way than under a FPTP system where only one party can win the seat for a constituency.
Evaluate the view that STV has improved democracy in the UK 1
STV creates coalitions or councils with no overall control, which can be interpreted as an advantage. STV means that it is harder for one party to dominate a local authority, and so increases the likelihood that 2 or more parties will be forced to coalesce. This also means that authority doesn’t rest with a single party in overall control, and so compromise is a necessity.
E.g. Before STV was used in local government elections, councils across Scotland were dominated by Labour. However, the introduction of STV meant that more parties were represented, and so actually had a say in Scotland’s 32 local authorities, which is arguably more democratic.
Evaluate the view that STV has improved democracy in the UK 2
Under STV, each ward has 3-4 councillors, meaning that residents in these wards have a choice about who to contact with concerns. This means that there are greater points of political access for residents to seek a response to their issues.
E.g. In Glasgow East Centre, an SNP supporter might be more likely to approach the SNP councillor in the ward, Anette Christie, rather than one of the Labour candidates in the area. So, using STV means that people have option.
Evaluate the view that STV has improved democracy in the UK 1 (Evaluation)
STV has also led to a lack of cooperation at local authority level as it had made it harder for councils to agree on policies and take a course of action.
E.g. After the 2017 election, 29 of Scotland’s 32 local authorities had no party in overall control (NOC) and are run as minority/coalition councils.
This can be particularly difficult when the coalition is composed of rival parties like Labour and Conservatives such as in East Lothian and Stirling.
Evaluate the view that STV has improved democracy in the UK 2 (Evaluation)
The fact that each Scottish ward has 3-4 councillors means that people may be confused as to who to approach with their issues.
E.g. Glasgow Shettleston ward has 4 councillors – 2 SNP, 1 Conservative and 1 Labour. Hence, this is arguably too many representatives as who would residents contact with concerns about their area.
Evaluate the view that SV has improved democracy in the UK
SV means that politicians require a wider base of support than First Past the Post.
The winning candidate need not win the first ballot, nor will they often have an initial majority of over 50%, but they will need at least some support from across the spectrum to then win the election following the addition of second preference ballots.
Evaluate the view that SV has improved democracy in the UK (Evaluation)
As with the simple plurality system, SV does quickly reduce a potentially large field of candidates down to a choice between two parties; first ballot votes cast for small parties are significant only for the second preferences attached to them and this is a disincentive to voters.
Turnout in the London mayoral elections has always fallen significantly below that of UK General Elections: 45.3% in 2016 matched the turnout in 2008, when Boris Johnson stood for the first time, but the three remaining London elections (2000, 2004 & 2012) saw turnout range between 34.4% and 38.1%.
Evaluate the view that FPTP is no longer suitable for UK general elections (wasted votes)
FPTP is regarded as a “vote-wasting machine”
In the 2017 General election, over 22-million votes (68%) were wasted and, remarkably, in 5 constituencies, over 90% of votes were wasted.
Under FPTP, all votes for losing candidates are effectively wasted and a party that came second in every single constituency would win millions of votes, but not a single seat. As a result, in 2017, over 14 million votes (44.12%) were wasted on losing candidates.
Equally, all surplus votes, that winning candidates did not need, are also wasted because they did not help the party win more seats.
Evaluate the view that FPTP is no longer suitable for UK general elections (wasted votes) Evaluation
This does not seem to have had a detrimental effect on turnout for the 2017 General election as it had actually increased to 68.8%, up from 66.3% in 2015, the highest General election turnout since 1997.
Evaluate the view that FPTP is no longer suitable for UK general elections (proportionality)
Heavily lacks representative proportionality
The 2015 general election was regarded by the Electoral Reform Society as the “most disproportionate in British history”.
The research shows that, using the D’Hondt method for converting votes to seats in a list-based PR system, UKIP could’ve won as many as 80 MPs and the Greens 20, receiving 3.9 million votes and 1.2 million votes respectively (though ending up with 1 MP each).
Evaluate the view that FPTP is no longer suitable for UK general elections (proportionality) Evaluation
Supporters of FPTP often argue that, while the system certainly produces a disproportionate result, it is a price worth paying if it results in a strong and stable government.
The nature of FPTP system means that it tends to lead to strong majority governments; this means that one party has overall control and so can govern without having to “water-down” its policies to gain the support from the other parties.
E.g. From 1997-2010 (13-years), the Labour Party had a majority in Parliament and so was able to introduce various policies with little possibility of them being voted down (Minimum Wage, Tuition Fees etc.). Given that they had over half of the seats in Parliament, they did not require the support of other parties.
Evaluate the view that FPTP is no longer suitable for UK general elections (proportionality) Counter-evaluation
The 2017 general election resulted in May having a weak minority government, which, having negotiated a confidence and supply deal, is supported by the 10-seats of the DUP. Also, 2-years previously, there was the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition from 2010-2015.
