Elections and referendums - 9-mark Qs

Question 1

Three arguments in favour of reforming the system used for Westminster elections

Answer 1

1. Proportionality: FPTP system is poor at facilitating proportionality, and fairly translating votes into seats - often over-rewarding the winners and not giving compensation for second/third-place. e.g in 2019, ‘winner’s bonus’ (opposition, Lib Dem and Green Party are disadvantaged)
2. Alternative systems in other UK elections: AMS in Scotland and Wales. Although coalitions are the norm, has led to stability, perhaps required some compromises between parties. Coalition govt. shows other ways to govern other than strong single-party
3. Electoral reform would lead to representing greater range of parties, in European elections, Eurosceptic parties and the Green Party have fared better

Question 2

The role of the media in any three elections you have studied (one in 1997, one earlier, and one later)

Answer 2

1. 1983 election: TV/news were more balanced and regulated before social media and televised debates, still played a huge role. Thatcher’s staged photo stunts/establishment of a ‘Maggie cult’ in right-wing television and newspaper. Foot portrayed as old, radically left-wing, Labour’s manifesto coined as “The Longest Suicide Note in History”

2.1997 election: Blair met with Rupert Murdoch, owner of The Sun, in 1995 and switched allegiance. Blair was more ‘media savvy’, seen as young and energetic. Headlines such as “It Must Be You” showed The Sun’s support for Blair

3. 2019 election: Johnson declined the Andrew Neil interview, but debated effectively against Corbyn. More than half of the major parties’ advertising budgets spent on social media, Cons. spent about £16.5 million on Facebook, using highly localised, microtargeted ads. Johnson seen as charismatic, newspapers portrayed Corbyn as unpatriotic, weak on national security, and sympathetic to terrorist organisations (IRA, Hamas)

Question 3

Three arguments against the greater use of referendums in the UK

Answer 3

1. Referendums being a blunt instrument: By simplifying complex issues into a binary choice, e.g Brexit referendum (2016), unclear what ‘Leave’ meant - hard or soft Brexit? Took years to implement and decided by small margin 52%-48%
   On the other hand, 2014 Scottish independence referendum presented clear question - ‘Should Scotland be an independent country?’. Campaigns were extensive, informed and issue-focused. Result 55%-45% respected at the time
2. Undermining of representative government: Advantages of representative government such as tackling tough decisions and being better informed/educated on often complex issues. Elected representatives can better uphold constitutional principles and protect civil liberties, even if public opinion is against them.
3. Referendums might lead to ‘tyranny of the majority’: Traditionally in the UK, referendums are used for constitutional matters. Greater use could lead to divisive campaigns/potential for biased and inflammatory propaganda. e.g in Brexit referendum, older voters (65+) mainly voted Leave, even though they are less likely to experience long-term effects