electoral systems - FPTP Flashcards
1
Q
significance of election
A
- farrel: cogs which keep the wheels of democracy properly functioning
- elections choose representatives for the democratic process
2
Q
types of electoral models
A
- delegate model in the US
- trustee model in the UK
- consituency rep in the UK
- party representation
- descriptive/functional representation –> works well in NI but not in America due to jerry manning for a majority
3
Q
jack straw 4 criterion to examine the most appropriate way of electing MPS
A
- broad proportionality –> popular vote = parl makeup
- stable government –> coalitions lead to slow decision making
- extension of voter choice –> reasonable choices
- maintenance of a link between geographical constituencies – part of british culture (depends on each country)
4
Q
2 general types of electoral systems
A
- majoritarian: more than 50% of the vote (plurality systems; encourage an aggregate of voters and associated with 2 party systems)
- proportional: combining pr and fptp (mixed systems)
5
Q
single member plurality systems
A
- a geographical area elects one representative to the commons –> single member constituency
- only 34% of parl mps had an outright majority in their constituencies in 2005 –> winners bonus (35% PV vs 55% Mps)
6
Q
what would have happened in the 2010, 2015 and 2019 elections if PR was used instead of FPTP
A
2010:
- with FPTP con got 307, lab got 258 and LD got 57
- with PR con got 234, lab got 188 and LD got 150
- therefore lab and LD would have formed a coalition, and brexit probably wouldnt have happened
2015:
- with FPTP con got 331, lab got 232, LD got 8, SNP got 56 and UKIP vgot 1
- with PR con got 307, lab got 195, LD got 51, SNP got 30, and UKIP got 82
- con and ukip could have made a coalition and brexit could have occured
- the SNP are overepresented in parl due to their consituencies concentrated in scotland
2019:
- con 365 with fptp but with PR = 279
- johnson would have not had his big majority to push brexit
7
Q
problems with FPTP at elections
A
- con and lab are overepresented historically (not lab in 201 and 2019)
- lib dems are always underepped (26 years)
- overepresented SNP due to constituencies
- UKIP underepped
8
Q
popular vote vs seats in elections
A
- 1945: 48% voted for labour, 392, closest to pop vote majority
- 1951: labour 295 (46%) and con 321 (43%) –> labour won the popular vote but had less seats
- winners bonus: 1997 Blair 43% PV and 418 seats, 2005 PV 35% and 55% of the seats blair, 2015 C 36.8% and 331 seats, 2019 C 43.6% and 365 seats
9
Q
wasted votes in FPTP
A
- votes that did not vote for the party with the largest amount of votes in a const are wasted
- votes past 51% in a safe seat are wasted as they are not needed anymore to win –> no extra
10
Q
2015 problems with votes (disproportionate)
A
- UKIP needed 4 million votes to gain one seat as its support is spread throughout the country
- labour seats are typically in working class areas, which have low turnout due to geographical trends
- labour lost maj of seats in scotland (SNP got 56/59 in scotland)
- tories gain was concentrated in lib dem seats (26)
11
Q
advantages of FPTP
A
- Immediacy – we know who wins start away
- Usually provides strong, stable government (avoids hung parliaments) –> avoids coalitions like 2010, differences in opinion (AV ref, then British Bill of rights, LD rejected what could have benefitted C in the next election)
- Broadly reflects popular opinion –> Parties such as the British National Party (BNP) have so far failed to secure a seat in general elections because they lack sufficient support concentrated within a single constituency. Therefore, the unfair results of FPTP can help prevent extremists from winning.
- A decisive 67.9% of participants in the 2011 referendum on the Alternative Vote voted
against the change from FPTP to AV. - Easily understood –> lack of invalid ballot papers: 2007 Scottish Parliament Elections, which uses the Additional Member System. In this election there were over 140,000 ballot papers (3.5%) which could not be counted because they were incorrectly completed. By contrast, in the 2010 general election, using FPTP, only
0.18% of votes in Scotland were invalid. - Constituency link–> each constituency has a single MP who represents their interests, however, under some proportional systems, such as the Party List system, the link is lost as the party draws up the list, ordered in terms of priority, of
candidates who could receive a seat. As the system uses much larger regional constituencies, the responsibility of a particular MP to represent a particular group of constituents is broken. - can hold gov accountable –>
Many voters who were unhappy with UK’s involvement in the Iraq
War knew that the Labour government was to be held accountable and could vote accordingly. vs coalition 2010
turnout is low for other election models —> levels are often significantly lower than levels for general elections.
- The Party List system is used for the European Parliament election, but turnout was just 34.5% in 2009. - The Additional Member System (AMS) is used for the
= Scottish Parliament, election but turnout was 50.4% in the constituency vote and 51.1% in the regional vote in 2011.
12
Q
disadvantages of FPTP
A
- Is not representative
- Largest parties are over represented
- “Minority governments”
- Smaller parties are under-represented
- Many MPs are “minority” MPs in margin seats
- “Winners bonus” –> In the 2005 general election, Labour 55% seats and 35% popular vote. This was the lowest share of the popular vote that a winning party had ever received. In that same
election, the Liberal Democrats received just 62 seats with 22.1% of the popular vote. –> support spread out instead of concentrated in constituencies - the UK Independence Party have
not won a single seat in the House of Commons, they won 13 seats in the 2009 European Parliament elections, the same as the Labour Party. This is partly due to the fact that these elections use the Party List electoral system, in which the electorate votes in a large region leading to a very proportional outcome - wasted votes –> it is difficult for voters in safe seats to ‘hold government to account’ because the outcome of their constituency vote is predictable and third parties have little chance of winning a seat, let alone enough to form a government; may feel compelled to vote tactically, and this could require voting for the very party that you would like to ‘hold to account’ because you do not want the likely alternative winner to succeed. –> many people unhappy with labours actions in iraq war lived in safe seats
13
Q
assessing FPTP –> advantages
A
- avoids hung parliaments: 2015 election, labour and SNP coalition avoided (party with the plurality of votes received a majority of seats
- 2010 was the only time a gov was elected without a clear maj since 1979
- new stable government is formed quickly, most popular party empowered, minority parties excluded from office, doctrine of mandate was reactivated, centrality of manifestos, accountability enhanced (clear which party is to blame for gov record)
- Although the results may not be
proportional, FPTP mostly delivers a clear winner and this is vital for the government to have a mandate to enact important changes without the risk of collapse through weak support midway through their term. - accommodates greater public interest –> argued that more complex electoral systems discourage remotivated voters (british elections of other systems never exceed 55% turnout; turnout in scotland soared to 71% when traditionally it is below average, and battlegrounds like Bath saw t of over 75%)
- personalised voting: voters can judge for candidates; green party brighton pavillion caroline lucas
14
Q
assessing FPTP –> weaknesses
A
- unrepresentative government: can lead to a minority support single party gov (2015 37% vote tory win, when labour lost with that figure in 1979) –> only won with 25% of electorate support, 13% in scotland (democracy?? without a sufficient mandate)
- the Labour Party won the general election in 2005 they did so with just 35.3% of the vote in an election
which had a turnout of just 61.3%. –> 22% of the electorate - questionable mandate to pursue their manifesto. As a result, a number of
- Conservative and Liberal Democrat Peers in the House of Lords felt justified opposing Labour’s Identity Cards Act (2006) even though it was included in their 2005 election manifesto, as they felt that the party did not have a
sufficient mandate. - unrepresentative parl: ukip 3.8 million votes for 1 seat in 2015, but 66 Scottish votes –> 50% of votes and 95% of seats (overep)
- illegitimate MPS: most are not elected with a majority –> albert owen ynys mon 31% of the vote
- not diverse –> women 29% POC 6% but not representative –> britains MEPs are more rep (40%) so systems like party list are truly diverse due to positive discrimination
- poor participation –> scotland 2015 66%, lower than 1918-2001, the bulk of voters are not in marginal seats and have a lower incentive to vote; low turnout in safe seats –> manchester central 2015 reg a turnout of 46%
15
Q
does FPTP produce a stable gov
A
- Simple, quick and easily understood
- 2011 AV referendum
- 2 minority and 1 Coalition since 1945
- Majority government because of “winners bonus”
- BUT – no government since 1945 has had 50% popular vote so minority government
- Single party rule 79 – 97, 97 – 10, 10 - 20
- Coalitions can be stable
