Extra's from electoral systems Flashcards
The main functions and importance of elections
Choose representatives (legislators)
Most important form of political participation - the only form for many
Hold govt and reps to account. During the campaign candidates must justify what they are their party have done
Educative function - campaigns allow the public to become better informed about the key political issues facing their locality, region or nation
Provide a mandate and democratic legitimacy for the winners and the authority to carry out their manifesto
Democratic aspects of UK elections
Secret ballot
Freedom of info and the media
Relatively little corruption and malpractice is punished by law
Virtually all adults allowed to vote
Election conduct is safeguarded by EC, which is independent
Constituency system ensures clear representation
Anyone can register to stand as an MP and it only requires a £500 deposit
Elections held on a regular basis by law
Vote counting carefully and thoroughly regulated
What is a plurality system
Candidate only requires one more vote than the other candidate to win, no maj needed (FPTP)
Majoritarian system
Used to elect a single candidate, designed to secure an absolute majority for the winning candidate (SV)
Proportional
Attempts to allocate seats in direct proportion to the votes cast, therefore multimember constituencies (STV)
Hybrid
Mixes two types of system, such as plurality and proportional (AMS)
When is SV used in Ireland
By elections
Where does Scotland use STV
Scottish local govt
Define constituency
Geographical area used to determine which people each representative represents
Plurality
Refers to the result of an election where the winner only has to obtain more votes than any of their opponents. Does not mean the winner has an absolute majority
Absolute majority
Refers to the result of a vote where the winner receives more votes than all the other candidates put together (more than half)
What’s wrong with an absolute majority
These are safe seats and so provide little choice
What’s wrong with a plurality
Most constituents did not vote for their rep
How many seats won by an absolute majority in 2019
421
How many won with between 40-50%
207
How many won by less than 40%
22
How many won by an absolute majority in 2015
319
Why was this so negative
Because it meant that most MPs had more people vote against them than vote for them
How many won a seat with less than 40% in 2015
50
How does turnout further undermine democratic legitimacy
Griffith only got 43.5% of the electorate’s vote (down from 58%)
Crowley only receive 29% (down from 42%)
FPTP pros
Voters understand exactly what they are voting for
MPs closely bound to constituency needs
Three key issues with FPTP
Safe seats
Marginal seats
Concentrated support
Seat vote ratio for all the nationalist parties
Positive
Seat to vote ratio for the Brexit party
2% of the vote no seats
Seat to vote ratio for Greens
2.7% of votes 0.2% of seats
Where is conservative support concentrated
South east and rural areas
Labour
Major cities and urban regions, especially in north England, south Wales and London
How many seats did the ERS say were safe in 2019
316
Where are elections said to be won and lost
Marginal seats
How many marginal seats were there in the 2019 GE
141, defined as one where the winner had less than a 10% gap without 2nd
Case for retention
Clear accountability
Promotes strong, stable, decisive govt
Stood the test of time so abandoning it is a dangerous step into the unknown
Switching to a different system could have all sorts of unintended consequences
In elections with complex concerns gives voters the opportunity to choose a candidate based on their attitude to such issues, rather than just according to their party allegiance
Case against
Disproportionate outcome
Wasted votes in safe seats
Marginal seat votes more valuable - Con vote more valuable than a UKIP vote in 2015
In 2005 Labour won a 66 seat maj from only 35% of the pop vote - damaging the legitimacy of govt
What does the variable top up system do in AMS
Parties that do less well in the constituencies have their proportion of list votes adjusted upwards. Those that do well under FPTP have their list votes adjusted downwards, making the results more proportional
What kind of candidates could AMS lead to the election of
Extremeists
SNP stats in other deck are from the 2016 Scottish parliamentary elections
!
Give some statistics to show how proportional the 2017 NI assembly elections were
DUP won 31% of seats from 28% of first preference votes
Sinn Fein 30% from 28%
UUP 11% from 13%
SDLP 13% from 12%
Alliance 9% from 9%
What is SV designed to produce
A winner who can lay claim to the support of the majority
Why is SV unlikely to be used to elect MPs
Little support for this kind of reform, as most reformers prefer PR to SV
How did SV help Khan achieve an absolute maj in 2016
Won 44% of votes from the first round but got a 57% maj after the second round
SV advantages
Winning candidate can claim overall maj
Simple and easy to understand
Voters have opportunity to express support more than just one party
Disadvantages
The winning candidate may be chosen as a second choice candidate
Still probably entrench of promote a two party system
Third parties would be more excluded from winning seats than under FPTP
Compare them in terms of producing a winning candidate
FPTP - Produces a clear winning candidate
STV - Weaker due to multi member constituencies
AMS - has a clear winning candidate but also top up candidates
SV - Even better than FPTP here as it often produces an absolute maj
Securing a mandate
FPTP - Normally produces clear mandate
STV - coalitions
AMS - less likely to secure single party govt, but there is one party dominance in Scotland and Wales and Scotland did have a maj after 2011
SV - Possibly better than FPTP here as it promotes the big two parties
Ease for voters
FPTP - Easy to understand
STV - More complicated and time consuming but generally works
AMS - Mixture of two systems is complicated but has worked where used
SV - Slightly more complicated but not by much and has worked where used
Stops extremeists and small parties
FPTP - Yes
STV - Much more likely smaller or extremist parties gain some representation
AMS - More likely that small parties gain some representation but this is limited
SV - Would make it even harder than FPTP
Proportionality
FPTP - Unproportional
SV - Maybe even more than FPTP
STV - Far more PR
AMS - Tempers the worst effects of dispropotionate FPTP outcomes but does not eliminate completely
Constituency link
FPTP and SV - Strong
STV - Much weaker
AMS - Strong for FPTP part but weaker with the top up seats
What was the Jenkins Commission
Independent investigation into the best form of alternative voting, comissioned in 1997 and run by Rory Jenkins. Reported in 1998, proposing AV+ instead of FPTP, these suggestions were not adopted
What was the only electoral system used before the election of New Labour
FPTP
Why did Labour have a manifesto commitment to electoral reform
After 18 years of conservative domination they wanted to prevent this happening again
Pledged to modernise British democracy and bring it more into line with other European countries
Before the election, there was a concern they may not gain an absolute maj and would need to form a lib-lab coalition, and the Lib Dems favoured electoral reform
How did it get around the fact it no longer wanted to change the westminster electoral system
Sought to introduce alternative systems in the new devolved areas
Why did they want different systems in the devolved areas
They wanted a system that would suit each of their respective contexts
Why was STV therefore chosen for NI
To reflect the fact it is highly divided and that all the different communties should be represented. 5 different parties achieved significant representation after the 1998 Assembly elections
Why is it ironic that the conservatives opposed the change to AMS in Scotland
Because it actually allowed the Scottish cons to begin rebuiling support
Why has AMS only worked to a degree in Wales
Because although it has prevented absolute Labour dominance, Labour is still very much the dominant party
Elections enhance democracy…
Allow the electorate to hold the govt to account. Clear choice between the govt and other parties
Can created representative assemblies in an organised way at regular intervals
Widespread public confidence that elections are well regulated and the outcomes are genuine expressions of the will of voters
Under FPTP, elections normally produce strong and stable majority govts
UK elections provide strong constituency representation so that voters are confident their interests will be represented
Elections do not enhance democracy…
Voters may feel a vote for a smaller party is wasted, so the choice may to be as wide as first appears
Elections can cause social rifts. Partisan tensions during heated elections can lead to personal and vitriolic attack as seen in 2017 and 2019
Danger that too many elections will lead to voter apathy and a decline in turnout, particularly with the excessive number of second order elections
FPTP produces majority govts that are supported by a minority of voters
While elections to devolved assemblies are largely proportional, elections to parliament are not, favouring the large parties and discriminating against the smaller ones
Although voters are choosing from a selection of candidates, they are choosing which party they would like to form the govt. This is probably the most important thing in their minds when voting. This is a problem considering the maj of voters do not get the govt they were looking for
What does Caroline Lucas say about FPTP
Suggests that the type of system influences turnout, thereby undermining democracy as people become disillusioned with the negatives of FPTP
Counter this view
In second order elections where proportional systems are used turnout has not risen. While some safe seats do see lower turnouts, it is not a consistent picture, suggesting there are other more important factors in determining turnout than the electoral system
How would the UK likely change if it adopted PR for westminster elections
Might have to get used to the idea of coalition govt. Might also have to get used to the idea of unstable govt. The coalition govt was mixed. It was stable and lasted 5 years with few major parliementary defeats. However, there was also concern that the Lib Dems did not have enough influence, so govt was still dominated by one party. Some evidence that voters were unhappy with the coalition with some feeling betrayed that the Lib Dems helped the cons into power, helping explain why they only won 8 seats in 2015
Unlikely that any smaller parties would want to join a bigger party in coalition following this. Difficult to judge the real level of support for minor parties considering many people who otherwise would don’t vote for them because they think it will be a wasted vote. This was revealed in 2017 when faced with the big issue of Brexit 82% of voters flocked to the big two, the highest combined vote since 1970. However, the weakness of the subsequent minority govt might indicate how this is an undesirable attitude at times of national crisis
Would make it harder for any party to hold a majority. This would prevent excessively powerful govts. Minority govts or coalitions would have to seek consensus on every issue and democracy would possibly be better served
Could also produce instability, with govts frequently failing and having to be reformed, as occurs in some European states. Without a majority, govts would lose decisiveness and would be unable to carry out their mandate
What would happen if we used SV
With its focus on two party dominantion it would be likely to still produce one party govt, though the big FPTP majorities may become less common. Not inevitable though, as in 2020 Copeland and Middlesborough both elected independent mayors, so it is possible for smaller candidates to win seats, even though how far this would occur is unclear
What is pluralism
The idea of many groups competing for influence
How has the party system developed in recent years
General trend of a decline in support for the big two and a rise in support for smaller parties like Reform, the Greens and the SNP. We could ask whether the UK political system is now pluralistic, with voters seeking parties that are more focused on their particular concerns. If this is the case the two party system is doomed regardless of the electoral system. However, voters many ultimately shrink from the multi party system and return to the big 2 as in 2017
What would introducing a more proportional system do for the party system
Bring about a multi party system. Smaller parties like the Lib Dems, Greens and Plaid would win more seats while big parties like the Cons, Labour and the SNP would win less seats. For some this is desirable as it would provide a pluralist, more representative result and mean that voters are better represented. On the other hand, it might provide an opening for extremeist parties and create a chaotic political system with too many competing parties
What would SV do to the party system
As a majoritarian system it would further entrench two party dominance and the SNP’s dominance in Scotland. Alternative parties may gain more votes but it would be hard to translate these votes into seats
How does FPTP limit voter choice
Voters often forced to vote for one of the big 2 as any other vote would be wasted
Sometimes forced to vote tactically, opting for a less preferred choice to influence the outcome
Explain the debate between PR and STV
Under a PR system nearly every vote counts and nearly every vote is of equal value and the need to tactically vote is reduced. Voters can even discriminate between candidates of the same party. However, we need to ask whether voters want more choice, especially when more choice leads to less stable govt. Critics say PR systems are difficult to understand. Loss of MP constituency bond would be a blow to democracy. Therefore public desire for reform may be limited (68% opposed AV)
The supporters of PR see the debate as between democracy versus elective dictatorship and equality v discrimination. FPTP supporters see the issue in terms of order v chaos and strong v weak govt.
SV would give voters greater choice in their first preference and ensure more votes counted in the result but would still entrench a two party system
Why is it difficult to know how voters feel about electoral reform
The major parties rarely refer to it and it appears to be low down the list of voter priorities at elections
What is the AV
Majoritarian system that uses preferential voting, with the candidates with the fewest votes being eliminated until one candidate gains an absolute maj. Used in Australia and for Labour Party leadership elections. Used for by elections in STV systems and is unlikely to be considered in the future
The result of the 2011 referendum should not be taken to indicate that public opinion is opposed to reform. Several reasons voters rejected that were unrelated to their desire for change…
Proposed by the Lib Dems who were unpopular at the time so the vote may have been more of a expression of dissatisfaction at them
AV is complex and so voters may have rejected because they did not understand it
Pro reform campaign was poorly run while the anti reform campaign was well funded and organised
Before when were referendums largely unknown in the UK political system
1975
Why did an attempt to hold one in NI in 1973 fail
Half the community boycotted it
What did 1979 referendums do
Determine whether of not Scotland and Wales should become devolved
When did the use of them become commonplace
1997 - after the election of New Labour
What have referendums been used to do since then
Establish constitutional reforms, promote democracy and test public opinion
When was the 2nd national referendum
2011
Few of the New Labour referendums were controversial or a source for major concern. How has this changed since 2011
Two hugely significant ones have been held that have a profound impact on UK govt and politics
Why was the Brexit referendum different to normal referendums
Because instead of being asked to choose between yes and no they were asked to choose between leave and remain
Why can referendums only ever be an advisory means of testing public opinion
Because PS means only parliament can only ever enact constitutional reform
Give some statistics to show how elections hold popular/democratic sovereignty
Despite 80% of MPs supporting remaining, 77% voted to trigger article 50 to leave the EU. Even though there was no clear Brexit plan, politicians felt the will of the people had to be respected, even though legally it did not have to respect their opinion
Why was a Scottish ref held in 1997
Should additional powers he devolved to Scotland and a Scottish parliament be established
Result
74-26
Turnout
60%
Why was a Welsh ref held in 1997
Should additional powers be devolved to Wales and a Welsh assembly set up
Result
50.3-49.7
Turnout
50%
Why were these two refs held
Fundamental change in the system of govt needed popular consent
Why was a 1998 ref held
Should the GFA be implemented
Result
71-29
Turnout
81%
Why held
Required support across the whole divided community
Why in 2004
Should additional powers be devolved to northeast england and a regional assembly established
Why held
Fundamental change in system of govt needed popular consent
Result
22-78
Turnout
48%
Why in 2011 Wales
Should further powers be devolved to Welsh Assembly
Result
64-37
Turnout
36%
Why held
Fundamental change in govt required popular consent
Why held on AV
Coalition divided on electoral reform
Result
32-68
Turnout
42%
Ref regulations
In national and regional ones, there is an official recognition of bodies that campaign on either side of the debate. Expenditure regulated to ensure both sides spend relatively equal funds, this is done by the EC. They also work to ensure both sides do not issue false info and organises the counting of votes
What is the crucial similarity between elections and refs
Both grant legitimacy. Elections mean winners can claim a mandate for their policies; through refs the electorate directly grants their authority to govt to do something
What are the two reasons that govts should never call a referendum unless they are confident about what the result should be
Normally used as consent to introduce policies they want to introduce. A good example was the New Labour policy of devolution having to be enshrined through popular consent. The govt was confident it would win the three votes
If the govt supports a side it will be in a difficult position if it loses. It is a severe blow to its authority. Cameron resigned. Led to a complete change in the govt stance on Europe and many ministers lost their positions or resigned
Impact of indyref
The result was what the govt had wanted. Had a major impact on the politics of devolution. The closeness of the outcome gave a huge boost to the SNP. As the outcome was thrown into doubt the big three were all forced to promise Scotland greater powers for its govt and parliament. The govt won the vote but it was too close for comfort. Did not result in independence but did shift power towards Edinburgh. The fact that 62% of Scots voted to remain caused further issues, therefore being dragged out of the EU against their expressed will. Calls for indyref to so Scots can choose whether or not to be part of the EU
Give another example of a ref having a political impact despite not achieving its aims
Can removed policies from the immediate political agenda, as occured on electoral reform in 2011
How did Brexit change public attitude towards refs
Until recently public opinion seemed to be in favour, especially after indyref. Deemed a success because it involved the vast maj or Scots and the result was emphatic enough to settle the issue for some time to come. Brexit ref shocked the political establishment and was totally unexpected in light of opinion polls, demonstrating how divided UK society had become
It did settle the issue, the UK had to leave the EU, but it also led to fears that the substantial minority who had voted to remain were being ignored and marginalised. Many commentators suspected that many of those who voted to leave were not voting on the issue of the EU itself but on the broader concern their voices were not being heard by Westminster. Revealed many of the concerns that people have expressed about refs. The winning side had a different perspective. Successful exercise in popular democracy. Conventional politics had been defeated by the will of the majority. In this exciting moment people had created history. Following the controversies of 2016 and the depth of division it caused future govts will be very wary about calling refs
Refs should be used to settle political issues
Purest form of democracy, uncorrupted by filter or representative democracy. Demonstrate the will of the people, as occured with the Brexit ref
Can mend rifts in society, as occured with the decisive result on GFA
Can solve conflicts within the political system and so stave of a crisis. Especially the case in 1975 and 2016
Particularly useful when the expressed (rather than implied) consent of the people is important, so that the decision will be respected. Very true on the 1997 devolution votes
People arguably more informed than ever now due to internet and social media. More capable of making decisions for themselves rather than relying on elected reps
Refs should not be used to settle political issues
The people may not be able to understand the complexities of an issue such as the consequences of leaving the EU or adopting a new electoral system
Cause social rifts. Occurred after 2014 and 2016
Danger that excessive use could undermine representative democracy. This has been a danger in some US states
Tyranny of the majority. The winning majority can force the minority to accept a change that is against their interests. The Scots claimed they were being tyrannised by the English majority post Brexit ref
Voters may be swayed by rational rather than emotional appeals. Could also be influenced by false info
Some questions cannot be reduced to a simply yes/no answer and are more complicated. In 2011 perhaps several different options should have been considered
How many relevant refs as examples should you use in an essay
4
Are refs a better form of democracy
!
Extension of devolution to Wales, 2011
To combat the issue of assymetrical devolution, all major parties promised to commit further devo to Wales in 2010. Govt developed a set of proposals that would give the Welsh Assembly primary legislative powers and further admin powers. These proposals then put to the people
Gave people a choice that had not previously existed, where they could vote against further devo, and removed the issue of devo from other pressing issues, such as economics following the financial crisis, providing a better form of democracy
The low turnout when compared to the 2010 and 2015 GEs suggests a lack of voter engagement. Result mirrored the outcome of the manifestos of the major parties, suggesting it was neither popular nor necessary
AV ref, 2011
Coalition compromise between the Lib Dem desire for a more proportional system and the desire of the conservative party to avoid this reform.
Allowed the public to voice their opinion on electoral reform that had not been supported to any great degree by the two main parties and that had not been prominent in any election campaign, and gave the opportunity to test public opinion on a major constitutional issue
Low turnout and decisive win for FPTP suggests that electoral reform was not an issue that concerned the electorate and should have been left to MPs to decide. The majority who lacked political engagement and education voted to keep FPTP because they did not understand the proposed change, suggesting refs should not rely on the opinions of a public that is not concerned with the issues involved
Indyref
In 2011 parliamentary elections SNP won an outright majority, giving a mandate on its manifesto pledge for an indyref. Westminster passed an act allowing Holyrood to hold the ref within a year
Turnout higher than in any elections, showing an increase in public participation and engagement. Issue widely and hotly debated, increasing political education and engagement in Scotland, so much so that turnout has increased in subsequent elections. Scots able to determine their own course on a key issue in a way that the relatively small number of Scottish Westminster MPs could not
EU ref 2016
As the result of UKIP gaining support in opinion polls and increasing tensions within the con party, Cameron pledged to hold this ref
Turnout higher than in any GE since 1992. The fact the majority chose to leave while the majority of MPs supported remain suggests they are useful in keeping represenatives in tune with public opinion. The only serious party advocating leave in the 2015 GE (UKIP) won 13% of the vote and this shows that elections are compromises and that clearer more popular choices can be made through refs
The fact that there was no clear plan has led to upheaval and tensions since. A range of complex issues have emerged that suggest that refs are too simple a tool to determine major constitutional issues. Accusations made that the public opinion was manipulated by false campaigning
Advantages of using representative democracy to make key decisions
More likely to be rational rather than emotional. Many voters were concerned about immigration in the EU ref and were responding to appeals to their patriotism and the perceived dangers to British values posed by migrants. MPs could weigh up the benefits as well as the issues caused by large numbers of migrants
MPs have experts to help them make decisions. Can ensure they are basing their judgements on accurate info. Most people rely on the media for their info, at best conflicting and at worst dubious
MPs have to consider competing interests and the concerns of majorities and minorities. Voters usually have to think of their own interests. In indyref voters did not have to consider the impact on the UK as a whole. In the EU ref voters did not need to consider the impact on NI
Expectation that MPs are in a better position to make a reasoned judgement than ordinary people with less knowledge and understanding of complex issues. Judgement and good sense are qualities we consider when we elect them
