Electoral Systems - Topic 3.1 Flashcards
Different types of electoral systems (31 cards)
What attributes do all elections in the UK share in common?
- Secret ballot
- Universal suffrage
- Regularity, regulated independently
- Clear voter choice on the ballot
What system of voting is used in the devolved nations?
- Scotland - AMS, every 5 years
- Northern Ireland - STV, every 5 years
- Wales - AMS, every 5 years
What is a plurality electoral system?
And an example of one:
A plurality of votes is having more votes than anyone else. In a plurality system, no outright majority is required to win a seat and is likely to produce a two-party system. An example is First-past-the-post.
What are the key features of FPTP?
- Single-member constituencies
- Plurality system
- Vote cast for a person, not a party
How does FPTP work at the constituency level?
- The UK is divided into 650 constituencies with each constituency containing an electorate of approximately 70,000 people, however this slightly varies
- Each constituency is represented by 1 seat in the Commons by a single MP - a single-member constituency
- Each party will select a candidate to run for election within a constituency
- The voters of a constituency cast a single ballot, choosing between the candidates put forward. To do this, they put an ‘X’ in a box next to their chosen candidate on the ballot paper
- The candidate with the most votes wins that constituency and becomes their MP
How does FPTP work at a national level?
- The winning candidate in each constituency is sent to Parliament to be an MP and represent their constituents
- The party with a majority of MPs (326/650) can form the government
- If no party has a majority, two or more parties may form a coalition and work together, or the leading party might form a minority government
Why does FPTP produce a two-party system?
FPTP is a plurality system based in constituencies and this generally results in a two-party system. All that is needed to win a seat within a constituency is to gain more votes than the person who came second, meaning the winner can gain a whole seat with a relatively small proportion of the vote. All those below gain nothing. As a result of the ‘winner-takes-all’ nature, FPTP is beneficial to parties that have a reasonable concentration of support in a geographical area. Smaller parties find it hard to compete, and as election campaigns are expensive and the leading parties have broad churches, a successful third party is few and far between.
Why does FPTP give the winner a bonus?
It’s the effect of FPTP, which tends to over-reward the winning party in an election. The reason for this is that these are the national totals. The reality of an election is that 650 small constituency-based elections are taking place. While a party may win a seat with a plurality, it wins the whole seat, effectively being over-rewarded. On a national scale, this often results in a higher percentage of seats being gained by the winning party than the percentage of the vote won by the party.
In 2024, despite Labour only winning 33.7% of the vote, the party won 63.2% of the seats.
Why are strong, single governments common with FPTP?
The two-party nature of FPTP and the ‘winner’s bonus’ usually mean that one party gains a clear, outright majority and is therefore able to form a strong and stable government, meaning it can pass laws with relative ease and appear unlikely to face an unexpected election.
Why are swing and safe seats common with FPTP?
As a result of the ‘winner-takes-all’ nature of FPTP, a number of the constituencies become safe seats. This means that a particular party can almost guarantee victory in a particular seat. Usually, this is a result of a concentration of voters with loyalty to one party being group together in one constituency. In contrast, some seats are marginal seats. These are seats where the voter loyalty within a constituency is more evenly split between parties, meaning that the likely winner of the seat is more difficult to predict.
What are the advantages of FPTP?
- Simple - FPTP is a simple system for the voter and administration. This allows for a cost-effective election that delivers a quick and legitimate result. The simplicity should encourage people to vote as they can understand how the system works
- Strong government - FPTP provides the country with a winner and a clear majority. This gives the victorious party a mandate to fulfil its manifesto commitments. Having a majority means the government can pass legislation with relative ease
- MP-constituency link - Voters in a constituency can have a direct effect on the result in their area, and the elected MP is accountable to their constituents
- Centrist policies - With an encouraged two-party system, the manifestos of the main parties include policies that cover the political centre. The policies are likely to to be included as they are believed to be popular. This ensures that the majority of the UK population is represented
What are the disadvantages with FPTP?
- Lack of choice - The ‘winner-takes-all’ nature of FPTP means that many voters choices are only between Labour and the Tories, as these are the only two parties with a realistic chance of winning the seat. If a voter knows this, it might discourage turnout as they don’t feel like they can pick the party that represents them the best
- Unequal vote value - If a person lives in a safe seat, their vote is effectively worth less than that of someone in a marginal seat. A voter might wish to vote for the party that is most likely to win that seat. In that case, this voter is largely ineffective in changing the result
- A lack of a majority - For a candidate to win a constituency, they merely need a plurality. Most MPs will not have won a majority in their constituency election. If the winning candidate has less than 50% of the overall vote cast in their constituency, then more people in total actually voted against them than voted for them, undermining legitimacy
- Disproportionate result - FPTP gives a disproportionate result that over-represents the main parties and under-represents the other parties. The exclusion of any party is not in keeping with the principles of free and fair elections or effective representation of the voters. This reduces voter choice in an election, and also creates artificial majorities for the main parties, which does not necessarily reflect the political beliefs of the nation, meaning that the winning party often has a majority of seats despite not winning a majority of the vote
How has FPTP developed in the twenty-first century?
- More safe seats - In 2015, 21 seats were won by more than 50% of the vote, in 2017 it was 35, showing there is an increased inequality in the value of a vote
- FPTP can create disproportionate result - with more voters being cast for third parties, the result can be more disproportionate. In 2024, Reform UK gained over 4 million votes but only won 5 seat, while the Lib Dems gained 3.5 million votes but won 72 seats.
- Failure to deliver a strong government - A number of elections in the 21st Century have cast a doubt on whether FPTP produces a strong and stable government. There have been small majorities, a minority government and a coalition since the turn of the century
Should FPTP be replaced for general elections in the UK?
Arguments for:
- Recent elections demonstrate that FPTP can no longer be relied on to fulfil the promise of a strong government
- FPTP produces a poor result regardless of the voter choice - its lack of proportionality is increasingly evident and this doesn’t fit with the principles of representative democracy
- The government that it does deliver can be argued to lack legitimacy due to not having a majority of the vote and yet possess huge power. Even governments with small majorities have been able to push through policy with little regard for the opposition view
- The inequality in voter value across the UK doesn’t fit with the principle of ‘one person, one vote’
- Many voters are wasted, meaning they have little or no impact on the electoral outcome. This undermines legitimacy, encourages tactical voting and may discourage turnout, all of which undermine democratic principles
- The two-party system represent a lack of competition in UK elections, which undermines liberal and pluralist democratic principles
Should FPTP be replaced for general elections in the UK?
Arguments against:
- It is widely understood by the public, not just in terms of how the ballot works but also how the winner of an election is calculated. As a result, an educated public is more likely to turn out to vote, which improves the legitimacy or the resulting government
- The governments it has produced have largely been ‘strong and stable’. The 2010 coalition lasted for the full term of a Parliament and did not appear as weak
- It is possible for smaller parties to do well, as the SNP demonstrated in 2015, while at the same time it can keep parties with more extreme political views out of office, such as Reform UK in 2024
- The clear choice for voters in a two-party system, and the likelihood of a single-party government, make it easier for the voters to hold a government to account simply by voting for the other major party
- FPTP maintains a strong link between a geographical constituency and a specific MP. This link allows for effective local representative of the whole of the UK in Parliament
What is a proportional electoral system?
And an example of one:
A proportional system allocates seats roughly in line with the percentage of votes gained by a party. No purely proportional systems are used in the UK, but a number of systems are more proportional that FPTP. It is likely to produce a multiparty system. An example is Additional Member System.
How does Additional Member System (AMS) work?
When a voter goes to the polls, the are presented with two ballots. On each one, they must cast their vote with a simple ‘X’ in a box. In the constituency vote, they are electing a person, whereas in the regional vote they are casting their vote for a party. There is no need for them to vote for the same party on both ballots.
How does AMS work in Scotland and Wales?
The constituency vote:
- Divided in single-member constituencies, they’re different from Westminster constituencies
- Ballot cast for a constituency is counted, with each constituency electing a single representative on a plurality
- Those elected are given a seat in respective Parliaments
The regional vote:
- Divided in regions each with a number of elected members
- Each party running for election draws up a list of candidates for each region, ranking them in order they will be elected
- The ballot is counted within each region
- To decide who gets the first seat, the system uses the d’Hondt formula
- Once the formula is complete for every party, the first seat is allocated to the party with the high number resulting from the formula
- This process is repeated until all seats in a region are allocated, giving the corresponding number of candidates from the top of its list downwards
What is the effect of using AMS?
AMS is likely to result in a multiparty system as its proportional nature allows for smaller parties to have some, if limited, success. This in turn is likely to result in a coalition government as it can be difficult for one party to gain an outright majority. In Scotland, the SNP did manage to achieve an outright majority in 2011, although all of the other government formed in Wales and Scotland have either been in coalition or minority governments. Safe seats and marginal seats are still a feature of the constituency vote of AMS, but this is less evident in the regional vote because this element is proportional.
What are the advantages of AMS?
- The second state of AMS tries to correct the flaws of FPTP. The more seats a party gains in the constituency vote, the more difficult it is for them to gain regional seats as ts votes will be divided by a higher number. This reduces the wasted votes and ensures more parties have a chance of being represented
- Voters have more choice with two votes to cast, and they can choose to cast their own votes for different parties, encouraging more parties to run
- In order to form a single-party government, a party must have broad popularity across a whole country, not just in concentrated pockets. If coalitions are formed, a greater number of parties can have input into policy, giving greater legitimacy
- With all areas being represented by constituency and regional representatives, there is more chance for the voters that someone who shares their ideology represents them, hopefully increasing turnout
- Each constituency is relatively small. Each MP is attached to a constituency and is directly responsible for listening to them, giving voters a direct link to national politics and encouraging engagement
What are the disadvantages of AMS?
- Although the process of voting is simple, seat allocation is not. This can put off voters as they may feel their vote is being mathematically manipulated, potentially reducing turnout
- The more proportional nature of AMS means single-party governments are harder to achieve and coalitions more likely, meaning governments may be weaker and may find it more difficult to pass policies they’ve campaigned for
- The constituency vote of AMS is conducted using FPTP, therefore carrying the same disadvantages of FPTP
- AMS creates two tiers of representatives. This can cause tension and confusion for the voters and blur accountability
- In the regional vote, the party controls the order of its list of candidates - voters only have the choice to support its list or not. It could be argued that is gives excessive influence to the party leadership
How does Single Transferrable Vote (STV) work in Northern Ireland?
- Northern Ireland is split into 18, large, multi-member regions, each electing 5 representatives to send to Stormont
- The voter is given a ballot paper showing all of the candidates running in their region, which may include multiple candidates running from the same party. They cast their ballot by numbering candidates 1, 2, 3 and so on, ranking as many or as few as they wish
- Once the election is over, the total number of ballots cast in each region is counted
- In order to win, a candidate needs to achieve the ‘Droop Quota’
- Candidates who have achieved the Droop quota are automatically given a seat
- Any voters that they achieved over this number are redistributed according to any second preferences. If any more candidates now have the Droop quota, they too are given a seat
- If there are seats remaining and no one else has reached the Droop quota, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their votes are redistributed
- This process continues until all available seats in a region are filled.
What are the effects of using STV?
Using STV is likely to result in a multiparty system and produce a coalition government. Being highly proportional, it is unlikely that it will lead to any one party gaining an outright majority. This means that parties will need to work together after the election to form an agreement on which they can govern. With only multi-member constituencies in the process, the likelihood of safe seats is significantly reduced and the value of each vote is more uniform.
What are the advantages of STV?
- STV is the most proportional system used within the UK, delivering a result that has a close correlation between the percentage of the vote cast and the percentage of seats gained, increasing the legitimacy of the result
- Voters have a great degree of choice, not only between parties but also within parties. They may support one particular party but if it puts forwrd a candidate the voters do not like, they have the choice to vote for someone else from that party
- Like AMS, the multi-member constituencies mean a voter is likely to have someone elected who shares their ideology or beliefs
