proportional systems have affected political process Flashcards
(7 cards)
Debate themes
- Party representation and proportionality
- Voter choice
3 Type of govt created
Against: Party representation and proportionality
Proportional Representation has not had a major impact on UK political processes.
Despite PR’s aim to represent all voters and reduce “wasted” votes, it hasn’t significantly expanded party representation.
Devolved legislatures still show dominance by a single party:
Wales: Labour has led in all six Senedd elections.
Scotland: SNP dominates with 49% of seats.
AMS (Additional Member System) corrects disproportionality but hasn’t prevented single-party dominance.
Fewer parties are represented in devolved legislatures than in Westminster:
Scottish Parliament: 6 parties.
Welsh Senedd: 4 parties.
Westminster (under FPTP): 14 parties.
This suggests PR hasn’t resulted in a more pluralistic or representative system than FPTP.
For: Party representation and proportionality
PR systems like STV and AMS produce more proportional results in devolved nations compared to FPTP.
Under FPTP, many MPs are elected without majority support, and national seat share can significantly exceed vote share.
E.g., Labour in 2024 won 63% of seats with just 33.7% of the vote.
Minor parties are underrepresented under FPTP due to lack of concentrated support.
E.g., Reform UK got 14.3% of votes but only 5 seats (0.8%) in 2024.
PR enables fairer representation of minor parties, even without geographic concentration.
No votes are wasted under PR, and results reflect broader voter preferences.
STV is highly proportional:
Uses multi-member constituencies and Droop Formula.
E.g., 2022 Northern Ireland Assembly Election: Sinn Féin won 28% of seats on 29% of votes.
Ulster Unionist Party: 10% of seats from 11.2% of votes.
AMS corrects for disproportionality of the constituency vote with the top-up list vote.
E.g., 1999 Scottish Parliament election: Conservatives received 14% of seats from 15.6% of vote despite winning 0 constituency seats.
For: Voter choice
Greater voter choice under proportional systems:
PR systems (e.g. STV, AMS) allow voters to express a fuller range of political preferences.
Reduces voter disillusionment by offering more meaningful participation.
Limitations of First Past the Post (FPTP):
Voters only get one vote for a local MP, not the overall party.
Leads to “wasted” votes when a party doesn’t win a constituency.
Encourages tactical voting—voting against a least preferred party rather than for a truly preferred one.
Evidence of dissatisfaction with FPTP:
2024: 1 in 5 voters intended to vote tactically (Make Votes Matter).
58% ended up with an MP they didn’t vote for—highest since WWII.
Advantages of PR systems in devolved bodies:
STV: voters rank preferences and choose between representatives from the same party.
AMS: allows “split-ticket” voting—voting for two different parties.
These features reduce wasted votes and eliminate need for tactical voting.
Perception of fairness and legitimacy:
PR systems in Northern Ireland and Scotland foster greater satisfaction with democracy.
FPTP in UK Parliament elections leads to concerns over fairness—e.g., Labour winning a large majority with a limited vote share.
Overall impact on political processes:
PR has influenced not just election outcomes, but public perception of government legitimacy.
Has reshaped how voters engage with the political system in devolved nations compared to Westminster.
Against: Voter choice
No significant increase in voter turnout under PR systems:
Despite offering more choice, PR has not substantially improved political engagement.
2024 Westminster turnout: 59%
2021 Scottish Parliament turnout (under AMS): 63%
2021 Senedd (Welsh Parliament) turnout (under AMS): 46%
Complexity of PR systems may deter voters:
Systems like STV and AMS are seen as confusing and can act as a barrier to participation.
Complexity leads to voter mistakes, spoilt ballots, and even ‘donkey voting’ (random or pattern-based voting).
Example: STV in Northern Ireland:
2022 Assembly Election: 11,000 spoilt ballots (1.3% of total votes).
STV’s requirement to rank multiple candidates across multi-member constituencies can overwhelm voters.
Implication for political processes:
Voter choice may be limited not just under FPTP, but also under PR due to complexity.
If turnout and understanding remain low, PR systems may not be more effective in enhancing democratic participation.
Conclusion of this argument:
PR systems have not fundamentally changed political processes in terms of voter engagement.
The problems may differ from FPTP, but both systems still limit effective voter choice.
Against: Type of govt created
FPTP benefits: typically produces strong, single-party majoritarian governments:
These governments have a clear mandate and can implement policies effectively.
“Winners’ bonus” effect amplifies seat share relative to vote share.
Historical examples of effective majority governments under FPTP:
Thatcher (1980s) used large majorities to enact sweeping economic reforms.
Blair (1997) implemented extensive constitutional reforms with a strong mandate.
2024 General Election example:
Labour won a 174-seat majority with just 33.7% of the vote.
Despite the disproportionality, there was limited public backlash, suggesting legitimacy was accepted.
Governments under PR in devolved assemblies are also stable and effective:
AMS in Scotland and Wales has produced stable minority or coalition governments.
These governments have typically lasted full terms and delivered major reforms.
Example: SNP governance in Scotland:
In power since 2007, just one seat short of majority in 2021.
In 2022, raised higher income tax rate 2% above UK level—an example of radical policy change under PR.
Conclusion of this argument:
Despite structural differences, PR and FPTP both produce functioning, reforming governments.
Therefore, PR hasn’t fundamentally altered the nature of governance in the UK.
For: Type of govt created
PR systems in devolved bodies often result in coalition or minority governments:
Contrast with FPTP, which usually delivers majoritarian single-party governments even without majority vote share.
Under PR, no party typically wins an outright majority—coalition-building becomes necessary.
Impact on political processes:
PR governments require compromise, negotiation, and inter-party cooperation.
Can result in less stable governments and watered-down or delayed policies due to disagreements.
Example: 2024 Scottish Government collapse:
SNP-Green coalition broke down after disputes over climate targets and gender services policy.
Led to no-confidence vote against First Minister Humza Yousaf, who resigned.
Structural weakness of AMS highlighted:
Coalition and minority governments under AMS are more vulnerable to political conflict and instability.
Can undermine effectiveness of governance.
Example: Northern Ireland under STV:
Power-sharing between DUP and Sinn Féin mandated, but highly conflict-prone.
Stormont suspended for nearly 2 years after 2022 due to DUP protest over the Northern Ireland Protocol.
PR fosters more consensus-based politics:
Requires cross-party cooperation, unlike Westminster where majority governments dominate.
2025–26 Scottish Budget passed only after working with Greens, Lib Dems, and Alba—demonstrating cross-party policy formulation.
Conclusion of this argument:
PR has reshaped political processes by changing how governments are formed and operate.
Encourages cooperation and consensus, but also introduces instability and fragility into devolved governance.
