Some electoral systems provide fairer representation than others. Discuss. Flashcards
Introduction
There are many electoral systems different countries may use but this essay will discuss and compare the two electoral systems known as First Past The post used to elect the House of Commons and additional member system used to elect the Scottish parliament. This essay will provide a detailed analysis on the effectiveness of different factors which can cause some electoral systems to provide fairer representation than others. The factors such as Does the system provide proportional representation in parliament, does it give voters a fair choice of representatives /parties, does it provide fair & effective representation in government, and does it provide effective local representation /accountability? In this essay it will be argued that AMS is more effective in providing fair representation. This is because voters have more choice under one of the votes they submit preventing a lack of true voter choice representation, wasted votes and also tactical voting.
Fair representation in respect to representation of parties
When considering if FPTP provides fair representation in respect to representation of parties, it can be said that FPTP does this poorly. Under FPTP the share of seats that parties win is not proportional to the share of votes. This is because the system is ‘winner takes all’ which means that votes for losing candidates in a constituency count for nothing, resulting in millions of ‘wasted votes’. The impact of this is that it benefits larger parties whereas smaller parties are at greater disadvantage. This is because parties such as the Liberal Democrat’s who already struggle to win enough concentrated votes in many seats most of their votes are wasted. In the 2019 GE Lib Dem’s won 11.5% of votes but only 1.7% of seats they were second in 91 seats. However, one benefit of this is that it prevents smaller parties with extreme views gaining seats. In the 2010 GE BNP who have racist policies won over 500,000 votes but no seats. When considering if AMS provides fair representation in respect to representation of parties, it can be said that AMS does this better than FPTP. Under AMS the share of seats a party wins are broadly proportional to its share of the vote, because the regional vote elects MSPs on a proportional basis using party lists. Due to more proportionality, it improves smaller parties’ chances of gaining representation. E.g. in the 2016 Scottish Parliament Election the Greens won 6 seats but would have won none if FPTP had been used. The good things that could be said about AMS is it results in a much more diverse parliament than we would have under first past the post this is because the additional 56 MPs who are elected under a more broadly proportional system gain fairer representation, so parliament has a greater variety of parties. The drawbacks to this is the majority of MSPS are still elected under first past the post which is not a proportional electoral system.
Fair representation in respect to voter choice
When considering if FPTP provides fair representation in respect to voter choice, it can be said that FPTP limits voter choice. FPTP limits voter choice as in many constituencies it is either a foregone conclusion which party will win or at best a ‘two-horse race’. This can lead to ‘tactical voting’ as many voters know that their preferred choice may be a wasted vote, and instead vote for another party to prevent a party they don’t like from getting elected. In the 2017 GE, an estimated 6.5 million people voted tactically according to the Electoral Reform Society. This puts smaller parties at an even larger disadvantage as even if they are a voters preferred choice it is likely the voter is aware that their vote will be wasted. The effect this has is that if people are voting tactically then parliament is not truly reflective of voters’ real preferences. This is significant as around a third of MPs in the House of Commons under FPTP do not have the support of the majority of their constituents. When considering if AMS provides fair representation in respect to voter choice it can be said that AMS does this better than FPTP. Because the regional list votes are allocated proportionally, people know that their vote in the regional list ballot is more likely to count which may discourage as much tactical voting compared to FPTP. Therefore, they can vote for the party they really want to vote for, rather than the one that they dislike least. In addition, AMS gives voters more choice than FPTP as the can vote for a candidate of one party in the constituency vote and another party in the regional vote. E.g. in 2016 a voter in Falkirk West may have voted for Michael Matheson (SNP) in the constituency ballot and the Greens in the regional list ballot. The second vote results in higher representation of parties that wouldn’t do very well under FPTP. Having more parties in parliament is good because it makes a majority government less likely as it is more divisive which makes it easier to scrutinise the government.
Fair representation in respect to representation in government
When considering if FPTP provides fair representation in respect to representation in government, it can be said that FPTP leads to an over-representation by one party. FPTP usually results in a one-party majority govt. e.g. this has happened in 18 of the 21 post-war UK GEs. It can be argued that its unfair one party can govern with a majority of seats despite winning a minority of votes. This effectively results in an ‘elected dictatorship’ as the majority government can always get their way make it it extremely difficult for smaller parties to put forward their ideas. This is important because it is another factor contributing to very poor scrutiny of the government once again. When considering if AMS provides fair representation in respect to representation in government, it can be said that AMS leads to less over-representation by one party. AMS usually results in a hung parliament and therefore coalition/minority government. This has happened in 5 of the 6 SP elections. The effect of a hung parliament is that it leads to better representation in govt. as parties must compromise and work together in order to get bills passed. This is more effective than one party getting all of their bills passed and smaller parties getting no representation. However a challenge and down side to this type of govt is it may be weaker and less effective is parties struggle to work together.
Fair representation in respect to local representation
When considering if FPTP provides fair representation in respect to local representation, it can be said that FPTP offers good local representation. This is because there is one MP representing each constituency so voters are more aware of who to go to if they need help. In single member constituency there is one mp who understand the area well and knows the local interests. This is important for holding MPs to account if voters feel the mp isn’t sticking up for their interests as only one person is to blame. For example in 2019 many voters in the red wall area of England voted conservative to punish their labour MPs. However some voters care more about the party than the person and may know little about their individual MPs work . When considering of AMS provides fair representation in respect to local representation it can be said that AMS does not do this as well as FPTP. This is due to the two tier system where there is one constituency MSP and 7 regional MSPS. This results in regional list MSPs not being held as directly accountable. It is argued that they may be more concerned with persuading their party to give them a high position on the party list, rather than working hard to appeal to voters. Having a total of 8 MSPs you can go to is better as there are more options on which person you relate to better however they can pass their jobs onto each other and not take responsibility.
Conclusion
In conclusion FPTP uses a winner takes all system so many votes are wasted whereas ams is more broadly proportional so a more diverse parliament. FPTP limits voter choice as it is usually a foregone conclusion or a two horse race whereas ams gives more choice as they have two votes so less people tactically vote. FPTP results in over-representation of one party whereas AMS has a coalition of minority so scrutiny is more successful. However under FPTP one mp represents each constituency so they are held directly accountable whereas in AMS there are 8 MSPs who can pass their jobs to each other and be less responsible. So overall AMS is more effective in providing fair representation.
