Elections And Referendums Flashcards

Question

What are the benefits of STV in terms of voter choice and representation?

Answer 1

STV allows voters to rank multiple candidates, not just pick one, increasing voter engagement and expression. It encourages candidates to appeal to broader audiences for lower-preference votes, and can help reduce adversarial politics in divided societies like Northern Ireland.

Answer 2

STV is complex to count, requiring multiple rounds and transfers, which can be time-consuming and hard for voters to follow. Additionally, it can lead to unclear electoral outcomes in close contests, and the link between individual representatives and specific local areas may be weaker than under FPTP or AMS.

Answer 3

AV uses preferential voting in single-member constituencies. Voters rank candidates numerically. If no candidate has over 50% in the first round, the least popular is eliminated, and their votes are redistributed according to second preferences. This continues until one candidate secures an absolute majority (50%+). Unlike STV, no quota is used.

Answer 4

AV is currently used to elect chairs of parliamentary select committees, such as the Defence Select Committee in 2020. In the 2011 national referendum, AV was proposed to replace FPTP for Westminster elections but was overwhelmingly rejected — with 67.9% voting against and only 32.1% in favour.

Answer 5

• No candidate reached 50% in the first round (Tobias Ellwood had 243 of 562 votes). • Candidates were eliminated in stages: Gray, Holloway, then Courts. • Votes were redistributed based on preferences. • Ellwood was elected on the fourth round with 296 votes, crossing the 282 threshold. This shows how AV ensures the winner has majority support through preferences.

Answer 6

AV ensures the winning candidate has majority support, at least through second/third preferences, and reduces the impact of tactical voting. It encourages positive campaigning, as candidates seek to be second choices too. It can also be more representative in fragmented contests than FPTP.

Answer 7

AV can be complex for voters, especially in close contests, and may still produce disproportional results at a national level since it operates in single-member constituencies. Critics argue it can amplify centrist candidates at the expense of clear majorities and does not guarantee true proportionality like STV or List PR.

Answer 8

FPTP only requires a plurality to win — a candidate can win with under 50%. AV demands an absolute majority via transfers. This makes AV more representative in single-seat elections, but still less proportional than systems like STV or AMS, especially when scaled nationally.

Answer 9

• First Past the Post (FPTP) is the least proportional system. It often over-rewards the leading party (e.g. 2019: Conservatives won 77 more seats than their vote share justified; Greens won 2.7% of the vote but just 0.2% of seats). FPTP can even produce governments with fewer votes, as in 1951 and Feb 1974. A ‘winner’s bonus’ effect is common (e.g. 1997: Labour won 63% of seats with 43% of the vote). • List Proportional Representation (List PR) is the most proportional system. Seats match votes closely (e.g. 2019 EU election: Brexit Party won 39% of votes and 40% of seats). It offers fair representation for small parties, eliminating distortions seen under FPTP. • Additional Member System (AMS) offers semi-proportionality. In the 2016 Lothians region, Scottish Conservatives won 25% of seats (4/16) with 24% of the vote. The Scottish Greens, with 11% of the vote but no constituency wins, still secured 2 seats, showing the system fairly ‘tops up’ underrepresented parties. • Single Transferable Vote (STV) is highly proportional, accurately reflecting overall vote shares. It allows voters to rank preferences and avoids tactical voting or vote-splitting. In 2019 Northern Ireland EU elections, seats were allocated after multiple counts to ensure outcomes matched voter support. Advocates like the Electoral Reform Society highlight STV as best for fairness. • Alternative Vote (AV) is not a proportional system. A 2017 study showed AV would have delivered less proportional outcomes than FPTP, penalising smaller parties like the Lib Dems and nationalists, while benefiting Labour. However, AV does ensure that each MP has majority support — unlike FPTP, where 229 MPs in 2019 were elected with less than 50% of the vote. Summary ranking (most to least proportional): 1. List PR 2. STV 3. AMS 4. FPTP 5. AV

Answer 10

• First Past the Post (FPTP) performs worst in vote value. Many votes are ‘wasted’, especially in safe seats where the outcome is predictable. Votes for smaller parties rarely translate into seats — e.g. in 2019, the Brexit Party won 644,257 votes but no MPs. FPTP is biased toward the main parties and those with geographically concentrated support like the SNP, making voters in swing areas more influential than others. • List PR significantly reduces wasted votes. Because seats match vote share more closely, minor parties have a fairer chance. However, since seats are still allocated by region, very small parties (e.g. 1–5% nationally) might still fail to gain representation unless their support is concentrated. • Additional Member System (AMS) improves vote value compared to FPTP. Even if a party fails in the constituency vote, it can gain regional seats — as seen with the Scottish Greens, who won 2 MSPs through the list vote despite no constituency wins. However, like List PR, regional thresholds mean very small parties may still struggle. • Single Transferable Vote (STV) is very effective in valuing every vote. Through preferential voting, even if a voter’s first choice is eliminated, their next preferences still influence the outcome. This minimises wasted votes and encourages honest voting rather than tactical choices. • Alternative Vote (AV) also minimises wasted votes by redistributing preferences until a candidate receives majority support. Voters can back minor parties without fear, since their vote will still count in later rounds. This enhances vote effectiveness and reduces the need for tactical voting. Summary ranking (most to least equal vote value): 1. STV 2. AV 3. List PR 4. AMS 5. FPTP

Answer 11

• First Past the Post (FPTP): Critics argue that FPTP discourages participation, especially for supporters of smaller parties, because their votes are likely wasted. However, turnout in general elections remains relatively steady: • 2010 — 65.1% • 2015 — 66.2% • 2017 — 68.8% • 2019 — 67.3% Many factors affect turnout, including competitive races, issues, and personalities, meaning FPTP’s effect on turnout is complex. • List PR: In theory, List PR should boost turnout as fewer votes are wasted, encouraging participation from voters of smaller parties. However, turnout for European elections (where List PR was used) was historically low, at just 36.9% in 2019. This lower turnout may be more about voter interest in European politics than the system itself. For general elections, turnout could be higher with List PR. • Additional Member System (AMS): AMS does not show a clear impact on turnout. For example, Welsh turnout in the 2019 general election (67%) was higher than for AMS elections like the 2016 Welsh Assembly elections (45%). This difference likely reflects the relative importance of each election rather than the system used. AMS doesn’t provide strong evidence for increased turnout. • Single Transferable Vote (STV): STV typically maintains high turnout in places like Northern Ireland, where 45% turnout for the 2019 European elections was higher than the rest of the UK. However, Northern Ireland traditionally has high turnout overall, so it’s hard to attribute this to STV alone. • Alternative Vote (AV): The absence of wasted votes in AV should, in theory, encourage participation. However, since AV has not been used in public elections (apart from select committees), it’s speculative whether it boosts turnout. No European countries currently use AV for national elections, so evidence is limited. Summary ranking of systems by impact on turnout (most to least): 1. STV (strong participation in regions with high turnout, e.g. Northern Ireland) 2. FPTP (steady turnout despite some discouragement) 3. List PR (potentially increases turnout, but historically low in European elections) 4. AV (speculative impact) 5. AMS (no clear evidence of increased turnout)

Answer 12

• First Past the Post (FPTP): FPTP is known for producing strong, single-party governments with clear mandates. From 1979 to 2010, both the Conservatives and Labour enjoyed long periods of majority rule. In 2019, the Tories achieved a decisive victory with a clear majority, restoring the traditional FPTP outcome. However, there have been exceptions like 2010, 2017, and 1974 where FPTP resulted in a hung parliament, leading to coalition governments. While FPTP promotes strong government, it raises the debate of whether single-party rule is always preferable, or if coalition governments, which often involve compromises, are better. • List PR: List PR tends to produce coalition governments where no single party has an overall majority. For instance, in the 2019 European elections, the Brexit Party won just 29 out of 73 seats, despite winning a large portion of the vote. This leads to post-election coalitions, which can make it harder to punish or reward parties. It also gives smaller parties disproportionate power, often making them kingmakers. Some argue that coalition government with political compromises is preferable to single-party rule. • Additional Member System (AMS): AMS, like List PR, typically leads to minority governments. In Scotland, the SNP has dominated elections but has only once secured a majority. AMS produces multiparty government, but this does not lead to constant instability or early elections in either Scotland or Wales. While minority governments are common, political stability is often maintained. • Single Transferable Vote (STV): Like other proportional systems, STV produces coalition or multiparty governments. This system results in policy compromises and coalition agreements. STV supporters argue that these compromises are worth it for more proportional and fairer voting. They point out that since 1945, no single party in the UK has won more than 50% of the total vote, implying the UK has never had a single-party government based on public votes. • Alternative Vote (AV): AV is most likely to produce a single-party government compared to other alternatives to FPTP. Many second preference votes tend to go to the major parties, particularly if voters initially support minor parties or independents. Therefore, AV increases the chance of a single-party government, though this outcome is not guaranteed. Summary ranking by system’s impact on strong and accountable government: 1. FPTP (produces strong, single-party governments) 2. AV (more likely to lead to single-party governments) 3. AMS (produces minority governments, but stable) 4. STV (usually results in coalition or multiparty government) 5. List PR (typically leads to coalition governments, potential for small parties to hold disproportionate power)

Answer 13

• First Past the Post (FPTP): FPTP scores highly for local links as each constituency elects its own MP who represents all voters in that area. MPs are directly accountable to their local electorate and often maintain a high profile within their constituency. The system fosters a strong sense of local representation. • List PR: List PR weakens local links. Even if the country is divided into regions, representatives serve larger populations, often in the hundreds of thousands. This reduces the personal connection between the voter and their representative. Voters may be more likely to approach MPs from their favoured party rather than a specific individual representing their area. • Additional Member System (AMS): AMS partially retains local links through constituency members who are directly elected. However, it creates a two-tier system: those elected for a specific constituency and those elected via regional lists. The regional representatives lack a direct mandate from voters, leading to potential confusion about who to approach for local issues. • Single Transferable Vote (STV): STV improves local links as elected members represent geographical areas. However, these areas are generally larger than those under FPTP, sometimes five times the size of current Westminster constituencies. Voters can approach a range of representatives, which can be an advantage, though the larger constituency size may reduce the direct impact of a single representative. • Alternative Vote (AV): AV retains single-member constituencies, similar to FPTP, meaning there is a clear local link between an MP and their constituents. Voters have one representative who is responsible for addressing local concerns, fostering direct accountability and a strong connection between the elected MP and their area. Summary ranking by system’s impact on local links: 1. FPTP (strongest local link with direct accountability) 2. AV (clear local link with single-member constituencies) 3. STV (local representation but with larger constituencies) 4. AMS (local link for constituency members, but creates two-tier system) 5. List PR (weakest local link due to large regions and lack of personal representation)

Answer 14

• First Past the Post (FPTP): FPTP limits party control over candidate selection, as candidates are chosen locally by the party membership, though they must be centrally approved. Voters cannot choose between candidates of the same party in a constituency, so the power of the central party is more limited compared to other systems. • List PR: List PR empowers central parties significantly, especially in the closed-list system. Here, the party determines the ranking of candidates, meaning voters only have a say in the party, not the individual candidates. The central party has strong control over who gets elected, as those ranked highest are almost guaranteed a seat. An open-list system would reduce this power by allowing voters to choose among candidates from the same party. • Additional Member System (AMS): AMS gives more power to central parties than FPTP, particularly through the regional lists. In this system, parties rank candidates for the list seats. However, AMS balances this with constituency members who are locally selected, giving some local party influence over individual candidates. • Single Transferable Vote (STV): STV reduces central party power, as voters can choose between individual candidates from the same party. In multi-member constituencies, this allows voters more control over who represents them, making party control less dominant. However, in smaller constituencies (e.g., 3 seats), parties may still field only one candidate. • Alternative Vote (AV): Similar to FPTP, AV limits party control. Candidates are generally chosen by local activists in their party branches, and voters cannot choose between party candidates. Central party influence is reduced because there is no party list system, and local influence is stronger. Summary ranking of party control: 1. List PR (strongest party control due to closed lists) 2. AMS (party control through regional lists, but local constituencies offer some influence) 3. STV (least central party control, allowing for individual candidate choice) 4. AV (local activists select candidates, reducing party power) 5. FPTP (local selection limits central party control, though candidates must be approved)

Answer 15

• First Past the Post (FPTP): FPTP limits representation of smaller parties, but there is still a fair range of parties represented in Parliament. Unlike the US Congress, FPTP allows for multiple parties to compete in each constituency. However, smaller parties like the Green Party or Brexit Party may struggle to win seats, despite gaining votes. There is no evidence that FPTP discourages diverse party candidates from standing for election, even if success is unlikely for many. • List Proportional Representation (List PR): List PR ensures greater representation of a wide range of parties. In the 2009 European election, for example, far-right parties like the BNP were elected. Smaller parties such as the Green Party, UKIP, and Brexit Party have traditionally had more MEPs than MPs under FPTP, as List PR ensures more proportional representation for these parties. • Additional Member System (AMS): AMS, like List PR, increases representation for third parties compared to FPTP. The Scottish and Welsh parliaments include a variety of smaller parties, but the range of parties remains limited. For example, in 2016, only five parties secured seats in the Welsh Assembly. AMS also allows for greater voter choice, as voters can split their tickets between constituency and list votes. • Single Transferable Vote (STV): STV increases opportunities for smaller parties and independents to be elected, as votes are not wasted. For example, Ireland has many independents elected under STV (19 out of 160 MPs in 2020). It encourages more party choice and representation, especially for smaller or regional parties. • Alternative Vote (AV): AV tends to favor candidates with broad appeal, and extreme or polarizing candidates are less likely to be elected. While AV may not boost representation for smaller parties, it ensures that elected candidates have at least 50% support in their constituencies. This system is unlikely to benefit smaller or niche parties, and middle-of-the-road candidates may find it harder to succeed. Summary ranking of party representation: 1. List PR (most proportional, many parties represented) 2. STV (more independent and minor party representation) 3. AMS (third parties represented, but fewer options than List PR) 4. FPTP (limits minor party representation) 5. AV (favors broad appeal candidates, but limits minor party success)

Answer 16

• First Past the Post (FPTP): FPTP scores highly for comprehensibility. It is simple to understand and straightforward to operate. The results are usually clear and quick after the election, making it easy for voters to understand the outcome. • List Proportional Representation (List PR): List PR is less straightforward than FPTP. It involves multiple rounds of voting and counting, which can be cumbersome. However, its supporters argue that the fairness of the result justifies the added complexity. The process may be harder to follow, but the outcome is proportional. • Additional Member System (AMS): AMS is more complicated than FPTP. It requires two ballot papers and creates two categories of elected representatives (constituency and list members). However, AMS is relatively straightforward to count and calculate, and it does not involve the multiple rounds seen in List PR. • Single Transferable Vote (STV): STV is complex and may be the least transparent system. The process can take a long time, especially to calculate the final seat allocation. For example, in Ireland, the results took two full days to be declared. Its complexity makes it harder for voters to understand how their votes translate into seats. • Alternative Vote (AV): AV is easy to understand. It involves one MP per constituency, and the process is relatively straightforward compared to other systems. Voters rank candidates, and the system ensures that the winning candidate has at least 50% support. The process is simple and quick to operate. Summary of comprehensibility and transparency ranking: 1. FPTP (easiest to understand and transparent) 2. AV (simple, one-member constituencies) 3. AMS (more complex but straightforward in result) 4. List PR (less straightforward with multiple rounds) 5. STV (most complex, long counting process)

Answer 17

Yes, Replace FPTP • Better reflection of vote share: Alternative systems like STV or List PR more accurately reflect the overall vote share, unlike FPTP, which distorts results (e.g., ‘winner’s bonus’). • Results can be unfair: In February 1974, the party with the most votes didn’t win the most seats. • Weak or unrepresentative outcomes: FPTP doesn’t always result in a strong single-party majority, and leads to outcomes where many votes are wasted (e.g., smaller parties or safe seats). MPs can win without majority support from constituents. • Discriminates against smaller parties: FPTP can marginalize smaller or fringe parties, preventing them from gaining seats. • Encourages tactical voting: Voters may be forced to vote for the “lesser evil” in marginal seats rather than for their preferred party, diluting democratic choice. No, Keep FPTP • Stable government: FPTP traditionally produces strong, stable single-party governments that can govern effectively, avoiding the need for coalition compromises and backroom deals. This leads to clearer accountability in future elections. • Simplicity and clarity: FPTP is easy to understand, familiar to voters, and allows for quick vote counting and results declaration. It ensures a clear link between MPs and their constituents. • No flaws are without trade-offs: While alternative systems have their strengths, FPTP offers quick results, a strong government mandate, and avoids unnecessary complexity. • Keeps smaller parties out: Although it can exclude small and extremist parties, this ensures that only parties with significant support have a chance to govern, promoting stability. Summary: • Yes: FPTP distorts the vote, wastes votes, and doesn’t always produce strong governments. Alternative systems are fairer and more representative. • No: FPTP provides stable, clear government, encourages local accountability, and is simple to understand and implement.

Answer 18

1. Personality of the Candidate or Party Leader: • The appeal of individual politicians can significantly influence voting patterns. • Leaders with strong media presence or charismatic personalities can sway voters (e.g., Tony Blair in 1997). • Personal leadership style and likability also play a key role in general elections. 2. Attractiveness of Manifesto Promises: • The relevance of policies presented in a party’s manifesto can drive voter support. • For example, Labour’s 2017 manifesto, which emphasized public services and workers’ rights, gained traction among younger voters, contributing to an increase in turnout and vote share. 3. Campaign and Media Influence: • Media coverage and the portrayal of party leaders, particularly during televised debates, can sway voters. • The 2010 televised leaders’ debates were instrumental in elevating Nick Clegg’s profile and increasing Lib Dem support, although the impact was short-lived. 4. Voter Profile (Social Class, Gender, Ethnicity, and Age): • Social class has historically been a strong predictor of voting behaviour, with working-class voters tending to support Labour and middle-class voters leaning towards the Conservatives. • Recent elections show that age is increasingly a crucial factor. For instance, the 2017 and 2019 general elections saw younger voters leaning towards Labour, driven by policies like tuition fee abolition. 5. Policy Views: • Voters often align with parties whose policies resonate with their own priorities, such as health, education, or immigration. • For instance, Brexit played a significant role in determining voting behaviour, with those prioritising national sovereignty supporting Leave (Conservatives) and those prioritising EU membership backing Remain (Labour and Lib Dems). 6. Performance of the Current Government: • The satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the governing party’s record can influence voting decisions. For example, dissatisfaction with the Conservative government’s handling of the NHS contributed to Labour’s gains in 2017. 7. Tactical Voting: • Some voters support a party they might not fully align with to prevent the election of a candidate or party they dislike. In 2017, many voters who opposed the Conservatives strategically voted for Labour or Lib Dems in marginal constituencies to counteract the Conservative majority. 8. Electoral System Considerations: • The nature of the electoral system affects voting behaviour. In FPTP, voters may vote strategically in safe seats or marginal constituencies to ensure their vote is not “wasted.” This was evident in the 2015 general election, where tactical voting ensured the Conservatives’ victory despite Labour securing more votes overall.

Answer 19

• Primacy Model: The primacy model of voting behaviour emphasizes long-term factors such as social class, age, and ethnicity, which shape a voter’s long-term party affiliation. This model suggests that voting patterns are generally stable, and changes occur only when voters feel that a party no longer represents their interests. For instance, working-class voters in the UK have traditionally supported Labour, but this can change if Labour’s policies no longer resonate with their economic or social concerns. • Recency Model: In contrast, the recency model focuses on short-term factors such as leadership, issues, and current events that may cause more immediate shifts in voting behaviour. For example, a leader’s performance in televised debates or media coverage of scandals can influence how voters perceive a party or its leader. The 2017 UK General Election is an example of how recency factors, such as Theresa May’s leadership and the Conservative Party’s policies on the NHS, led to a change in voting preferences. • Valence Issues: These issues are those that are universally liked or disliked, such as healthcare. Voters generally agree that issues like healthcare should be addressed, but the disagreement lies in which party is best suited to manage these issues. For example, while both the Labour and Conservative parties support the NHS, opinions differ on which party would manage it more effectively.

Answer 20

Until recently, social class was crucial in UK voting behaviour. The working class predominantly voted Labour, while the middle and upper classes tended to vote Conservative. The Liberal Party appealed to some of the middle class, often serving as a refuge for protest votes.

Answer 21

Both main parties (Labour and Conservative) had core voters largely defined by social class. Parties tailored their policies to appeal to these core supporters, with many areas being considered ‘safe’ for one party or the other due to class composition (e.g., Labour in former coalfield areas like the northeast and South Yorkshire).

Answer 22

Factors like deindustrialisation, immigration, Britain’s relationship with Europe, and changes in social attitudes made class less easy to define. This shifted voting behaviour and reduced the predictability of voting patterns based on class.

Answer 23

**Point: Class Dealignment** Example/Evidence: The decline in the traditional relationship between social class and voting behaviour can be seen in the 2010 and 2015 general elections, where the working class no longer overwhelmingly voted for Labour and the middle class no longer consistently voted Conservative. The 2015 general election, for example, saw significant shifts in voting patterns, with working-class constituencies in the North of England turning to UKIP. Explain: Class dealignment refers to the weakening of the influence of social class on voting decisions. Over time, voters have moved away from identifying with a particular class-based party and instead base their votes on a variety of factors, such as specific issues or candidate qualities. Significance: This trend signifies a shift away from the traditional Labour-Conservative divide and indicates a more complex and volatile voting landscape. It has led to the emergence of new political parties (like UKIP) that cater to more specific, often class-neutral, concerns. ⸻ **Point: Partisan Dealignment** Example/Evidence: Research by the British Election Study has shown that party loyalty has been declining since the 1970s, with many voters describing themselves as “political consumers” rather than traditional party supporters. In the 2017 general election, for instance, 30% of voters said they were unsure of which party to support just days before the election. Explain: Partisan dealignment happens when voters no longer feel attached to a political party, which diminishes the impact of long-term political affiliation. As parties have become less ideologically rigid, voters tend to choose candidates or parties based on specific policy proposals rather than a party label. Significance: This leads to greater voter volatility and less predictable election outcomes. Parties now need to appeal to a wider variety of voters, rather than focusing on ensuring their loyal base turns out. ⸻ **Point: Rise of Floating or Swing Voters** Example/Evidence: Swing voters played a key role in the 2017 and 2019 general elections. In 2017, many voters who had traditionally supported the Conservatives or Labour were undecided until the final moments of the campaign. The Lib Dems, for example, gained support from such voters due to their pro-EU stance in 2019. Explain: Floating voters are those who do not consistently support one party and are open to persuasion from multiple political groups. This group is crucial because they can decide the outcome of an election, often changing their allegiance based on party promises or leader performance. Significance: As swing voters become more common, political campaigns have to be more dynamic and focus on a broader range of issues, targeting undecided voters. This increases the importance of election strategies such as political advertising and media campaigns. ⸻ **Point: The Rise of Identity Politics** Example/Evidence: The 2017 election saw identity politics (Identity politics links with the topic of pressure groups and social movement) play a prominent role, particularly regarding issues such as immigration, LGBTQ+ rights, and racial justice. The prominence of these issues can be seen in the surge in support for the Green Party, which campaigned heavily on social justice, and the increased visibility of minority ethnic groups in political discourse. Explain: Identity politics refers to the political focus on the specific interests and perspectives of socially marginalized groups, such as women, ethnic minorities, and LGBTQ+ individuals. It reflects a shift away from traditional class-based politics, with people increasingly identifying with political movements that advocate for their personal identity or cultural group. Significance: Identity politics has led to a more fragmented electorate, where individuals are no longer solely defined by their social class but by a range of social and cultural factors. This trend has expanded political discourse, making it more inclusive, but also more complex, as parties must now address a wider range of issues.

Answer 24

1. The rise of third and minor parties Point: Smaller parties have become more influential in UK elections, complicating the traditional two-party dominance. Example/Evidence: In the 2019 general election, the Brexit Party chose not to stand in Conservative-held seats, helping the Tories consolidate the pro-Brexit vote. Earlier, UKIP’s popularity in 2015 — with nearly 4 million votes — split the right-wing vote, arguably contributing to a hung parliament. Explain: While Labour and the Conservatives still dominate overall, smaller parties now regularly influence both outcomes and party strategy — acting as spoilers or pressure groups that shift the national conversation (e.g. on Brexit, devolution, or the environment). Significance: This development shows that voting behaviour is no longer neatly split along two-party lines. Voters are increasingly willing to back smaller parties, whether due to disillusionment with the mainstream or alignment on key issues — adding unpredictability and fluidity to UK elections.

Answer 25

Another example of recent trends in UK voting behaviour is the growing importance of age — often described as ‘age as the new class’. Point: Age has become a far more accurate predictor of voting behaviour than traditional indicators like class, gender or region. Example/Evidence: According to YouGov’s 2019 general election data, 56% of 18–24-year-olds voted Labour while just 21% voted Conservative. In contrast, among voters aged 70+, 67% backed the Conservatives, while only 14% supported Labour. The tipping point age where someone was more likely to vote Conservative than Labour was 39. Explain: Younger voters are more likely to favour progressive policies, internationalism, and investment in public services, aligning with Labour and Green values. Older voters, by contrast, tend to prioritise stability, conservative social values, and stricter immigration controls, aligning more with Conservative policy platforms. Significance: This trend highlights a generational political divide that may shape future elections. As age replaces class as the key dividing line in British politics, it challenges parties to recalibrate their messaging and policy priorities — and raises long-term questions about voter turnout, given that older voters are more likely to actually vote.

Elections And Referendums Flashcards

(50 cards)