FPTP should be replaced with AMS

Question 1

strong stable government v coalition

Answer 1

-under FPTP majorities, such as Blairs 179 seat one in 1997, are produced, a clear benefit to strong and stable government is that manifesto policies can be enacted quickly, UK governments also tend to last which promotes stability
-under AMS, coalitions are produced e.g. 2021 SNP&Greens, this causes politics to become more pluralistic and inclusive with the 2021 coalition both nationalist and environmentalist viewpoints are expressed

Question 2

strong stable government v coalition evaluation

Answer 2

-‘strong stable’ government under FPTP can actually mean a majority government elected on a minority mandate e.g. Johnson’s 56% of seats with only 43.6% of the votes, this scenario has been the case in very UK general election since the 1940s, apart from the 2010-15 coalition (59%)

Question 3

disproportionality v semi-proportionality

Answer 3

-due to d’Hondt in AMS a more accurate representation of the general will of the people is produced, innacurate measurements of such result in majority governments on a minority mandate
-example of semi-proportionality 2021 SNP gained 44% of votes and 49% of seats under FPTP this would have been 85% of the seats
-under FPTP some parties that gain votes gain no representation at all, Brexit Party won 2% of voteshare but no seats in 2019

Question 4

disproportionality v semi-proportionality evaluation

Answer 4

-proponents of FPTP argue that the disproportionality is a necessary trade off for strong government, but it fails to see the undemocratic nature of this, parties gain votes yet gain no representation

Question 5

increased voter choice under AMS

Answer 5

-FPTP allows just one choice, under AMS voters have two, constituency and regional, this matters as voters may not fully align with one party and having the ability to pick two parties better represents the electorate
-simplicity of FPTP forces voters into choosing one party even if they fundamentally disagree with parts of their plans, whereas under AMS a voter may enact ‘split-ticket’ voting for the Greens and SNP, better representing their views

Question 6

increased voter choice evaluation

Answer 6

-under FPTP voters are restricted to one vote each and this means the representation of the general will is not entirely accurate

Question 7

constituency link/increased rep under AMS

Answer 7

-constituents can sack constituency MSPs and MSs meaning lines of accountability are strong
-regional MSPs also provide additional representation, giving constituents more people to redress their grievances with e.g. Glasgow has 8 MSPs to redress their grievances to

Question 8

constituency link/increased rep evaluation

Answer 8

-lines of accountability can become confused under AMS and MSPs on the party list cannot be directly sacked by the electorate