theme 3 - electoral systems Flashcards
what is the electoral system first past the post, and how does it work?
Is the electoral system used in general elections (and some council elections). It is a plurality system – to win an election you need to be the party with the most votes, not necessarily a majority of votes. Under this system, voters have one vote each. Plurality systems are often used when there are more than 2 candidates, as the more options there are the less likely a majority outcome will occur, as each party will take a chunk out of the possible 50% majority.
The country is divided into 650 constituency, all of similar sizes, who elect their own local representative to parliament. Candidates usually belong to a party, and the candidate with the most amount of votes wins.
what are the advantages to the FPTP?
1) Creates a clear winner / verdict - Due to the winner takes all approach of FPTP a clear mandate is given to the winning party - this is necessary in order to implement your manifesto.
^A more productive government is formed when only one party has to be consulted. For example, CMR had to be ignored during the 2011 coalition for multiple aspects of legislation, this was impractical.
^High majority allows for transformative legislation For example, Tony Blairs majority of 179 allowed him to pass the House of Lords reform Act, and start the process of devolution in Scotland, Wales and NI.
^During emergencies you need a clear majority in parliament in order to pass emergency bills. For example, Boris Johnson had a majority of 80 during Covid-19, this enabled him to pass necessary legislation like the furlough scheme, eat out to help out scheme, 4-tier lockdown, etc.
2) A clear link between the constituency and the representative.
^This allows voter to hold their representative to account - the re-call an MP act (2015)
^constituents have an individual to go to when they want something addressed in parliament - for example Jessica Phillips has gained a reputation for asking questions on behalf of her constituency.
^Some MPs prioritise the link between constituents over their party. For example, 8 conservative MPs rebelled against the 3-line whip for the expansion of Heathrow airport - these were all mainly MPs who felt their residents were disturbed enough by the airport.
^Fortnightly surgeries are held in the constituency where the MP meets with their constituents.Parliament purposely has less debates on a Friday to allow MPs to go back to their consistency and fulfil this role.
what are the disadvantages to the FPTP electoral system?
1) However a clear winner/verdict isn’t guaranteed.
^Hung parliaments can occur - when no party gains an overall majority
^Theresa Mays confidence and supply agreement with the DUP, as she was 10 seats short of a majority - had to compromise spending an extra £1 billion in NI and promising to increase state pensions in NI by 2.5% in order for them to agree
^David Cameron’s coalition government with the Lib Dems in 2010 - many compromises had to be made including an AV referendum and CMR removed for certain topics
2) Not very representative of the overall verdict due to the focus on constituency rather than proportionality.
^Green party currently has one seat in Westminster for Brighton and Hove - whereas they have 8 seats in the Scottish parliament where a more proportional system AMS is used
^UKIP won only one seat in 2015 that represented 3.8 million votes across the country
^Reform party only has one seat due to a deflection by Lee Anderson from the conservative party
^Lib Dems wanted to change the AV system in both their 2011 and 2015 manifesto
^Tony Blair stated he would change the electoral system in his 1997 manifesto, however this was soon scrapped after his party won a majority of 179 seats
further points for consideration:
1) tactical voting - politico researchers found 1/3 of the country votes tactically
-Johnsons win in 2019 can be partially seen to people not wanting Jeremy Corbyn to win - YouGov showed he had a disproval rating of 64% who stated they “strongly disliked” him, his manifesto was fubbed the “longest suicide note in modern history”
2) safe seats - Buckinghamshire and Chelsea regarded as the conservatives two safest seats in the country.
-Dennis Skinner held his seat for 49 years. This creates “jobs for life”.
what is the additional members system, and how does it work?
Is the electoral system used in the Scottish parliament. The electorate receive 2 votes each. The first vote is for a representative for your constituency, which is voted through the FPTP system. This vote is counted first, as it will affect how many additional seats a party may gain from the second round of voting. The second vote is for a representative from a party for your wider area – these MPs are then allocated seats based on the percentage result. It is the party who picks which MPs should be allocated a seat first.
what are the advantages to the AMS system?
Combats the need for concentrated support, allowing smaller parties to gain seats. This means less tactical voting has to occur, so smaller parties can remain authentic and not have to alter their policies to appeal specific areas. Due to the proportional aspect of AMS, every vote counts, and there are fewer wasted votes and fewer safe seats. Regional candidates will also have to appeal to a much larger population, meaning their seat isn’t as safe as they have to take into account more views / beliefs. This has allowed for smaller parties to become more represented under the AMS system in Scotland - There is currently seven Scottish greens SMPs. There are currently 5 different parties represented in the Scottish parliament – which is quite a lot given they only have 129 SMPs.
A balance is found between a constituency link and the need for proportional representation. The first vote under AMS still provides constituents an MP responsible for them – therefore AMS doesn’t overlook the advantages of FPTP. Whereas the second vote makes sure the verdict of the vote into parliament is kept proportionally representative. Therefore, the electorate can enjoy the advantages from both a plurality and proportional electoral system. In Scotland, there is 7 regional MPs and 1 constituency MP per area – thus 8 representatives per person in total. This also boosts the likelihood that individual concerns can be heard by a representative, as there are more of them to cover the people they represent. However, residents under FPTP who don’t like their MP cannot simply turn to an other one, instead they’ll have to wait for the next general election or (if applicable to the circumstances) re-call the MP.
what are the disadvantages to the AMS system?
1) In Scotland, the proportional AMS system has actualised Scotland into a one-party parliament - the SNP. They currently dominate the scottish seats allocated in Westminster - In 2015, the SNP won 56/59 seats for Scotland. Equally in the scottish parliament, they are always the largest party.
^safe seats still occur - in the 2021 scottish election, only 15 constituency seats changed hands. There are 73 in total.
The two forms of votes creates two different types of SMPs – some with constituent responsibilities, some without. This hinders the public ability to scrutinise those in power (specifically, regional SMPs) as it is unclear which residents should be scrutinising which SMPs. Whereas there is little confusion over who the constituency SMP is responsible for – this may present the constituency MP at a higher value, and who constituents turn to first, as there is no confusion on their role or what they must be held accountable for. Equally, there seems to be a democratic deficit present in the selection of the second ballot candidates elected into office. Although it is the electorate voting for the party, they are not necessarily voting for the individual elected into office that belongs to that party. This power to the party may promote some level of corruption, as MPs don’t have to appeal to the electorate, instead the party in order to be chosen / ranked where they’d like to be.
what is the STV system, and how does it work? (single transferable vote)
Voters are given a ballot paper in which they rank their preference of all candidates standing for election – this region will have more than one representative eventually elected. If the candidate reaches the quota, then they gain a seat. The amount of votes they had over the quota is recounted, and the candidate they ranked 2nd is given a seat, and so on. If no one still reaches the quote, then the least favourite candidate is eliminated, and all their second preference votes are counted until another candidate reaches the quota.
what are the advantages to the STV system?
1) The STV system has its advantages if you don’t want to ever form a majority government - like the case in Northern Ireland. There is such a divide in Northern Ireland that it became a shock when Tony Blair was able to successfully bring an end to the period known as the troubles after his good Friday agreement. However in order to give them devolved power they needed an electoral system that would account for their divide - the STV system. The STV system means that Sinn Fein and the DUP will always have to enter a power sharing government. This is good because that way neither unionist (protestant) or nationalist (catholic) side will ever govern on their own - causing uproar.
2) Parties will often stand more than one candidate in the same area. This gives voters a greater choice of representative. They can support their party, all while picking the candidate they think will fulfil their role the best. However under FPTP, it is the party who decides which individual should run in a constituency, and thus the electorate are bound to one person for each party.
^Yet under STV you can better weigh up the different candidates within your party. you may assess their job, their background, their ethics, their history, etc.
what are the disadvantages to the STV system?
- It may lead to donkey voting. This is where you vote in order that the candidate names appear on the sheet. This is likely to occur if it is mandatory that they must place a number next to each candidate in order for the vote to be valid. They will most likely place their first and second in their preferred order, yet have no opinion on the rest, and then donkey vote the rest of the candidates. This creates an issue surrounding legitimacy if the third choice candidate in this scenario met the quota mainly through people donkey voting. Donkey voting can therefore be critical for a marginal seat - in Australia, donkey voting is estimated at 2% of all votes.
- It could be argued that first round quota candidates have greater legitimacy than any other candidate elected through the system, as they wasn’t reliant on being anyone’s second or third choice in order to gain a seat. These first round candidates maybe better respected and liked by the public.
- Very unlikely to ever be used in Westminster. This is because of the amount of coalition’s and power sharing governments the system leads to. Yet the two biggest parties in the Uk are fundamentally different, and therefore co-operation is unlikely 0 leading to an unproductive government. even if they did try and co-operate under this system, it may just lead to greater centre-politics, which is already alienating the public under FPTP, let alone STV. More smaller parties will start to emerge with radical views in order to pick up votes from the sides of the political spectrum that the two parties have neglected.
what is a referendum?
A referendum is where the public are given a vote on one specific area, in which they must vote a yes or no. Their verdict is not legally binding, yet holds a lot of legitimacy - as one of the main forms of direct democracy in the Uk at the moment. The government is not obliged to hold a referendum, yet this can be pressured onto them.
what are the advantages to referendums?
- Silences divisions within a political party, by giving the decision back to the electorate. For example, David Cameron held the referendum over Brexit in 2016, due to the growing discontent within the conservative party at the time. Rather than giving in to an individual faction, he called a referendum instead, to give the decision back to the public. Therefore, referendums are important tools when making big constitutional changes, as these changes must be made with the will of the people if to truly represent democracy.
- provides legitimacy behind a controversial piece of legislation. For example, there was much debate around whether the FPTP system (a plurality system) is why the two big parties remain in offices. There was much speculation that a movement towards a more proportional voting system would dramatically improve smaller parties seats, as demonstrated in all the devolved bodies. This was especially a problem for the Lib Dems, who finished second in many constituencies. However, many supporters equally argued the Lib Dems were not popular enough, nor clear enough in their policies - and this is why they always placed second. Therefore, a referendum in 2014 was held over the AV system to replace the FPTP, in order to address a controversial piece of legislation.
^Equally after Brexit Johnson was able to silence party factions with the clear mandate the Brexit referendum had bought about - where he enforced the 3-line whip on any Brexit legislation. - Encourages participation - so much time and money is pumped into the campaign stage of a referendum, that even if you’re not that interested in politics, you would’ve heard about either side of the debate somehow. News outlets like the BBC must report equal amounts of each side of the referendum, parties drop leaflets at peoples doors, public stunts are carried out like Johnsons “Brexit wall” stunt or his love actually Brexit advert - > which all drew a lot of attention.
what are the disadvantages to referendums?
- Campaigning period can be used for political gain / involve false information. For example, it is thought that Boris Johnson was told by his political advisors that the best chance of becoming PM he had, was by campaigning for Brexit. Nigel Farage also admits to not expecting to win the referendum, and many lies were told during the campaign period in order to sway the verdict. For example, on the back of the famous “Brexit bus” were false statistics things stating “£350 million more will spent on the NHS a week if we leave”. High government officials were also quoted stating a Brexit deal would be the easiest in human history (Liam Fox). This has led to the term “bregret” - standing for the regret over Brexit.
- Creates voter fatigue. Many people in the Uk are simply uninterested in politics as it is, and although referendums have been viewed as a tool to boost participation, it can have the opposite effect if these referendums become too frequent, or are on a topic that most are not interested in. For example, the electoral system referendum in 2001 had a turnout of only 42%. This issue was exacerbated by the poor campaign from either sides of the debate, and a lack of clear information for the public.
- Costs lots of money. The campaigning period of a referendum costs the party a lot of money, as they have a duty to reach the largest audience possible in order to legitimatise the verdict and boost participation. However, there is not much regulation on how much money can be spent on either sides. For example, the leave campaign is thought to had spent double the amount of money as the remain campaign. in total, £32 million was spent by both sides, with the leave campaign making up £19 million of this figure.
^The cost of referendums can open room for corruption also, through the means of donations. For example, Lord Sainsburys donated £2 million to both the remain campaign for labour and the Lib Dems. This is due to the cost of the tariffs that his company would have to pay if we left the EU - thus using his own money to influence the verdict for his own monetary gain. - Not legally binding. Even after all of the money and time pumped into referendums, the verdict is not even legally binding. This can be frustrating for all of those that voted, especially when a turnout has been high - for example, the Scottish referendum had a turnout of 85%. Parties are not required to actually follow such verdict through (although this is unlikely) for example, in the Lib Dem manifesto after the verdict they stated that they would completely ignore the verdict and remain in the EU regardless.
^Even when a clear verdict is made (like 55% of Scotland voting no to independence), this verdict can be questioned only a matter of years later. For example, following the Brexit referendum, and Scotland overall voting remain, Nicolas sturgeon called for a second referendum.
what are the 3 most recent referendums in recent years?
- Brexit referendum (2016)
- AV referendum (2011)
- Scottish independence (2014)
What was the turnout for the Brexit referendum, and by what percent did the leave campaign win?
There was a turnout of 72%,
with 52% voting to leave.
what was the turnout for the AV referendum, and by what percent did the FPTP campaign win?
There was a turnout of 42%,
with 67% voting for FPTP.
