voting Systems Flashcards
1
Q
Introduction
A
-
2
Q
FPtP
A
- FPtP provides effective representation for citizens as it so simple and voters only need to mark an “X” next to the Mp of who they want. This is much simpler when compared to AMS or STV systems meaning that voter turnout is encouraged
- for eg in 2015 , 66% of people turned out to vote in the general election , compared to 56% of voters for the more complicated Scottish election using AMS.
- this shows how FPTP is representative as a result of increased vote turnout - this means that the final election result can be deemed representative of peoples actual wishes as a bigger proportion of the population vote.
- however despite how simple the vote is, people sometimes don’t want to vote due to this system producing safe seats: seats that are likely retained due to a party having a massive majority in elections
- this means that people are put off voting because they feel as if their votes won’t count as the majority is likely to gain seats easily.
- For example in 2015 general election UKIP received 3.9 million votes which under the FPtP system equated to one seat
- this shows how the system can result in many wasted votes as it is a winner takes all system, and therefore in fact doesn’t fully represent the population , creating a disproportionate result.
3
Q
AMS
A
- AMS is a voting system which allows for fair representation as it allows for a more proportional result than FPtP alone.
- this is due to the fact that AMS consists of 2 votes to elect representatives - one is for a constituency Mp and the other uses the party list system where voters can choose between parties who will represent their constituency.
- this means that the system isn’t just based on a person winning a majority as the system takes into account who won the constituency seat and therefore ensures a more proportional result in the party list vote
- for example the Green Party won 6.6% of the regional list vote in the 2016 Scottish election and some 6 seats, whilst they won 3.8 of the vote in the 2015 general election and won only 1 seat.
- this shows how there is fairer representation as even smaller parties can gain seats through PR , despite low chances of winning just the constituency as in fPtp - as it is not winner takes all it is more proportional.
- However : the system isn’t the MOST proportional system as it still favours larger parties to some extent.
- for example : SNP received around 46.5% of the vote in 2016 but returned 49% of MSPS. While the Liberal Democrats received 7.8%, only returning 3.8 % of msps
- this shows - it is possible to win a majority by receiving a boost in seats , showing the system can be unproportional
4
Q
STV
4 for
4 against( 1 is overall summary )
A
- STV is a much better voting system than FpTp in providing fair representation of voters. It’s a system where voters rank order the candidates they wish to vote rather than voting for one.
- under STV large constituencies are created donating 3-5 representatives. These features allow fair representation as STV provides voters with greater choice in how they want to use their vote and they don’t feel as if they have to vote tactically to gain representation unlike ftpt
- as well as this it retains the links between constituency and representative, unlike other systems (the list system) allowing for greater representation as voters know who they can hold accountable
- STV also produces a much more proportional result which is fairer to parties and voters : eg in 2012 Scottish local elections - SNP won 32.3% of first preference votes and gained 34.8% of available seats.
- however a drawback of STV is that stv produces coalition giver meets meaning no single party dominates decision making.
- this means voters may feel a party they didn’t vote for ends up with more of a say in government than they deserve
- eg the Scottish greens are in a power sharing arrangement with SNP even though they are smaller than Labour / Lib Dems/ cons
- however overall STV is better than FTPT as it is fairer to all votes as it gives them a greater chose and fairer to small parties who are able to gain a fairer number of seats
5
Q
Conclusion
A
- it is argued that STV is simply fairer than FPTP : as in a democracy it is vital that citizens have an equal voice with other citizens and they are represented equally
- stv provides this as it gives voters fairer /greater choice at the ballot box where it allows votes for candidates and parties creating a fairer system
- in contrast , FPtP is often criticised for limiting voter choice as political parties consist of many different view points + if you support a party but not a candidate , there is no way to indicate this on the ballot
- some however would argue that FPtP is a perfectly good system and has worked well in the Uk for a very long time and provides extremely quick results putting businesses at ease , as well as the fact there is little demand for a more complicated system.
- these concerns are valid however it is unlikely British democracy will improve unless there is a better more fair system such as stv in place making people feel they actually have an influence in the decision making process.
- it can be argued also that AMS it’s also fairer compared to FPtP as it allow more choice /representation however when compared to STV , stv remains the most representative and has the most choice.
