P1 T3: Electoral Systems Flashcards
3.1 KTD: Do elections enhance or hinder democracy? Give the arguments for the enhance side
- Govts are formed with leading member of winning party as PM, they are effective in removing unwanted govts e.g. 1979, 1997, 2024
- Vital channel of communication between govt and people (MPs & constituents), makes politicians publicly accountable and removable
-Elections enable participation and therefore legitimacy, ‘consent’ to be governed is given - During campaigns, key issues are explained and the electorate is educated
3.1 KTD: Do elections enhance or hinder democracy? Give the arguments for the hinder side
- Elections are not always successful in forming govts, e.g. 2010, 2017, also FPTP can sometimes remove wanted govts, e.g. 1970 - more voted for Heath’s govt but Wilson’s Lab party got more seats
- Doesn’t ensure representation - FPTP, elections have limited choice - voters don’t choose nominations
- Low turnout (voter apathy) - not legitimate
- Can miseducate the public with ‘fake news’, parties claim others are lying
3.1 Summarise First-Past-the-Post
The candidate with the most number of votes in a constituency wins the seat, roughly 70,000 people per constituency, the winning candidate needs a plurality of votes
3.1 What is a plurality of votes? Give an example
Getting more votes than anyone else, not necessarily a majority. e.g. Sadik Al Hassan won North Somerset in 2024 with 35.6%
3.1 What is a majority of votes?
Getting over 50% of the votes
3.1 Define proportional representation
A voting system where the number of votes a party gets is proportional to the number of seats they win
3.1 Why is FPTP controversial? Give examples
- Constituencies only get one MP - diversity of opinions is not represented
- Bad for parties with a large vote spread but not enough to win in a single constituency e.g. 2024 Reform - 14% vote, 5 seats
- Tactical voting means people don’t end up voting for their favourite - undermines democracy, e.g. 40% in 2024 considered voting tactically
- Leads to ‘wrong winner’ elections - 1974, Cons. won most votes, Lab. won most seats
3.1 KTD: Is FPTP fit for purpose? Give the arguments FOR
FOR:
- Delivers strong, single party govt - under PR any coalitions are not voted by the public
- Relationship between MPs and constituents is vital
- FPTP keeps extremist parties out of govt - ‘winner’s bonus’ e.g. Starmer won 270 more seats with just an extra 12% vote
- Provides 2 clear choices - reflects social divide
- FPTP is simple, easy, and quick
3.1 KTD: Is FPTP fit for purpose? Give the arguments AGAINST
AGAINST:
- Strong govt but at the expense of an unrepresentative govt - primarily concerned with MPs so can deliver ‘wrong winner’ elections
- MP-constituent relationship is not unique to FPTP, STV & SV provides alternatives ways but maintains this link
- Discriminates against ALL smaller parties
- Party choice feels limited - people may not vote for ‘third’ parties as they have no chance, outcome is only decided by marginal seats, not all votes equal
- People can cope with a slightly more complicated system - ‘speed’ is overrated
3.1 Summarise the 2015 general election, give the seats share, key facts, and the largest swings
Cons. - 331 seats (51%)
Lab. - 232 seats (36%)
LD - 8 seats
SNP - 56 seats (9%)
UKIP - 1 seat
Greens - 1 seat
-25% of votes went to parties other than C/L - a record
- SNP won 50% of the Scottish vote but 95% of the seats
- Greens won 1% less votes than SNP but got 1 seat vs 56
- 66% turnout
Biggest positive swing: UKIP +9.5%
Biggest negative swing: LD -15.2%
3.1 Summarise the 2017 general election, give the seats share, key facts, and the largest swings
Cons. - 318 seats (49%)
Lab. - 262 seats (40%)
LD - 12 seats
SNP - 35 seats (5%)
UKIP - 0 seats
Greens - 1 seat
- 11% of the vote went to parties other than Cons., Lab., or LD
- 32% of MPs were women
- 69% turnout
Biggest positive swing: Labour +9.5%
Biggest negative swing: UKIP -10.8%
3.1 Summarise the 2019 general election, give the seats share, key facts, and the largest swings
Cons. - 365 seats (56%)
Lab. - 203 seats (31%)
LD - 11 seats
SNP - 48 seats (7%)
Brexit - 0 seats
Greens - 1 seat
- 11.5% of the vote went to parties other than Lab., Cons., LD
- SNP won 45% of Scottish vote but 82% of the seats
Biggest positive swing: LD +4.2%
Biggest negative swing: Labour -7.9%
3.1 Summarise the 2024 general election, give the seats share and key facts
Lab. - 412 seats (63%)
Cons. - 121 seats (19%)
LD - 72 seats (11%)
SNP - 9 seats
Reform - 5 seats
Greens - 4 seats
- Starmer won despite only 34% of the vote
- Reform got 3% more of the vote than LD but 5 seats vs 72 seats
3.1 Describe what Supplementary Vote (SV) is and how it works
Voter makes a 1st and 2nd preference, if no candidate reaches 50% of 1st preferences then all candidates but the top 2 are eliminated and second preferences are added to decide the winner
3.1 Give the advantages of Supplementary Vote (SV)
Simple and easy to understand, constituencies remain the same, hard for extreme parties, still likely 1 party gets a majority, more proportional than FPTP
3.1 Give the disadvantages of Supplementary Vote (SV)
Doesn’t guarantee 50%, need to come in the top 2 if you want any chance - ‘third parties’ like LD lose out, still under represents small parties, voters can fill out the ballot wrong
3.1 What kind of elections has supplementary vote (SV) been used for in the past? When was it used from and until?
Used in mayoral elections and Police and Crime commissioner elections from 2000-2022, scrapped by Boris Johnson and replaced with FPTP
3.1 Describe what Additional Member Systems (AMS) are and how they work
2 votes - 1 for a constituency using a plurality system and 1 for an additional representative on a party list
3.1 What is a list system? What is a closed/open list?
No constituencies, each party puts up enough candidates in an order, voters vote for a party, candidates selected from top of the list until their proportionate of vote matches seats
Closed list - voters have no say in the list order
Open list - voters have a say in the list order
3.1 Give the advantages of Additional Member Systems (AMS)
Mixed elements balance fairness with equal representation, broadly proportional but chance of a single party is kept alive, allows wide considered choices (voters can vote for a candidate but then vote for the other party), excellent proportionality
3.1 Give the disadvantages of Additional Member Systems (AMS)
Single member constituencies reduces likelihood of good proportionality, representation is less effective than FPTP due to larger constituencies, creates confusion, complicated
3.1 Describe the use of Additional Member Systems (AMS) in Wales in 2016
Welsh parliament 2016 - 40 constituencies, additional 20 members from a closed party list, Lab. received 27 seats from constituency members + 2 top up MPs, UKIP received 0 seats + 7 top ups, 12% of seats mirrors 13% vote share
3.1 Describe the Single Transferable Vote (STV)
Voters rank their preferences in numerical order, after votes are cast those with fewer than the quota are eliminated and their votes are transferred, those with more than the quota also have their votes transferred
3.1 Where has Single Transferable Vote (STV) been used in the past?
Northern Ireland Assembly elections and NI & Scottish local council elections
3.1 Give the advantages of Single Transferable Vote (STV)
- Highly proportional system
- Several members per constituency - constituents can choose who to contact
- Gives more choice
- No safe seats
- Encourage seeking of 1st place votes (discourages negative campaigning)
- No tactical voting
3.1 Give the disadvantages of Single Transferable Votes (STV)
- Strong, single party govt is unlikely
- Multimember constituencies encourage competition between same party members
- Can lead to huge constituencies - some constituents feel remote
- ‘Donkey voting’ - people vote based on the order on the ballot paper
- Papers get big & confusing
3.1 Explain the advantages and disadvantages of Single Transferable Vote (STV) in Northern Ireland
Advantages:
Increased turnout, in 2017 NI assembly elections reached 65% (highest since first election in 1998), 95% of voters said filling in the ballot was easy
Disadvantages:
High levels of spoilt ballots as mistakes made
3.1 KTD: Has the impact of new electoral systems made the case for reform? Give arguments FOR
FOR:
- New systems provide better representation
- Coalition govts in devolved assemblies have been successful
- Other systems have good MP/constituent links
- Other systems give smaller parties fairer representation
- Other systems give voters the ability to choose for a candidate and their party or a candidate and a different party
3.1 KTD: Has the impact of new electoral systems made the case for reform? Give the arguments AGAINST
AGAINST:
- FPTP ensures the party with the most votes win and governs
- FPTP provides stable, single party govt
- MP/constituent links are excellent under FPTP
- Other systems can allow extremists to emerge, FPTP doesn’t
- FPTP is simple and easy to operate
3.2 Give the features of referendums and how they have been used in the UK
- A vote for the public that is not legally binding
- Provide legitimacy to constitutional changes
- Resolve questions of major consequence
3.2 Give 5 examples of referendums in the UK
1973 - Should NI remain a part of the UK? - 99% voted yes
1998 - Good Friday Agreement in NI - 71% voted yes
2011 - AV system - 68% voted no
2014 - Scottish independence? - 55% voted no
2016 - Brexit - 52% voted leave
3.2 Summarise the events of the Brexit Referendum
2004-13 - UKIP increases at every election
2013 - Cameron was concerned that UKIP would take Tory votes at the next election & the Tories would lose power, so he made a political decision to hold a referendum
2015 - Cameron wins a majority
2016 - Cameron thought he would win as all big guns on his side - CBI, Obama, he said Farage was racist, didn’t realise Johnson and Gove would campaign for leave, Corbyn was unenthusiastic for remain
3.2 What significance did the Brexit referendum have?
- Showed change is more attractive than staying where you are
- Showed a weakness of refs. - public can vote against your campaign just because they dislike you
- Dishonest politicians can manipulate the public by reducing complicated issues down to a single slogan
- Led to 3.5 yrs of political instability - govt. did nothing to do with EU
- March 2017-19 - parliament failed to deliver Brexit
3.2 Summarise the events of the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum
1979 & 1997 - refs. for Scottish Ind. (successful in ‘97)
2011 - SNP won a majority in Scotland - shifted from wanting more power for Scotland to Scottish independence
2012 - Edinburgh agreement - ref. date agreed upon
2014 - Cameron was a Unionist - correct as 55% of electorate voted NO
3.2 What was the significance of the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum?
- Change from ‘party politics’ to ‘independence politics’
- 2015 - Lab. lost 40/41 Scottish seats, SNP won 56/59 seats
- 2016 - 62% of Scottish voters voted REMAIN
- 2017 & 2019 - Sturgeon requested May then Johnson for another ref. - both times refused
3.2 KTD: Should referendums be used in the UK’s representative democracy? Give the arguments FOR
FOR:
- Electorate can decide on issues regardless of party politics (may not have had the chance to vote on this issue at general elections)
- More engagement with and education about important issues - higher turnout, now more people know about the EU
- Promote participation - everyone has an equal vote unlike FPTP, e.g. 2014 Scottish Ind. ref - 84.5% turnout
- Settle long standing disputes, e.g. Scottish parliament introduced due to 1997 ref. which makes it difficult to remove
- Govts. more responsible as they have to listen to the public
3.2 KTD: Should referendums be used in the UK’s representative democracy? Give the arguments AGAINST
AGAINST:
- Undermine authority of parliament - they were voted in to make decisions and public may go against them
- Campaigns can mislead/oversimplify complicated issues - £350m bus, Cameron claimed leaving would make house prices soar, medicine shortages, 0.5m jobs lost
- May result in voter apathy/fatigue - decisions made by those who are bothered to vote, reduce legitimacy, public has limited knowledge of complicated issues, e.g. Scotland, EU ref. had 67% turnout vs 72% nationally due to fatigue
- Questions asked repeatedly until the ‘right’ answer wins - Call for a 2nd referendum right after the 1st in 2016, S&W devolution refs. failed in 1979 but succeeded in 1997, highly devisive
- Enables leaders to manipulate political agendas - govt. chooses when to call them, what the question is, e.g. govt. criticised in 2016 for spending £9m of taxpayers’ money on a leaflet describing the benefits of remaining
