Unit 1 revision booklet III

Question 1

4

Defining elections

Answer 1

• An election is primarily a way of choosing representatives, applying to the UK and European Parliament, local government, devolved assemblies and some individuals such as the London Mayor.
• Some elections, notably general elections, also choose a government in democratic states.
• Elections use different systems for converting raw votes into elected seats.
• It involves all or most of the citizens in showing preferences between candidates.

Question 2

4

Distinguishing elections from referendums

Answer 2

• Elections are normally held at specific or at least semi-formal intervals. Referendums can be held at any time where they are felt to be desirable.
• An election is to elect representatives and leaders whereas a referendum involves a single question over a specific issue. Elections deal with a wide range of issues.
• The result of elections is binding while, in the UK, referendums are advisory rather than binding on Parliament.
• While the result of an election may be complex, the result of a referendum is a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’.

Question 3

4

The functions of elections

Answer 3

• To elect representatives. General elections determine who shall represent the constituency in Parliament. It may also elect a government and a Prime Minister. An election grants a popular mandate to representatives or to a government. Similarly they provide popular consent for the winning party to govern. Elections are an opportunity for citizens to deliver a verdict on the outgoing government.
• It also gives a choice between different political philosophies and programmes.
• They have an educative function in that they inform the public about political issues.
• They are an opportunity for citizens to participate in politics and so can strengthen democracy.

Question 4

4

Basic description of first past the post

Answer 4

• Also known as simple plurality. In single-member constituencies voters choose between different candidates and can only vote for one of those candidates.
• Voters cannot show any preference between candidates from the same party but must accept the chosen candidate from each party.
• The candidate who receives the most votes (known as a plurality) is elected. It is not necessary for a candidate to achieve an absolute majority (50% plus) to be elected.
• In general elections the party that receives an absolute majority or, failing that, more seats than any other party, is invited to form a government.

Question 5

4

Basic operation of the Supplementary Vote

Answer 5

• Used to elect a single person such as a president or a mayor.
• In a first vote the voters show a single preference for one of the candidates. If any candidate receives an absolute majority (50% plus) of these votes they are elected. If no candidate achieves an absolute majority, there is a second vote. In the second vote only the top two candidates from the first ballot run off against each other
• One of these two candidates must then win an overall majority (it is a ‘majoritarian’ system)
• A variation in the London Mayor election meant that voters show their second preference at the same time as showing their first preference – i.e. they show a first and second choice => no need for 2 separate ballots.

Question 6

4

Basic operation of the Additional Member System (AMS)

Answer 6

• A hybrid system, i.e. a combination of two systems running side by side.
• A proportion of the total seats in the Parliament or assembly operate on the basis of first past the post. In Scotland and Wales this is about two thirds of the total seats.
• The other third of the seats are elected on the basis of a regional list system (see above).
• There is a variation in Scotland and Wales. The regional list seats are not awarded proportionally. There is a ‘differential top-up’. This means that parties which do less well in the constituency elections, are awarded more than their proportional share in the regional list seats. This counteracts the distorting effects of the first past the post section. The result is a broadly proportional outcome overall.

Question 7

Basic operation of Single Transferable Vote (STV)

Answer 7

• Constituencies return more than one member, normally between 4 and 6 (6 in Northern Ireland).
• Each party may put up candidates up to the number of seats available in the constituency.
  Voters may vote for any or all of the candidates in their own order of preference. They may use as many or as few votes as they wish.
• Voters may place candidates from the same party in any order, whatever the parties may recommend. They can also vote for candidates from different parties.
• For a candidate to be elected s/he must achieve a quota of votes. The quota is calculated as the total votes cast divided by the number of seats plus one. Finally one is added to the total. That is the electoral quota.
  Any candidates who achieve the quota on first preference votes are elected immediately.
• Thereafter the spare subsequent preference votes of elected candidates are distributed to the other candidates until the required number of candidates have achieved the quota.

Question 8

4

The nature of mandate and manifesto

Answer 8

• The mandate is effectively the authority to govern, granted by voters.
• At UK general elections it is accepted that the party which wins the election has been granted a mandate by the people. As each party produces an election manifesto, it is also accepted that the governing party has a mandate to implement all aspects of that manifesto.
• Parliament can act as the guardian of the manifesto and the Lords in particular may challenge measures which do not conform to the mandate.
• There is also an implied ‘doctor’s mandate’ suggesting that the winning party has the authority to do whatever it considers necessary to further the national interest, even if such measures were not included in its election manifesto.

Question 9

4

Referendums

Answer 9

• A referendum is a popular vote on a particular public policy issue. Voters are expected to respond to a particular question, usually answering yes or no. On some occasions more than one question is put in a referendum (e.g. Scotland – 1997)
• Referendums are one of the few features of Direct Democracy in modern political systems. They differ from elections as they are on a single issue and not a method of forming a government
• They may be advisory or binding (in the UK in theory they cannot be binding because of Parliamentary Sovereignty – in practice they are likely to be binding). If they are used to raise issues for debate they are called initiatives (usually from a public petition) and if they decide public policy they are usually called propositions or plebiscites.
• Referendum have been used by the Coalition and the Conservative government regularly – on electoral reform (2011), Scottish Independence (2014) and leaving the EU (2016).

Question 10

6

The main consequences or effects of the first past the post system

Answer 10

• MPs are almost always elected on less than 50% of the votes. In other words more people voted against each MP than voted for them. SDLP leader Alasdair McDonnell retained his South Belfast Westminster seat at the 2015 election with only 24.5% of the vote! Only 319 of 650 MPs won absolute majorities of over 50% in their seats in 2017.
• It also means that governments normally achieve an absolute majority of the seats in the House of Commons without winning an absolute majority of the total votes. In 2005 the Labour government got 55% of the seats on only 35% of the votes. In 2015 the Conservatives got 36.9% of the vote but 50+% of the seats!
• This in turn means that Britain has for many years had single party government (2010-2015 being the exception).
• This means that UK governments tend to be strong and decisive and do not suffer the normal weaknesses of coalitions. It also means the government has a very clear electoral mandate and can be judged on the basis of that (‘Mandate Democracy’)
• A negative interpretation is that it creates politics which is too adversarial and not consensual enough, that it excludes smaller parties from power permanently and creates an ‘elective dictatorship’ where the executive is seen as over-powerful.
• The most critical assessment is that the system distorts representation in the House of Commons. Parties (Labour under Blair, or Conservatives in 2015) with concentrated support receive a disproportionately high number of seats, while parties with evenly spread support, such as the Lib Dems and UKIP, are discriminated against. UKIP got 3.8 million votes in 2015, but only won one seat. The SNP only got 1.4 million votes but 56 seats, as they have narrow and concentrated support. The Lib Dems in 2019 achieved 11.6% of the vote but only got 11 seats.

Question 11

The ways in which elections promote democracy

Answer 11

• Elections ensure government by consent. They therefore effectively reinforce general consent to the democratic system. If there were no elections there would be no way of guaranteeing popular consent. Democracy demands that people have a choice over who represents and governs them.
• They make government accountable to the people. Without elections government would not be accountable and so would be able to act beyond its authority and might abuse its mandate. During election campaigns, candidates must justify what the government or their party has done. Their past record and policies are put under scrutiny. In this role they may also serve an educational function for the public.
• Elections provide opportunity for citizens to participate in the democratic process. Such participation can underpin consent and can help to ensure popular obedience to elected government. Without democratic legitimacy and widespread participation, the government will not have a mandate, and may even become tyrannical in nature.
• Elections can provide a means by which suitable candidates are chosen to hold office or to be representatives in elected assemblies.

Question 12

7

Advantages of using referendums to determine political issues

Answer 12

• It is the most direct, purest form of democracy, uncorrupted by the filter of representative democracy. They represent the pure will of the people, as with Brexit in 2016. Theresa May said ‘the people have spoken.’
• They can heal rifts in society. The referendum on the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland in 1998 ended decades of conflict.
• The fact that the people have made the decision grants it a great deal of legitimacy. This is especially true where decisions concern the system of government (e.g. Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland in 1998).
• Referendums are useful in securing the consent of the people for important constitutional and governmental change (devolution in Scotland & Wales 1997, Brexit 2016).
• There is a citizenship issue in that referendums give people the opportunity to participate directly in politics and so may increase their attachment to political institutions (e.g. to have elected mayors in London in ‘98).
• They have an educational function, raising citizens’ awareness of issues. The Scottish Independence referendum was a good example of this.
• Sometimes referendums can solve a problem for government itself when there is a good deal of internal conflict. This was the background to the 1975 referendum on whether Britain should remain in the European Community. It is also the case with the AV referendum in 2011. The promise of a referendum (where MPs are allowed to campaign as they choose) was a smart way of cementing the present coalition together.

Question 13

8

Disadvantages of using referendums to determine political issues

Answer 13

• If referendums become too frequent there will be a danger of ‘voter fatigue’, resulting in low turnouts and apathy. e.g AV referendum (2011) where turnout was 41%.
• Referendums may have the effect of undermining respect and authority for elected institutions, notably MPs and Parliament. If parliament is side-lined too often, parliamentary sovereignty is undermined, and MPs no longer seem to have much purpose.
• Referendums arguably represent the ‘tyranny of the majority’. Minority interest would be swamped by the power of the democratic majority. This would probably occur if there were votes on human rights issues or on fox hunting, or the death penalty for example.
• Many issues, such as was the case (arguably) with Brexit, may be too complex for the average voter to understand. MPs are employed to analyse huge amounts of information and come to an informed decision, voters who work in non-political jobs may not have the time to get to grips with issues in the same way.
• Similarly, voters may respond to emotional, rather than rational arguments - In the Scottish independence referendum in 2014 it seemed many voters were getting swept up in the emotions attached to the issue, rather than the facts behind it.
• Referendums may also cause social rifts, where society is swept into conflict by the campaign. This arguably happened in Scotland during the Independence referendum, and England and Wales saw a 23% rise in religious, ethnic and racially motivated hate crime in the 11 months after the Brexit referendum.
• There is a danger with referendums that voters would be swayed by campaigns of newspapers, notably tabloids, or by wealthy vested interests who can afford to spend large amounts of money on the campaign. This was arguably the case with the 2011 AV referendum where the ‘No’ campaign attacked Nick Clegg personally. The Sun’s ‘Queen backs Brexit’ headline is another example of this.
• Similarly voters might make illogical choices in referendums, for example voting for tax cuts which might result in the collapse of public services.

Question 14

Evaluate the view that elections are an effective way of promoting democracy in the UK

Answer 14

• Ultimate expression of the popular will apart from referendums. In a representative system they are the occasion when the people are able to show a preference between different candidates, parties and political programmes or ideologies. They are also the opportunity for the people to express their approval or disapproval of the outgoing government’s performance in office. It is more direct than other measures of public opinion.
• Force governments to be accountable to the people. Governments are accountable continuously to Parliament, but they also control Parliament because they have a majority in the Commons. The people, on the other hand, are independent of government.
• Elections satisfy the democratic need for government by consent. They ensure the peaceful transition of power and grant democratic, elective authority to the winning party. Democracy requires that those who have lost an election accept the authority of those who have won. In other words they can be said to reinforce democratic consent.

Question 15

4

The following points could be seen as ways in which elections may not promote democracy.

Answer 15

• The doctrine of the mandate has problems. At general elections it is accepted that the winning party has a mandate to carry out the whole of its manifesto. However, elections do not indicate which elements of a manifesto the voters approve of. In other words the electoral mandate is a blunt instrument (particularly the case in the aftermath of the 2010 General Election).
• Elections in Britain limit democratic choice. Voters have no say in which candidates are selected (i.e. there are no primaries or dual ballots or cross-party preferences) and so have to accept a choice of candidates determined by small party committees. They also cannot demonstrate second or subsequent preferences.
• The FPTP system is arguably hugely undemocratic (you know the arguments!)
  In the age of consensus politics it could be said that the choices presented at elections are largely an illusion because there are so few differences between the main parties. This argument may not be particularly strong currently due to the major differences between May and Corbyn
• FTPP elections in the UK are also decided in a handful (about a 100) of marginal seats. This means that for most people their vote doesn’t make a difference. According to the Electoral Reform Society, 368 of the 650 seats were ‘safe seats’ in 2015. This is not democratic!

Question 16

6

Evaluate the view that the UK should adapt a proportional representation system for general elections - YES

Answer 16

• FPTP is simply unfair. It distorts party representation and places too much focus on a few marginal seats. By contrast, PR does produce fair representation.
• The current system effectively excludes smaller parties from decision and policy making processes. This narrows the political spectrum and places all the power in the hands of the two main parties.
• The current system creates adversary politics as opposed to consensus politics. Adversary politics prevents continuity between one government and another whereas consensus politics allows for the development of longer term policy making.
• The experience of Scotland in particular is that PR can produce good, dynamic government whether it be coalition or minority government. Consensus politics is operating in Scotland and seems to be successful.
• Arguably the current system is one of the causes of current disillusionment with politics in Britain. PR would increase public support for the political system by giving voters more choice and fair choices.
• PR is the most common basis for electoral systems in modern democracies, (the most notable exception is the USA). Adopting PR would, it can be argued, bring Britain into the modern world of democracy.

Question 17

5

Evaluate the view that the UK should adapt a proportional representation system for general elections - NO

Answer 17

• PR would almost certainly prevent any party from winning an overall majority in the House of Commons. If one values the importance of having single party, decisive government, this is a problem! The current system has stood the test of time and produced a stable political system. PR could have unknown consequences.
• Coalition or minority government which would almost certainly result from PR, can be seen as weak and indecisive. Above all coalitions are, it has been claimed, governments for which no-one has voted and place too much power in the hands of smaller parties who become ‘kingmakers’.
• Coalition government would also destroy the system of the electoral mandate on which British government relies. Single party government, produced by first past the post, has a clear mandate and so is fully accountable. Coalitions, with post-election negotiated political programmes, have no such mandate. Power-sharing in Northern Ireland collapsed in 2016, when the parties couldn’t agree on joint-policy.
• FPTP is a simple system to understand. PR is more complex and so may result in a loss of public confidence and possibly even lower turnouts.
• PR would almost certainly mean the end of the close relationship between constituencies and MPs. Their representative role and their willingness to take up grievances on behalf of constituents is a vital part of the British political system.

Question 18

3

Evaluate the view that the UK should abandon FPTP for Westminster elections - YES AND NO

Answer 18

• One major strength of FPTP is supposedly the clear electoral choice which it offers between two parties each committed to a different policy or ideological agenda. It can be argued that this makes elections and policies more meaningful to ordinary citizens. However, due to the fact that elections often come down to a quest for the votes of middle England in a hundred or so marginal constituencies it is often the case that the two parties are competing for the same support. The result is that their policies become more centrist and are often difficult to distinguish. Rather than creating a clear electoral choice it can therefore be argued that FPTP actually reduces choice to one of two very similar ‘catch all’ parties.
• Another major strength of FPTP is seen to be the strong link between MP and constituency which it offers. When a single MP serves a single constituency, people know who represents their interests and who should take up their grievances. For example, Jeremy Hunt, the MP for South West Surrey, holds regular surgeries in the major towns in his constituency. However, opponents of FPTP point to the fact that other electoral systems do still preserve the constituency link so this should not necessarily be seen as a strength purely of the FPTP system. The Alternative Vote system would preserve the single constituency MP and other systems such as AMS, STV and retain some form of constituency representation. It can also be argued that not all MPs are the loyal servants of their constituents they might purport to be. Evidence has shown that in marginal seats MPs are often far more attentive to their constituents’ concerns than in the country’s many safe seats. The Expenses Scandal in 2009 revealed that the most corrupt MPs were more likely to be those in safe seats. So one could even argue that the constituency link can be a weakness, rather than a strength, of the FPTP system.
• Connected to this point is the argument that, whilst unrepresentative of the electorate’s views, FPTP does at least deliver strong government. This happens because the government of the day enjoys majority control of the House of Commons. Coalition governments, by contrast, can be weak and ineffective because they have to seek legislative support from two or more parties. The major weakness in this argument is that, in the UK, FPTP is becoming less and less able to produce single party government and certainly failed in May 2010. In 2017, Theresa May received the highest share of the vote for the Conservatives since Thatcher’s 1983 victory, but failed to win an overall majority, and is relying on the Northern Irish UP for electoral support. However arguably we returned to normality in 2019, with Johnson winning a strong majority with 42% of the vote

Question 19

Evaluate the view that the UK should abandon FPTP for Westminster elections - Introduction

Answer 19

The suitability of FPTP has been questioned in recent years due to the increasing number of smaller parties in the UK which now account for as much as a third of the vote at general elections. Despite this share of the vote, they often fail to get any meaningful representation at parliamentary level. Criticisms of FPTP are also fuelled by the terrible disproportionality of UKIP’s result at the 2015 election. Signposting the answer: Purported strengths of FPTP include its ability to offer the electorate a clear choice at the ballot box, the constituency link and the fact that it usually delivers strong government. However critics point to the fact that other electoral systems can match many of the supposed strengths of FPTP whilst simultaneously offering the electorate more choice.

Question 20

3

Evaluate the view that the criticisms of FPTP being used for Westminster elections far outweigh the positives

Answer 20

• One major criticism of FPTP is that it discriminates against third parties. In the 2015 election UKIP received 3.85 million votes but only 1 seat. This is because their votes are spread in a broad and shallow fashion across the country yet rarely in excess of 30% in particular constituencies which might be enough to deliver them that seat. The other small parties suffer even more. The Greens have just one seat to show for their 835,000 votes. However, supporters of FPTP would argue that discrimination against the smaller parties is the price we pay for having a simple electoral system and that it may be desirable that extremist parties such as the BNP are excluded from Westminster. In 2010 the BNP got over 500,000 votes, but no seats. They would also argue that it is possible for smaller parties to win seats if they channel their campaign intelligently as, indeed, the Greens proved in 2010 by winning in Brighton Pavilion, a seat that they’ve held since. Finally, the fact that the Liberal Democrats were a member of the Coalition government from 2010-2015 suggests that it is not beyond the scope of third parties to achieve influence at the highest level. On balance, however, it cannot be denied that smaller parties do fair unfavourably under FPTP.
• A second common criticism of FPTP is that it can be biased towards one particular party. From 1997-2015 this was Labour. This is because Labour wins a lot of its seats by small margins. It therefore utilises its votes much more efficiently than the two other parties and benefits from the system as a result. This is proved by the 2005 election result where Labour achieved 35% of the vote yet received 55% of the seats! One might compare this to the Conservatives who at the 2010 election achieved a higher share of the vote yet won just 47% of the seats. The spread of the Tory vote due to Brexit support in 2019 also helped them in a similar manner to Labour in the 2000s. However, defenders of FPTP might point out that again this is the price we pay for a system that consistently delivers the (supposedly) desirable outcome of stable one-party government. They would say that no one system can be universally ‘fair’ to all political parties and that it is up to the other parties to try and make the system work just as well for them. This is happening to some extent under the present government which is reducing the number of seats in the Commons and also standardising the size of each constituency in terms of population. These changes will tilt things more in favour of the Conservatives again. This criticism is therefore not perhaps as strong as that regarding the potential discrimination against the smaller parties.
• Thirdly, it has been argued that FPTP has a negative impact on political participation in the UK. This is because of the concept of safe seats and ‘electoral deserts.’ In seats such as South West Surrey (Conservative) and Bootle in Liverpool (Labour) the winning parties have such unassailable majorities that many voters simply do not bother to vote because the result is a foregone conclusion. There are also vast areas of the country which are considered ‘deserts’ for one party or the other and which, again, may mean that voters may not turn out. In South West of England, for example, Labour have just 5 seats (all university towns). However, supporters of FPTP would argue that it is not the electoral system which is reducing political participation. Indeed, they argue that other electoral systems such as AMS and STV which are used in Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively, do not deliver higher turnouts. Turnouts in referenda, such as the recent one on AV, are also no higher. Therefore, it may well be the case that the problem of reduced political participation in the UK has little to do with FPTP and this is a groundless criticism.

Question 21

4

Evaluate the view that the introduction of PR in UK general elections would be overwhelmingly beneficial

Answer 21

• The duopoly of the two main parties would be broken. This would certainly be true if STV were used and would probably occur under AMS. This would clearly result in smaller parties, especially the Lib Dems and UKIP, gaining more representation and the opportunity to share in coalition government. It might also encourage the creation of successful new parties who would have the prospect of winning significant representation quickly.
• Coalition government, as has occurred in Scotland and Wales. Coalitions can be supported or opposed. Supporters say they introduce healthy consensus politics, create more continuity and represent a wider spectrum of political opinion. Opponents say it would lead to unstable government run by coalitions without a clear electoral mandate.
• PR might also lead to minority governments because no party would be able to win an overall majority in the House of Commons. Critics say this is inherently unstable but worked in Scotland (2007-11). This can lead to weak or dysfunctional government. The Greens threatened to withdraw support for the minority SNP Scottish government’s budget in January 2019 unless local council were given more tax powers.
• PR increases voter choice and creates more equality among voters. It also would reflect voter opinion more accurately. There would be fewer wasted votes and more choice whichever PR system were to be used. This might help to renew public faith in politics.

Question 22

Evaluate the view that the new electoral systems introduced across the UK in 1997 have been successful overall - introduction

Answer 22

Labour introduced the new electoral systems in 1997 on the back of their devolution agenda. There was also a sense in which these systems were being ‘tested out’ for potential use for Westminster elections particularly in light of the prospect of a coalition with the Liberal Democrats (of course this never materialised). The new systems referred to are Supplementary Vote for London mayoral elections, AMS for the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and London Assembly and, finally, STV for Northern Ireland. On the whole the systems have been successful in the sense that there has been little demand for change from their respective electorates. However, they haven’t been successful in the sense that FPTP remains firmly embedded as the preferred system for Westminster elections.

Question 22

2

Supplementary Vote

Successful for:

Answer 22

• IT IS ARGUED THAT …A big city like London needs a high-profile figure to represent it nationally and internationally. SV encourages ‘Big Tent’ politicians (such as Sadiq Khan, Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone) to run and gives the mayor a significant mandate (i.e. they can say that they have the support from over half the city). (BUT REMEMBER IT IS NO LONGER USED HERE!)
• Having to obtain and absolute majority of at least 50.1% of the vote gives the elected mayor democratic legitimacy and a mandate to govern with the consent of over half the people. This is more democratic than systems like FPTP, which do not require a party to gain an absolute majority to govern.

Question 23

Supplementary vote
Failures:

Answer 23

• Worries that it could produce a ‘compromise candidate’ (‘the least disliked’). No evidence of this yet, although Khan didn’t achieve over 50% of the vote until the second round.
• Hasn’t provided a launch pad to SV (or AV, which is very similar) being adopted for Westminster which is what some had hoped.
• Still a majoritarian system which denies representation to smaller parties, and barely increases the likelihood of them winning.

In summary SV has been a success in London. Voters easily understand the system and have used it to give their three mayors so far (Livingstone, Johnson and Khan) significant and meaningful mandates. However, it has failed in the sense that it did not become a springboard to the adoption of AV nationwide.

Question 24

AMS Success for:

Answer 24

- Nationalist parties (Plaid Cymru & SNP) - The party of opposition at Westminster who tend to do well in Scottish elections (not true of Labour) - The devolution process - Smaller parties who achieve success in the regional seats.

Question 25

AMS Failures

Answer 25

- The Union? Scotland is splitting further away from England. - The party of government – often seen as a protest vote - Sometimes produces minority governments which are weak and easily manipulated. In summary the introduction of AMS has been a great success for Nationalist parties. AMS was originally planned by the major Unionist parties so as not to deliver a parliamentary majority. However, such has been the popularity of the SNP that they have achieved this despite the system and not because of it. In this sense it has arguably been a failure for Unionists because it would appear that devolution (facilitated by the AMS voting system) may deliver full independence for Scotland in the longer term.

Question 26

# 3 STV Success for:

Answer 26

- The peace process in Northern Ireland - Consensus politics - Fair representation for every party.

Question 27

STV Failures

Answer 27

- Not established as a contender to replace FPTP, despite being the preferred system of the Lib Dems. - The necessity of power-sharing caused by STV in Northern Ireland has given undue importance to political crises, and Westminster has had to dissolve impose direct rule over Northern Ireland since January 2017 due to disagreements between Sinn Fein and the DUP. In summary STV has been extremely successful in helping to cement the peace process in Northern Ireland. Specifically designed to deliver coalition government it has forced the main opposition parties (Sinn Fein and the DUP) to work together. It has also ensured that all sections of the community are represented through the multi-member constituencies which are a feature of the system. Having said this, supporters of PR for Westminster will again be disappointed that there is no groundswell of opinion to adopt the system nationwide.

Question 27

Conclusion of 1997 electoral reform

Answer 27

In conclusion the four new systems introduced since 1997 have arguably been largely unsuccessful. Whilst they have certainly been successful for the nationalist parties in Scotland and Wales, in producing a popular mandate for the London mayor and in helping to build peace in Northern Ireland they have been unsuccessful in more significant ways. Firstly, turnout has not risen noticeably in response to ‘fairer’ systems as supporters of more proportional systems predicted it would. Also, if one considers that the systems were at least partly introduced as ‘test cases’ for a substitute system for Westminster then they have been decidedly unsuccessful, as the large ‘No’ vote in the AV referendum confirmed. Finally, the most lasting legacy of the new systems could be in how they are arguably facilitating the disintegration of the United Kingdom itself (especially in Scotland), something that they were supposed to be a brake against.

Question 27

# 2 Evaluate the view that the criticisms made of the electoral systems used across the UK are all justified - FPTP

Answer 27

FPTP is the system used to elect the Westminster Parliament. - Criticisms Lack of fair party representation – disproportionate results such as UKIP in 2015. Winner takes All system – both in individual constituencies and nationally. Electoral deserts – The large amount of safe seats which amount to huge amounts of wasted votes. One assessment should that 22 million votes cast in 2017 had no impact on the result. - Assessment Lack of fair representation is the price paid for stable government Electoral deserts (large amounts of safe seats) do mean that the election is fought in the ‘centre ground’ of politics (usually in suburban seats) The public backed FPTP in the 2011 referendum

Question 28

# 2 Evaluate the view that the criticisms made of the electoral systems used across the UK are all justified - AMS

Answer 28

The Additional Member System (AMS) is a hybrid system used to elect representatives to the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Greater London Assembly. - Criticisms Provides two types of representatives which can be confusing and may lead to some representatives thinking they are more legitimate than others. The SNP argued that it was designed to prevent majority government forming (though they did manage this in 2011) - Assessment Having 2 types of representative is the price paid for retaining the constituency link but also building in a degree of proportional representation. Whilst originally designed to deprive the SNP of a majority government, AMS has not succeeded in this. This is good if you’re an SNP supporter, bad if you’re a Unionist!

Question 29

# 2 Evaluate the view that the criticisms made of the electoral systems used across the UK are all justified - STV

Answer 29

The Single Transferable Vote (STV) is the system used for elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly. - Criticisms Complex calculating system Delivers power to smaller parties as coalition is inevitable Caused problems when used for local government elections in Scotland - Assessment The complex system is more the problem of the counters rather than the voters who just have to number candidates in order of preference. This system is used specifically in Northern Ireland to encourage coalition–building. Therefore this is not an accurate criticism in this case. Although power-sharing can easily fall apart – as seen currently. It can be argued that voters’ issues with using the system will bed down with more familiarity.

Question 30

# 2 Evaluate the view that the criticisms made of the electoral systems used across the UK are all justified - SV

Answer 30

Finally, the Supplementary Vote (SV), the system used to elect the London mayor. - Criticisms Produces ‘compromise candidates’ Could favour smaller parties, or even extremists - Assessment There is no evidence that the winners of the Mayoralty have been ‘compromise candidates’. In fact the opposite, they tend to be big personalities capable of appealing to voters outside their parties. Smaller parties are not favoured as they still need to place at least second in the first round of voting to stand a chance of winning.

Question 31

Evaluate the view that the criticisms made of the electoral systems used across the UK are all justified - Conclusion

Answer 31

In conclusion, the various electoral systems at use in the UK have all been subject to criticism, but these criticisms do not always stand up to scrutiny. STV has been criticised for its complicated calculation system, but it is undoubtedly the most appropriate system for a politically and socially divided society such as Northern Ireland. SV has been criticised for potentially producing a ‘compromise candidate’, but there is no evidence of this as yet, and the system has been successful in producing a popular mandate for the London mayor. Nevertheless, while the criticisms of FPTP largely stand, the new electoral systems have failed to gain popularity or to produce a groundswell of opinion to change the method we use for electing the Westminster Parliament, as seen in the 2011 AV referendum, and so it seems unlikely that their use will be extended.

Question 32

Referendums can improve participation in the following ways:

Answer 32

- They are a direct form of democracy which gives the public direct control over decisions. Voting is often a habit, once people vote they are more likely to vote again. - Political education is likely to improve as debate is focussed on a particular issue, people will therefore tend to get more involved. I.e. Scottish Independence referendum 2014 (Turnout was 85%). Brexit turnout was 72.2% - The availability of an initiative system could lead to people feeling empowered and therefore organising themselves to change policies they don’t like or create new ones.

Question 32

# 5 Evaluate the view that the wider use of referendums would improve democracy in the UK

Answer 32

- Democracy is increasingly essential, and referendums represent the purest form of democracy and so should be encouraged. Referendums are commonplace in Europe and the USA and this would bring Britain into line with modern practice. The general arguments in favour of referendums can be countered by the problems that they bring. This include the problem of ‘voter fatigue’, the tendency of voters to be swayed by emotion not reason and the fact that wealthy vested interests, or the tabloids, might be able to determine the outcome of referendums on a non-rational basis (see advantages disadvantages of referendums above). - There are potentially a number of key changes which would alter the nature of the constitution and system of government. Such changes require the consent of the people. e.g on the EU or independence for Scotland. (On the other hand, are such issues too complex for the public to research and come to an informed decision on alongside their busy daily lives? That’s what elected representative are for!) - With increasing information available people are in a better position than ever before to assess political issues. (But, it can be difficult to separate fact from opinion, especially on the Internet and with overly polticised print media which usually focuses on emotive rather than rational arguments (‘Queen backs Brexit headline in the Sun in May 2016)). Issues may also be too complex for the average voter, who doesn’t have the time to get to grips with the biggest issues. - They can heal rifts in society. The referendum on the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland in 1998 ended decades of conflict. However, Referendums may also cause social rifts, where society is swept into conflict by the campaign. This arguably happened in Scotland during the Independence referendum, and England and Wales saw a 23% rise in religious, ethnic and racially motivated hate crime in the 11 months after the Brexit referendum. - Sometimes referendums can solve a problem for government itself when there is a good deal of internal conflict. This was the background to the 1975 referendum on whether Britain should remain in the European Community. It is also the case with the AV referendum in 2011. The promise of a referendum (where MPs are allowed to campaign as they choose) was a smart way of cementing the present coalition together. However, referenda can also bring dow governments and lead to political instability, as happened to David Cameron’s government following the 2016 Brexit referendum.

Question 33

# 2 Referendums don’t improve participation:

Answer 33

- Turnout at the Scottish and Welsh devolution referendums doesn’t back up the idea that people are more likely to vote. Turnouts were Scottish 60%/ Welsh 50% - lower than the turnout in the election. In the AV referendum in 2011 turnout was 41%. (The Scottish Independence referendum was a notable exception to this with an above average turnout (85%)). EU Ref 2016 was also 72% - Voter fatigue if used too often (a danger with initiatives)

Question 34

# 4 Other methods of improving participation:

Answer 34

- Lower the voting age to 16. Lead to more voting in absolute terms but less in relative terms. (see democracy section for more on this) - E-democracy – ease of participation/ speed/but what about the digital divide which could exclude poor? - Compulsory voting – Will increase due to threat but is this a real increase in participation? i.e ‘donkey voting’ (see democracy section for more on this) - A change in the voting system? = fewer safe seats/concentration on marginals/ change in political culture.